id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
194,779,839 | This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.322/2015 registered at Police Station Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read 34 of the IPC.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contends that the applicant has been made accused with the aid of Section 201 of the IPC for disappearing the evidence of commission of murder.Accordingly, the application is allowed.Applicant Badri Prasad @ Badri is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC concerned or CJM for his appearance in the trial Court on the dates so fixed by that Court during the trial.It is directed that the applicant shall comply the provisions of Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,947,818 | Thepetitioner is, therefore, entitled to administer and manage its affairs andproperty without interference from the State.He was brought toKancheepuram and remanded to custody.It is alleged that during the custody, heunderwent and suffered mental torture and that several other innocent personsconnected with the activities of the Mutt and several employees were takeninto custody and harassed by the Special Investigation Team, Kancheepuram.The Junior Pontiff was alsoarrested on 11.1.2005 and during the arrest, police had trespassed into theMutt premises and took custody of him, without caring about the religioussentiments of the devotees of the Mutt.The petitioner has not made it clear as to whatwas his right to manage and administer the properties and bank accounts.Theendowments and trusts which are alleged to have opened bank accounts will bejuridical parties and the petitioner was not entitled to seek relief on behalfof those juridical parties.There was no basis for the allegation that the religious sentiments of thedevotees were not cared.The further contentions that the employees of theMutt were cooperating with the investigation team and that the police werecreating a terror in the minds of the devotees were also incorrect.Thefurther contention that there was a witch-hunt by the Special InvestigationTeam and that the aim of the police was to tarnish the sacred image of theMutt was false.The allegation that statements made by persons in the custodyhad been leaked to the press was also false.The Investigation Team was in noway responsible for the display of video clippings in the T.V. Channels.Itwas the Mutt which was responsible for the conduct of trial by the Press bygiving costly advertisements in the newspapers.The Special InvestigationTeam has jurisdiction under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code tofreeze the accounts and the contention that freezing of accounts had renderedthe performance of religious duties impossible is also incorrect.The actionof the police was authorised under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The allegation that the action of the police in freezing of the accounts wasmala fide and intended to create terror and to bring the activities of theMutt to a standstill was incorrect and untenable.The further contention thatmoney was required to be drawn to meet the expenditure of the Mutt towardsdaily poojas, etc., was also incorrect.Large amounts running to crores wereput in various accounts numbering more than 108 at Kancheepuram alone andlarge amounts are being withdrawn from various accounts in cash and beingutilised for non-religious purposes.It is also seen that substantial amounts have been withdrawn notonly for the commission of the offences, but also for tampering with theevidence.The accounts in the various banks are tainted with illegality,since funds of various religious and charitable trusts have been transferredto other accounts and are withdrawn for illegal purposes.The claim that the petitioner was a religious denomination and thatthe police was interfering with their activities was also untenable.Therewas no basis for the allegations of mala fides or vindictiveness or the actionbeing aimed at tarnishing the image or to create a reign of terror in theMutt.The contention that the bank accounts represented substantialendowments and intended for the purpose of poojas in the Mutt was also denied.The Special InvestigationTeam already had access to all such materials and several accounts have beentaken by them.Index: YesInternet: YesksvTo:The State of Tamil Nadurep.The Additional Superintendentof PoliceSpecial Investigating TeamKancheepuram.The Manager Indian BankSalai StreetKancheepuram.The Manager State Bank of IndiaKancheepuram.The Manager Canara Bank Kancheepuram.The Manager Union Bank of IndiaKancheepuram.The Manager Indian Overseas Bank Kancheepuram.There were unannounced raids by the police in the Mutt premises anda trial was being conducted by the Press.It is further stated that the police have also called for titledeeds relating to the property which have no connection with the case.Thelatest action of the Special Investigation Team is a series of communicationssent to various banks in which the Mutt has accounts, but the copies of thecommunications have not been furnished to the Mutt.But the Mutt has beenadvised by the banks that all their accounts have been frozen.Thepetitioners contend that most of the accounts represent the endowments createdby the various devotees for carrying out the religious functions of the Mutt.The endowments are placed in the banks as fixed deposits and the incomederived therefrom is utilised for performing the various religious functions.Thus, the amounts standing to the credit of the Mutt in the various banks isproperty belonging to a religious denomination.The State has no right tointerfere with the administration and management of the property.The Mutt isa legal entity, and is distinct from the Pontiffs, who preside over the Mutt.The freezing of the accounts have nowrendered the performance of the religious duties impossible, due to theillegal action of the police.It is only with a view to sully the image ofthe Mutt, the secret communication appears to have been sent to various banks,directing freezing of accounts.The petitioner further contends that in termsof the various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the right of theMutt to manage its own affairs in matters of religion is a fundamental rightof a religious denomination, which, even a Legislature cannot take away.Itis, therefore, not open to the police to interfere with the religious affairsof the Mutt.Performance of religious practices is an integral part of theactivities of the Mutt and the various poojas conducted to the presidingdeities of the Mutt, are to be performed every day.All such activities willcome to a standstill if the bank accounts stand frozen.The power of thepolice to freeze any account can be exercised only if there was any directnexus between the crime and the said account.The freezing of accounts havebeen resorted to only in case of misappropriation and corruption.The petitioner Mutt has approximately 183 accounts with variousbanks.The daily collections of the Mutt from the devotees are deposited inthe bank accounts and the money is required to be drawn to meet theexpenditure of the Mutt towards daily pooja, feeding the devotees, annadhanamat two places, feeding of the animals, including 100 cows maintained in the GoShelter or for its salary of the staff, statutory dues like telephone charges,electricity charges, property tax, etc., will have to be made from the amountsin the accounts standing to the credit of the Mutt in various banks.As aresult of the high-handed action of the Special Investigation Team, thepetitioner religious denomination has no other alternative except to approachthis Court.In the first counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, theChief Investigating Officer of the Special Investigation Team, the variouscontentions raised by the petitioner in support of the writ petition have beendenied, while seeking leave to file a detailed counter affidavit.Theallegation that the activities of the Mutt will come to a stand still by thefreezing of the bank accounts was incorrect and untenable.The communicationof the Special Investigation Team was not contrary to law nor beyond thepowers vested with the police.The contention that great prejudice will becaused if an order of injunction was not granted is also untenable.By aninterim order dated 18.1.2005, this Court permitted the petitioner to operateone savings bank account and one current account on condition that details ofdeposits and withdrawals should be furnished to the Chief InvestigatingOfficer, daily.The petitioner has not properly complied with the conditionalorder and has furnished details only for a few days, and for the remainingdays, though bank statement was furnished, details were not furnished.Thesaid action has affected the further progress of the investigation.Therefore, the interim order was liable to be vacated.Subsequently, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by therespondents in the writ petition.It is stated that in the affidavit of thepetitioner, it is not disclosed to be a registered body and that unless it wasa registered body, the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance ofthe petitioner.The petitioner cannot seek relief in respect of the 183 bankaccounts standing in the names of various institutions.The prayer in thewrit petition was very vague.In the absence of specific mention of theaccounts standing in the name of the petitioner, the writ petition was liableto be dismissed.The allegation that several innocent persons connected withthe activities of the Mutt were harassed and taken into custody was alsodenied.The further allegation that when the junior Pontiff was arrested, thepolice had trespassed into the Mutt premises was also denied as incorrect.The investigation reveals that there wasno differentiation made in the various accounts of the Mutt towards theTrusts, Endowments, etc. It also reveals various transactions without properaccounts.No accounts were maintained regarding the cash receipts and thecash withdrawal of several lakhs of rupees.Investigation further revealedthat large amounts running to lakhs of rupees were utilised for illegalpurposes for perpetuating the heinous offence of murder and attempt to murder.Investigation reveals that Rs.75 lakhs was received in cash in lieu of thecheque on withdrawal of amounts from various accounts.The investigationconducted subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court in the bail applicationreveals that more than Rs.50 lakhs have been deposited into the bank and thechallan did not contain the signature of the remitter and also thedenomination of the currencies.Raghu, one of the coaccused, has drawn money from various banks without any authority for utilising the same, for illegalpurposes.Offences ofcriminal breach of trust have also been committed with reference to variousaccounts, which are being investigated.Several pages of the Books areremoved at the instance of the petitioner.The investigation into the otheroffences namely, attempt to commit murder and tampering of evidence are alsounder investigation.Therefore, the freezing of the accounts in various banksat this juncture was not only justified, but absolutely essential.There arematerials to disclose that the amount already withdrawn was utilised by thepetitioner for tampering with the investigation.The investigation into theremaining cases were under way.Even though final reports were submitted inCrime No.914 of 200 4, the trial was yet to commence.If the petitioner wasallowed to operate the accounts, he will draw huge amounts of money andutilise the same for tampering with the evidence.Unless investigation wascompleted in the remaining cases, it will not be possible to ascertain themanner and the extent to which the funds were utilised for illegal purposes.Therefore, freezing the accounts was absolutely essential to unearth thetruth.There is no basis forthe claim that the Mutt should have been granted opportunity before theamounts were sought to be frozen.The police have not interfered with thereligious activities of the Mutt and the steps taken by the police arerestricted to the criminal activities of the persons connecting with the Muttas conspirators.The day-to-day activities and the poojas of the Mutt are, inno way affected by freezing the other accounts, considering that this Courthad already permitted the petitioner to operate two of the accounts.Therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.Evidence against the accused persons can, at best, relate only to the pastevents and evidence of accounts and transactions.They have woven a network ofrestrictive principles which require statutory powers to be exercisedreasonably and in good faith, for proper purposes only, and in accordance withthe spirit as well as the letter of the empowering Act. "The Mutt is an organisation of religious faith of innumerablepeople.So also is the Church, Mosque, Wakf, etc. There are severalEndowments, Trusts and philanthropic activities attached to theseorganisations over which several devotees have personal interest, faith andsentimental devotion.If there is anything wrong with the administration of the Mutt, it isfor the H.R. & C.E. Department which has to comply with the procedure underthe Act and to look after the said issues in terms of the provisions of theAct and it is not for the police to interfere with the functions of the Muttwhile investigating a case of murder or assault.Even if any commission oromission amounting to a criminal misconduct is brought to light in so far asthe administration of the Mutt is concerned in the opinion of the H.R. & C.E.Department, it may be open to the H.R. & CE.Department to file a complaintbefore the police for appropriate action against the individuals concerned.It is not for the Special Investigation Team dealing with a murder and assaultcase to plunge into the accounts of the mutt, and paralyse its functions byinvoking Section 102, Cr.With the result, I am inclined to hold that the impugned action of thethird respondent in invoking Section 102, Cr.P.C. for freezing of theaccounts of the Mutt is ultra vires the said provision, illegal and liable tobe set aside.The writ petition is allowed only to theextent of the third respondent having invoked Section 102 of Cr.P.C. Nocosts. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,947,820 | 1.Appellant Kalu Ram had taken the risk of keeping two wives at the same time and later realised that it was costly for him and one of the wives (Vimla) had died of burn injuries.Appellant was charge-sheeted for murder of Vimla and the trial Court as well as the High Court found him guilty of the said offence and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.Hence this appeal by special leave.The first wife of the appellant is Baby who was put up in his own house situated at different place.Subsequently he came across deceased-Vimla who herself was a widow having a daughter by name Pooja (P.W. 6) from her first marriage.Then appellant married Vimla and they were living together in a house different from the housewhere first wife Baby was residing.According to the prosecution version, he asked Vimla to spare her ornaments presumably for raising some more money for buying liquor.He was then also drunk.But Vimla refused to part with her ornaments and that infuriated the appellant.He doused her with kerosene and wanted her to die and supplied a box of match-sticks to her.As she failed to ignite the match-stick appellant collected the match-box and lit one match-stick and set her ablaze.When the flames were up he brought water in a frantic effort to save her from death.She was later removed to the hospital.A statement was recorded from her by the police which became the basis for the FIR.Subsequently the Munsif Magistrate (P.W. 7) recorded her dying declaration.Later she succumbed to her burn injuries.Both the trial Court and the High Court relied on the two dying declarations proved in this case and came to the conclusion that it was appellant who set her on blaze and caused her death.He was, there fore, convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C.Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the contents in the dying declaration are contrary to the testimony of all the witnesses who rushed to the scene on hearing the wailings of the dying lady.It is true that all those witnesses have said that the deceased told her that she herself committed the act of lighting the match-stick but all those witnesses were confronted with their earlier version recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the CrPC.The version of those witnesses in Court stands discredited by such earlier statements and the two Courts below have rightly declined to place any reliance on the testimony of those witnesses.Out of those witnesses PW-5 Indu was not declared hostile formally.But that does not matter because she too was confronted with her first version recorded by the police and thereby her testimony in Court was contradicted by the prosecution.We find no good reason to discard the two dying declarations given by the deceased regarding the actual occurrence.The Courts below have rightly acted on such dying declarations.But then, what is the nature of the offence proved against him.It is an admitted case that appellant was in a highly inebriated stage when he approached the deceased when the demand for sparing her ornaments was made by him.When she refused to oblige he poured kerosene on her and wanted her to lit the match-stick.Whenshe failed to do so he collected the match box and ignited one match-stick but when flames were up he suddenly and frantically poured water to save her from the tongues of flames.This conduct cannot be seen divorced from the totality of the circumstances.Very probably he would not have anticipated that the act done by him would have escalated to such a proportion that she might die.If he had ever intended her to die he would not have alerted his senses to bring water in an effort to rescue her.We are inclined to think that all what the accused thought of was to inflict burns to her and to frighten her but unfortunately the situation slipped out of his control and it went to the fatal extent.He would not have intended to inflict the injuries which she sustained on account of his act.Therefore, we are persuaded to bring down the offence from the first degree murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.We, therefore, alter the conviction from Section 302, I.P.C. to Section 304, Part II of the I.P.C. Both sides conceded that appellant is continuing in jail.We impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on him.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | ['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. |
194,930,037 | Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2/complainant.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.77/2014 under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 452 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered at P.S., Biloua, District Gwalior.Brief facts are that complainant Saboo has lodged the report that on 20.5.2014 at about 6.30 PM one car bearing registration No.MP-07-CB-0617 stopped on the gate of Farm House, where he is working.One person sitting in the car called him and when he opened the gate he forcibly entered in the Farm House and asked the complainant, where is his owner Dayal Singh.One of them disclosing his name as Shalendra Bhadoriya.Thereafter, they started abusing in the name of caste and also slapped him.When his wife came to save she was also beaten.C.No.8095/2014 upon which Crime No.77/2014 has been registered.C.No.8095/2014 powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised.In view of the aforesaid, the FIR at Crime No.77/2014 registered at P.S., Biloua is hereby quashed.The petition is disposed of accordingly. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,949,315 | The case of the prosecution in brief as found from theevidence let in is as follows.(a) The accused are brothers.PW-4 Singaram is the brother ofdeceased Raja.(b) The second accused was one of the partners of KalaimagalLucky Center, a Lottery shop in Samayapuram Bazaar and the deceased was anemployee in the said shop.There was theft of lottery tickets to the tune ofRs.10,000/- from the said shop and the proprietors of the shop suspected thedeceased.On 4.5.1997 a Panchayat was held in this regard and in the saidPanchayat it was decided that the deceased must make good the loss.However,the deceased Raja refused to pay any amount as per the direction of thePanchayat, since according to him he had not committed any theft of lotterytickets.(c) On 4.5.1997 at about 10.00 a.m., the first accused went tothe house of the deceased and demanded for payment and at that time thebrother of the deceased PW-4 was also present in the house.The deceased toldthe first accused that he had no money to pay him.(d) On the fateful day, i.e., on 5.5.1997 at about 7.30 p.m.,Pws.1 and 3 were in their respective houses near Padithurai in Samayapuram.When they heard some crying noise from Pullambadi new canal, they rushedthere.There they found the deceased Raja taking a dip in the water of thecanal.They brought him out of the canal and found that his dresses werepartly burnt.They noticed that he had also sustained extensive burninjuries.When questioned, he told them that the appellants set him to firesince he had refused to pay the amount as per the decision of the Panchayat.By that time PW-4 also arrived at the scene of occurrence so also others andto them also the deceased told as to what had happened.(e) Pws.1, 3 and 4 then took the deceased to SamayapuramPolice Station and before PW-10 the then Head Constable at the Police stationthe deceased Raja made a statement Ex.On the basis of the saidstatement, crime No.186 of 1997 under Section 307 I.P.c., was registered andprinted F.I.R. Ex.P-10 was prepared and the same was despatched to theJudicial Magistrate and copies thereof to superiors.(f) PW-7 is the Doctor, who saw the deceased first at about9.10 p.m. The Doctor noted that the deceased had sustained burn injuries tothe extent of 90%.To the Doctor he told that five known persons pouredkerosene and set fire to him at 7.00 p.m. on 5.5.1997 near SamayapuramPuduvaikalkarai.(g) PW-11 was the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli atthe relevant time.At about 10.15 p.m., he received a requisition from theGovernment Hospital to come and record the dying declaration of the injuredRaja.Immediately PW-11 rushed to the hospital and reached there at 10.25p.m., saw the injured Raja and after ascertaining that he was conscious andcapable of understanding the questions and giving answers, recorded the dyingdeclaration.To PW-11, the deceased informed that he was beaten by A-1 andfour others and that A-1 tied his hands and four others poured kerosene andset fire to him.(h) PW-14 is the Inspector of Police, who received copy ofF.I.R. in crime No.186 of 1997 and immediately went to the scene ofoccurrence and inspected the scene.On the next day i.e., on 6.5.1997 atabout 7.00 a.m., he prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-17 roughsketch in the presence of witnesses.From the scene he seized MO-3 partlyburnt match stick, Mo-4 kerosene stained earth, MO-5 ordinary earth, MO-6Black colour plastic Can cover in the presence of witnesses.He examinedGanesan, Rengaraj, Pandiaraj and others and recorded their statements.Atabout 4.00 p.m., near the arch in Samayapuram, arrested A-1 and enquired him.On arrest, he came forward and gave a voluntary confession statement.A-1 inthat statement stated that if taken, he will show the place of occurrence soalso the kerosene Can, which he had thrown and also the place where he hadkept the match box.A-1 did so and the Plastic Can MO-7 and match box Mo-8were seized under Ex.P-5 mahazar in the presence of witnesses.On 7.5.1997 atabout 11.30 a.m. the Inspector of Police arrested A-2 near the petrol bunk inKollidam.The Inspector then examined various witnesses on the followingdays.(i) PW-13 Inspector of Police of Manachanallur Police Stationcontinued the investigation since PW-14 was away on other duty.On 9.5.1 997the injured Raja died in spite of the treatment given to him.On coming toknow about the death of Raja, he altered the crime into one under Section 302I.P.C., and prepared Ex.P-15 printed F.I.R and sent the same to the JudicialMagistrate.PW-13 then proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest overthe body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P-16 inquest report in the presenceof the Panchayatdars.Then he sent Ex.P-7 requisition to the Doctor toconduct post mortem.Both the appellants/ accused areacquitted of the charge framed against them.They shall be set at libertyforthwith if they are not required in connection with some other cases.Thefine amount paid by the appellants/accused, if any, shall be refunded to them.The Principal Sessions Judge, TiruchirapalliThe Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station(Crime No.186 of 1997)The Superintendent of Police, TiruchirapalliThe District Collector, TiruchirapalliPublic Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai.600 0092.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai.600 006A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, J.The trial Courtfound them guilty as charged and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment forlife as well as imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.The said Judgment is underchallenge in this appeal.(j) PW-8 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the bodyof the deceased pursuant to the requisition Ex.P-7 made by the Inspector ofPolice.The post mortem was commenced at 12.30 p.m. on 9.5.1995 and Ex.P-8is the post mortem certificate.In the said certificate, the Doctor has notedthe following,"External ExaminationExtensive burns with pustular and slough involving Head with singing of Hair,Face, neck, front and back of thorax, front and back of abdomen, (Rt) arm,(Rt) forearm, Scrotum, (Rt) leg front and back.No other external Injuries.Internal ExaminationHead: Scalp: Burnt Hair, Skull: - No fracture skull.Membranes- Intact,Brain- Pale NAD.Neck: Hyoid intact.No fracture ribs both sides.Both side pleura intact.Both lungs pale, congested.Trachea coated with tarry material.Heart: Pale, dilated.Abdomen: Stomach Pale.Contained brown liquid 100 ml.Liver: Congested; Pale.Spleen: Pale; NAD.Both Kidneys: Pale; NAD.Scrotum: NAD"The Doctor had opined that the deceased would have died of burn, shock andsepticemia and the death would have occurred about 8 to 12 hours prior tocommencement of post mortem.(k) PW-14, who resumed duty, made efforts to trace the otherthree accused but however he could not succeed.PW-14 then proceeded withfurther investigation, examined witnesses on various dates and recorded theirstatements.P-14 is the Chemical analysis report.The InvestigatingOfficer, after completing the investigation, filed his final report.When questioned under Section 313 of Code of CriminalProcedure, both the accused pleaded that they have nothing to do with theoccurrence and they have been falsely implicated in this case.In brief, the case of the prosecution is that since thedeceased refused to pay the money as per the Panchayat, the accused and threeothers took him to the southern bund of new vaikal in Pullambadi and that A-1beat him while A-2 tied his hands and thereafter, A-1 poured kerosene and setfire.None witnessed the occurrence and Pws.1, 3 and 4 are the witnesses whoreached the place immediately after the occurrence and to whom the deceasednarrated as to what had happened.These witnesses also did not see theaccused at the scene of occurrence.Hence the prosecution relies only on thedying declaration made by the deceased.They are,(a) The dying declaration made by the deceased to PW-11 JudicialMagistrate at 10.25 p.m. on 5.5.1997 at the Government Hospital.(c) The evidence of PW-7, the Doctor at the Government Hospital towhom at 9.10 p.m. the deceased told about the occurrence.(d) The evidence of Pws.1, 3 and 4 who arrived at the sceneimmediately after the occurrence and to whom the deceased told what hadhappened before their arrival.The settled legal position is a dying declaration, iffound reliable, can form the basis of conviction.A Court of facts is notexcluded from acting upon an uncorroborated dying declaration for findingconviction.6. Let us proceed to consider whether there are materialcontradictions or not amongst the dying declarations made by the deceased.7. PW-11 was the then Judicial Magistrate No.II,Tiruchirapalli, who on receipt of requisition at 10.15 p.m. on 5.5.1997,proceeded to the hospital and reached there at 10.25 p.m. and recorded thedying declaration Ex.The learned Magistrate first put as many as sixquestions to the deceased to satisfy himself that the injured was consciousand capable of giving answers to the questions.He recorded the statement inthe presence of Doctor, who has also certified that the deceased (patient) wasconscious throughout.To the Magistrate, the deceased had told that at 7.00p.m.on 5.5.1997, A-1 and four others took him to the bund of new vaikal inSamayapuram and beat him.A-1 beat him and then tied the hands and remainingfour poured kerosene and set fire and thereafter they ran away.It has to benoted that the presence of A-2 is not mentioned in the said statement.The other dying declaration is Ex.P-9, which is acomplaint given by the deceased to PW-10, the Head Constable at 8.00 p.m. on5.5.1 997 in the police station.In the said complaint, he had stated that hewas taken to the tank bund by A-1 and near the foot steps of the Canal, A-2and A-3 and others were present.Then A-1 beat the deceased on the back andA-2 tied his hands and again A-1 poured kerosene on him and set fire.Pws.1,3 and others came there and informed as to what had happened.When we compare these two dying declarations, we find thefollowing differences.(a) In Ex.P-11 it is stated that the deceased was taken near the canalby A-1 and four others, but in Ex.(b) In Ex.(c) In Ex.(d) In Ex.P-11 it is stated that four persons other than A-1 pouredkerosene and set fire.In Ex.P-9 it is stated that A-1 poured kerosene andset fire.(e) In Ex.P-9 the deceased had stated Pws.1, 3 and 4 arrivedimmediately after the occurrence and to whom he narrated as to what hadfollowed, but the same does not find a place in Ex.Now let us proceed to consider the other two dyingdeclarations viz., as to what the deceased told to the Doctor PW-7 and toPws.1, 3 and 4 about the occurrence.To the Doctor the deceased had told that five knownpersons poured kerosene and set fire and that is not the case in Ex.P-9 or Ex.Coming to the evidence of Pws.1 and 3, we find they havedeposed that the deceased had told them as if it was only two known personswho poured kerosene and set him to fire.But if we turn to the evidence ofPW-4, we note that the deceased had told him that A-1 and A-2 had done so andthat there were also two or three unknown persons present.It has to bepointed out that PW-4 is none else than the brother of the deceased.Thus, wefind the statement made to Pws.1, 3 and 4 by the deceased is different fromEx.P-9 and Ex.Let us proceed to consider some rulings of the SupremeCourt at this juncture.(a) In AIR 1965 SC 939 (Pompiah v. State of Mysore), theCourt was considering two dying declarations.In that case, the deceased madedeclaration at the place where he had fallen down, which were recorded asEx.P-2 and P-1(a).In Ex.P-2, Eranna named Pompiah and Hussaini only ashis assailants, whereas in Exs.P-1(a) and P-9 he named not only Pompiah andHussaini, but also Siddaiah and Rudramuni as his assailants.Now, his versionthat Siddaiah and Rudramuni attacked him has been found to be an afterthought.In that scrutiny we came across one materialcontradiction as between the two dying declarations regarding the context inwhich deceased caught fire.P-14 shows that she was set fire to when shewas lighting to stove for preparing the coffee. ........In Ext.The Superintendent of Central Prison, TiruchirapalliThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Director General of Police, Madras.?In the High Court of Judicature at Madras%Dated: 15/09/2003*C o r a mThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN+Writ Petition No.24556 of 2003andWrit Petition No. 24559 of 2003#Suresh Manohar ... Petitioner in W.P.24556/03Prof.I.Elangovan ... Petitioner in W.P.24559/031.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep., by the Secretary to Govt.:C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the order of suspension issued on 28.7.2003, by the 3rd respondent.2.The petitioner in W.P.No.24556/2003 is working as a Selection Gradelecturer in Mathematics and the petitioner in W.P.No.24559/2003 is working asa Selection Grade lecturer in English at the 3rd respondent college which isan aided institution.The petitioners were suspended from service on17.7.2003 by the 3rd respondent, as they have not attended duty on 3.7.2003.Subsequently, a perusal of the explanation given by the petitioners and otherpersons who wsere suspended along with the petitioners, the order of suspensiondated 17.3.2003 was revoked.Challenging the said proceedings, thepetitioners have filed the above writ petitions.Mr. V.R.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader,appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government is paying the aidto the 3rd respondent-college and so the Government is interested in thediscipline which has to be maintained in the said college itself.In view ofthe fact that the petitioners have been arrested and kept in jail, such adirection was given not to permit the petitioners to work in the 3rdrespondent-college, until further orders.The 2nd respondent further specifically directed theSecretaries not to reinstate the employees whose names find place in the saidlist.Though the Principal-in charge has no jurisdiction to passan order of suspension and also passed the order revoking the suspension, I amnot going into the said question, as the said issue need not be decided inthis case.If the action of the 2 nd respondent is approved, then it amounts toallowing the 2nd respondent to interfere with the functions of the collegecommittee, which alone is empowered under Sec.14(1)(c) of the Act to takedisciplinary proceedings against a teacher, especially when the Principal-incharge had satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioners and revokedthe order of suspension passed earlier.If at all, the 2nd respondent couldask the college committee to take appropriate action in accordance with law,against the petitioners.If the 2nd respondent gives a direction to pass aparticular order, then the college committee which is empowered under the Actto deal with the matter cannot be expected to apply their mind and so itamounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.Though under Sec.7 of the Act 36/2002 disciplinary action may betaken, but by Ordinance 3 of 2003, the said Section was omitted and new Sec.7is substituted by which it was made applicable only to the Government servantsand not to other servants.In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed bythe 2nd and 3rd respondents cannot be sustained and they are set aside. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,949,375 | ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the complainant-petitioner calls in question the pregnability of the order dated 16-1-1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Satna, whereby he has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of the Code.The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is in possession in respect of the land measuring 2 Acres, situate at Bari Khurd, Distt.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner belongs to 'Chamar' community.The non-applicant No. 1 initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code forming the subject matter of criminal Case No. 17/89 in the Court of City Magistrate, Satna in the year 1989 in which the non-applicant No. 1 became unsuccessful.Thereafter, he filed Civil Suit No. 105-A/95 against the petitioner and others in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Satna and also moved an application for temporary injunction.The said application for interim injunction was rejected on 17-4-1995 which was challenged by the non-applicant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 32/95 before the learned Additional District Judge who refused to interfere.Having lost in both the forums, as stated in the petition, the non-applicant No. l along with others tried to enter into the land of the petitioner in an illegal manner which was resisted by the younger brother of the petitioner in his absence but the protest was not paid heed to and the non-applicant No. 1 and his group abused the mother, sister and brother of the petitioner and to some other persons of their community and threatened the younger brother of the petitioner with dire consequences if they made efforts to enter into possession.The non-applicants took away the reaped crops of paddy and Soyabin of the petitioner who after returning to the village orally reported the matter at police station but the same was not recorded.Thereafter the same was reported to the S. P. Satna and a copy of it was given to the Town Inspector of Police Station, Kolegaon.Thereafter he also filed an application under Section 94 of the Code.In view of the aforesaid premises, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Satna is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.The criminal revision is accordingly disposed of. | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,937,870 | As per contents of the FIR, Superintendent of Police, Jhabua vide letter dated 24.07.2020 has forwarded a written complaint of Bhanwar Singh S/o Surji Bilwal against the applicants and other co-accused persons in respect of non-returning of their amount.On the basis of the contents of the complaint prima facie, it was revealed that the Directors and promoters of from Sunshine Hi-tech Infracon Limited Company had invited the fixed deposit and recurring deposits from the public by promising them they would get double of the amount after five years.Further investigation has revealed that the company has invited the investment- : 2 :-from various innocent persons and forfeited the amount.Hence, present applications before this Court.Shri Vyas, learned counsel on behalf of applicant Dinesh Sapala Bhuriya submits that in the year 2014 by the CMD and Director of the company the applicant was given the handsome offer investment in the company with assurance of returning the amount with interest.He accepted the offer and invested an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in the company and remained associated with the company for sometimes, but the said amount has not been returned to him.He was never made a director of the company as he is only 12 th passed.He worked with the company as an Agent for some period and thereafter he has disassociated himself from the company.The amount yet to be recovered from all the accused.The investigation is not complete.Admittedly, the company was not having any license to do the banking activities like the investment in the form of fixed deposit.Number of FIRs have been registered against the applicants in various part of the state .C.s are hereby dismissed.( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK 2021.02.25 17:51:35 +05'30'The company is having head office at Vadodara, Gujarat.It is further submitted that the Security Exchange Board of India vide order dated 11.06.2018 has restrained Sunshine Hi-Tech Infracon Limited and its promoters/ directors to invite any investment forthwith and directed return of the money collected with an interest of 15%.After the aforesaid order, the company has stopped its business.The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation; therefore, he may be protected from arrest by granting an anticipatory bail application.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that applicant Dinesh Nayak joined the company in the year 2012 and thereafter resigned from the Directorship therefore he was not connected with any affair of the company.- : 3 :-Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent opposes the bail applications by submitting that the name of the applicants are reflecting in the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by SEBI as director/promoters.Despite the aforesaid order, no efforts were made by the applicant and others accused for returning the money of poor investors, who had invested their hard money in the company with the hope to get double after five years on a false assurance given by the applicants .The applicants and other accused have cheated the poor investors and misappropriated the amount invested by them.The applicants and other accused have no bonafide intention to return the money of investors.The investors have specifically alleged that the applicants have induced them to invest the money in the company.The SEBI, in its order dated 11.06.2018 has specifically held that the applicants along with past and present directors are accountable for the actions of the company and liable to refund the money to the investors.The learned penal advocate further submits that in view of the bar created under Section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, for grant of anticipatory bail, the applicants are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail in the matter.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents.These applicants have associated with the company and there is named FIR against them.out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Accordingly, both M.Cr. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,938,315 | 17.09.2014 MUKTA GUPTA, J.Death Sentence Reference 5/2013 has been sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to Sunil and Sudhir.The case of the prosecution unfolds from the statement of PW-3 Neeru, mother of the deceased Ex. PW3/1 on the basis of which FIR was registered.Neeru has stated that she had three daughters and one son.On 20 th July, 2009 at 11.30 PM she and her daughter were standing outside their house when Sunil named goon and his younger brother Sudhir, who lived in the same locality, came there and created nuisance.They started passing lewd remarks and obscene gestures towards her daughter N. She and her son Subhash came out and objected to their wrong doing.Her son told them to D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 3 of 66 get away from in front of their house.Sunil and his brother while hurling abuses to them said that they would teach them a lesson shortly.About twenty minutes later, Sunil, Sudhir, Rajkumar @ Danny, Suresh@Phullu, Surender @ Sonu Punjabi came there.Sunil was carrying a baseball bat in his hand, Sudhir a knife, Sonu Punjabi iron rod and Phullu and Danny were having empty bottles of liquor in their hands.They started challenging her son Subhash.On seeing them her son ran away towards the street.They all ran after him saying "this bastard must be killed, he has challenged our hooliganism." They caught hold of her son in the street of Shiv Mandir.Sunil attacked her son with baseball bat on his head, Sonu Punjabi with iron rod and Phullu and Danny with empty bottles of liquor.Her son became unconscious and fell down.She and her daughter followed them while crying and shouting for help.Hearing their screams her nephew Naresh and neighbour Samir @ Kale followed them in order to intervene.The assailants also caught hold of her and her daughter.Sudhir stabbed Naresh with the knife he had been carrying and Sunil, Sonu Punjabi, Danny and Phullu also inflicted injuries on them.The empty bottles of liquor which Danny and Phullu were carrying in their hands were broken and their glass pieces got scattered in the street.In the scuffle Sunil fell on the glass pieces due to which he also sustained injuries.Thereafter Sunil and his accomplices ran from the spot leaving behind the baseball bat and iron rod etc. Sunil and his accomplices caused fatal injuries to her son while attacking them murderously with the common intention.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.The version of PW-21 Constable Rupesh is contrary to that of Inspector Yash Pal Singh.The recoveries are doubtful.There is no seizure of the keys of the motorcycle.Further the motorcycle had no blood stains though as per the case of the prosecution, Sunil was taken on the motor cycle.Raj Kumar has been tried to be linked with the motorcycle of red colour from the spot.The motorcycle is not shown in the site plan.Moreover the Appellant resides in the house adjoining the place of occurrence.Complainant Neeru has deposed that on 20th July, 2009 at about 11.30 PM she along with her daughter was standing outside their house and at that time Sudhir and Sunil, both real brothers were passing through the Gali.While passing, they stopped for a while in front of her house, started eve teasing her daughter and also made indecent gestures.She tried to make Sunil understand not to do the same.In the meantime, her son Subhash came there from inside the house, who also asked Sunil to refrain from the said act on which he uttered that they had challenged his ruffianship (Badmashi).After uttering abuses both Sunil and Sudhir left the place and Neeru and her family went inside the house.After D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 10 of 66 20-25 minutes, accused Sudhir, Sunil, Sanjay, Sonu Punjabi, Phullu and Danny again came there.Sudhir was having a knife in his hand, Sunil was having a base ball bat, Sonu Punjabi was having iron rod, Phullu and Danny were having empty liquor bottles and Sanjay was having bat of baseball.They called her son and challenged him.On this, being frightened her son ran away towards Shiv Mandir in gali.All the accused chased him and started beating her son Subhash with the said weapons due to which he became unconscious.She, her daughter, one Samir and her nephew Naresh after raising alarm rushed towards the said spot.Sudhir gave a knife blow to Naresh.She, her daughter and Samir also sustained injuries during intervention.Her neighbours took Subhash, Naresh and Samir to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where her son was declared brought dead.She called the police from the mobile of her nephew but by mistake the police recorded the name of her husband.The police reached the spot and recorded her statement first in the hospital Ex.PW3/A which bears her signature at point A and then again at the spot.From the spot, the police lifted two bats of baseball, one iron rod and broken pieces of glass bottles.One bat of baseball was having black tape on it and on the other something was written in red colour.These articles were seized, kept in Pullanda and sealed.Site plan was prepared.In the incident one of the accused Sunil fell down on the broken pieces of glasses and sustained injuries.The accused on the said date came on two motorcycles out of which one disappeared from the spot and the other of red colour was seized by the Police.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.Though she identified the case property, however, she stated that she did not remember the date of incident.She further stated that the accused were not present at the spot and she did not know who caused injuries to her son, to her and her daughter.On a Court question as to which of her depositions whether of 20th May, 2010 or 7th March, 2011 was correct, this witness stated that her deposition made on 20 th May, 2010 was the correct version.This witness further stated that the accused persons present in Court killed her son in the manner deposed by her on 20th May, 2010, however, she had three daughters and she was residing with her husband and three daughters in the neighborhood of the accused.Though there was no pressure on her mind, she wanted the accused to be set free.This witness also admitted that she had gone to meet the accused in jail.She further stated that she met one person Shakir in the Central Jail where Appellants were also present.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 11 of 66The two other eye witnesses who were injured as well PW-23 Naresh and PW-12 Mohd. Samir @ kale have turned hostile.As per the MLC Ex.PW- 4/A of Mohd. Samir, he reached the hospital at 12.35 AM and the investigating officers name mentioned in the MLC is ASI Rawal Singh of PS Sultanpuri.The complaint is described as quarrel.The place of the incident is given as 6/4 Friends Enclave, Sultanpuri.In a column below, the incident information is noted as "quarrel me chaku churi chal rahi hai".On the right side of the PCR Form, the report received from the PCR Van which reached the spot is noted.The time when the local police reached the spot is noted as "21-Jul-2009 D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 37 of 66 0:34:29".The report reads: "jhgra may 3 aadmi ko chaku lagay batalaya jo U/K Hosp.ja chukay jankaro ka ladaki chadanay par jhgra tha 21/07/2009 00:36:16 M/CY N. DL4SBN 4120 ko chodkar bhag gaya 21/07/2009 00:38:26 ladaki chhedane par jhgra huaa tha".The name and rank of the police official of Police Station (PS) Sultan Puri is indicated as "ASI Rawal Singh" (PW-19).D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 37 of 66The person who recorded the call at the PCR was Lady Constable Sangeeta (PW-6) who confirmed that the address given in the information was "6/4 Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri".What happened next is to be found in the deposition of ASI Rawal Singh (PW-19) who was posted at PS Sultan Puri when D.D. No. 3A was received.He along with Constable Vijender Singh (PW-18) and Constable Roopesh Kumar reached 6/4 Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri.PW-19 stated: "At the spot no eye-witness met us and I was informed by the people present there that the injured have been taken to SGM Hospital." PW-19 left Constable Roopesh Kumar at the spot and along with PW-18 went to the SGM Hospital (SGMH).There he met Neeru @ Guddo (PW-3).She told them that her son Subhash had come to the hospital in an injured condition and was declared as "brought dead" by the doctor.He then obtained three MLCs, i.e., of the deceased Subhash and two other injured persons.The dead body was shifted to the mortuary.PW-19 recorded the statement of PW-3 (Ex. PW-3/A) on which he made an endorsement (Ex. PW19/A).He sent the pulandas containing the clothes of the deceased and a rukka through PW-18 to the PS to be handed over to a senior officer.He then returned to the spot with PW-3 and on her pointing out prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-19/B).D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 38 of 66The first statement of PW-3PW-3 stated that at around 11.30 p.m. on 20th July 2009 she and her daughter N (PW-27) were outside their house when Sunil (A-2) and his younger brother Sudhir (A-5) living in the same locality came there and started passing lewd remarks and making obscene gestures at PW-27. PW-3 and her deceased son Subhash came out and objected.Subhash told them to go away. A-2 and A-5 are stated to have hurled abuses.They said that Subhash would be taught a lesson shortly.Twenty minutes later, A-2, A-5, Raj Kumar @ Danny (A-3), Suresh @ Phullu (A-4) and Surender @ Sonu Punjabi (A-1) came there.A-2 was carrying a baseball bat; A-5 was having a knife; A-1 was having an iron rod and A-3 and A-4 were having empty bottles of liquor.They challenged Subhash who on seeing them ran into the street.They all ran after him saying "this bastard must be killed, he has challenged our ruffianism".They then caught hold of Subhash in the street opposite Shiv Mandir.Subhash then became unconscious and fell down.46. PW-3 stated that she and PW-27 followed the accused while crying and shouting for help.On hearing their screams, Naresh (PW-23) a nephew of PW-3 and their neighbour Samir @ Kale (PW-12) followed in order to intervene.The accused then caught hold of them as well.A-5 stabbed PW-23 with the knife he had been carrying and the other four accused, i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 also inflicted injuries on them.The bottles of liquor being carried by A-3 and A-4 got broken and the glass pieces got scattered on the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 39 of 66 street.In the scuffle, A-2 fell on the glass pieces due to which he also sustained injuries.A-2 and his accomplices ran away from the spot leaving behind the baseball bat, the iron rod etc. Investigation at the scene of occurrenceD.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 39 of 66After sending the rukka through PW-18, PW-19 came back to the place of occurrence with PW-3 and on her pointing out prepared the site plan.The scaled site plan (Ex. PW2/A) shows the path supposed to have been taken by the deceased Subhash around a vacant plot, then down another street.It shows the distance between 6/4 Friends Enclave and the Shiv Mandir (opposite 6/28 Friends Enclave) to be about 58.70 m.Inspector Yashpal Singh (PW-28) with some police officials reached the spot and further investigation was entrusted to him.PW-28 lifted two baseball bats (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2), the broken pieces of glass (Ex. P5) and one iron pipe (Ex. P3) from the spot.They were kept in separate pulandas and sealed with the seal of YP and seized under memo (Ex. PW-3/B).The liquor bottles (Ex. P8 and Ex. P9) and the broken glass pieces were seized under memo (Ex. PW-3/C).A red-coloured motor cycle DL4SBN-4190 of Pulsar make (Ex. P4) was also seized from the spot under memo (Ex. PW3/D).PW-3 and PW-27 were taken to the hospital for their MLCs in the police vehicle.PW-28 prepared the brief facts (Ex. PW7/B2) in which he noted that at the SGMH, PW-19 had obtained MLCs of PW-12, PW-23 and of A-2 who were undergoing treatment.The deceased Subhash had no knife injuries.Subhash was shown as brought to the SGMH by PW-19 and was declared brought dead.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 40 of 66The Mobile Crime Team Report (MCTR) (Ex. PW-5/A) described the place of the offence as "In front of house of Ram Chander......H. No. 6/28 West Friends Enclave (between Shiv Mandir and above said address)".It noted the articles seized by the Investigating Officer (IO) as: (i) Two wine bottles (empty); (ii) broken pieces of bottles; (iii) one baseball stick broken and (iv) another baseball stick (v) one iron rod (pipe) (vi) wooden stick (size 1 feet).It advised photographs to be taken of the scene of crime, recording of the statement of the victims relatives, exhibits be sent to the CFSL/FSL for opinion, recording statement of eye-witnesses (if any), opinion of the doctors and details to be taken from the place of offence.This MCTR was prepared by Sub Inspector Sanjay Gade (PW-5).He was smelling of alcohol and was referred to the Safdarjung Hospital.The MLC had an endorsement: fit for statement.The injuries noted were: "fresh abrasion (0.10 x 0.1 cm, scratch mark) over left side of frontal region + scalp".The MLC of Neeru (PW-3) (Ex. PW-4/C) showed mild tenderness and erythma in the upper neck.An identical statement is recorded of PW-9 Sanjay who incidentally lives in 6/4 Friends Enclave, i.e., the house of Subhash.He too had earlier stated (Mark B) that all the accused had killed deceased Subhash.The other two eye-witnesses were the injured cousin Naresh (PW-23) of the deceased, who also turned hostile.PW-23 stated that some boys came and started teasing PW-27 and that Subhash objected to the acts of those boys.He states that he received a call from Subhash after those boys left the spot and then he reached the spot.While he was talking to Subhash, 7-8 boys came there and started beating Subhash and he too was given beatings by them.He stated that no accused present in the court was part of the boys who attacked Subhash.He stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital.The fourth eye-witness was Md. Samir (PW-12) who was injured in the incident.However, he too turned hostile.He stated that at around 11/11.30 p.m. some 12/13 kanwarias and other public members were present and heard the noise "bachao bachao" and suddenly a stampede started.The evidence of PW-3In her examination-in-chief, she stuck to what she stated in her first statement to the police (Ex. PW3/A) but added the name of Sanjay (A-6) as also having come back with A-2 and A-5 to the house when they started chasing Subhash.She now stated that A-6 also had a baseball bat.She stated that neighbours took her son Subhash, PWs 12 and 23 to the SGMH and that she had called the police from the mobile phone of her nephew but by mistake police recorded the name of her husband from whose mobile she had called the police.She further added that the accused had come on two motorcycles out of which one disappeared from the spot and the other of red colour which was seized from the spot by the police.The trial Court not only failed to insist upon her presence and continuation of examination-in-chief but even the learned APP made no effort to point this D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 45 of 66 out to the trial Court.In the meanwhile interim bail was being granted to many of the accused.When she was first examined by the police on 21st July 2009 she stated (Ex. PW27/A) that on 20th July 2009, PW-23 (her cousin) had come from Haridwar with kanwar and offered the holy water of Ganga at Shiv Mandir in the area and the persons who had brought the said kanwars were dancing opposite Shiv Mandir.PW-27 stated that she was watching PW-23 dancing and many ladies, boys and gents were present at the Shiv Mandir.Thereafter, she returned home.While she was standing outside her house with her mother PW-3 at about 11.30 p.m., A-2 and A-5 passed through the gali in front of her house.They passed lewd comments at her and made indecent gestures.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 49 of 66After about 20 minutes, they both came along with many other boys namely Sonu Punjabi, Fullu, Sanjay, Sudhir, Sunil and Danny.The witness is asked to see if all the accused persons are present in the court or not to which she had identified each and every accused present in the court by their names.They all started saying my brother to come out of the house.Thereafter, we all went to hospital with my brother where he was declared dead by the doctor.I, my mother, Naresh and Sameer were also medically examined in the SGM Hospital."D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 51 of 66By Crl.Appeal No. 1219/2013 Appellants Sunil and Sudhir have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 31st July, 2013 convicting them for offence punishable under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 27th August, 2013 awarding them sentence of death for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC.The appeal also challenges the conviction and sentence awarded to Sudhir for offences under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act. By Crl.Appeal Nos. 1362/2013, 1463/2013, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 the Appellants Suresh, Surender, Raj Kumar and Sanjay have challenged the impugned judgment convicting them for offence punishable under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and sentence dated 27 th August, 2013 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Learned APP for the State has taken us through the evidence on record.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 3 of 66D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 4 of 663. Learned APP contends that the eye witnesses are the natural witnesses and despite there being social pressure, they have deposed in the court.He further states that the two incidents took place in succession and form integral part of the chain.The place of occurrence starts from the house of the deceased, Neeru and PW-27 N, sister of the deceased and ends at the Mandir.The witnesses have identified the spot as the one in front of Shiv Mandir where the deceased died.The seizures have been also effected from the said spot.PW-28 Inspector Yashpal Singh has admitted that PW-19 ASI Rawal Singh informed him that Naresh, Sameer @ Kale and Sunil were admitted in the hospital however he could not find Sunil there as he was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital.The plea of alibi taken by the defence was required to be proved by them however the same has not been proved.In the statement under Section 313 Cr PC, Sunil has admitted his presence at Mandir in the night.There is no requirement that in the brief facts, names of the assailants should be mentioned.Learned counsel for Sunil and Sudhir contends that a perusal of the PCR entries and the place of occurrence show that there were two distinct incidents.As per the first PCR call, the incident was allegedly at the house of the Complainant whereas the son of the Complainant died in front of Shiv D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 5 of 66 Mandir.The gap between the two incidents shows that they were two distinct incidents and material facts have been concealed by the prosecution.Though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was given knife blows however, as per the postmortem report and the MLC there is no injury by knife on the deceased.Hence, the eye witnesses are planted witnesses.Neeru and N reached the hospital later and thus they were not the eye witnesses.Further the factum of Sunil being admitted in the hospital was sought to be concealed by the prosecution.The Investigating Officer PW-28 Inspector Yashpal Singh has deposed falsely when he stated that he did not know as to where Sunil had gone.There is no explanation to the injuries on Sunil.From the MLC, it is clear that the injuries to Sunil were from knife.The finding of the learned Trial Court that Sunil got injured due to the fall on the glass pieces is unfounded as no blood stains were found on the glass pieces recovered.Though Sunil was fit for statement however, his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer.The plea of alibi of Sunil has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.The witnesses stated that all the accused ran away after the incident however, as per the MLC Sunil was admitted by ASI Rawal Singh in the hospital.Hence the version of the eye witnesses is incorrect.From the site plan and the seizure memo it is evident that four baseball bats were at the spot.This is contrary to the version of the eye witnesses.There are contradictions in the testimony of police witnesses.PW-21 Constable Rupesh has stated that the knife was blood stained however, Inspector Yashpal Singh stated that the knife was not blood stained.Though it is alleged that there was recovery at the instance of Sudhir however, his disclosure statement was recorded later on.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 5 of 66It is further contended that ASI Rawal Singh has not supported the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 6 of 66 prosecution case and has even stated that the Complainant did not inform that her daughter was abused.Neeru admitted having visited the jail for meeting the Appellants.It is thus evident that Neeru was trying to extort money from the appellants.N does not allege that there was any threat from the accused but she states that she was under pressure from her mother and PW-23 Naresh.Even under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act only those questions can be put as leading questions in cross- examination which questions can be put by the opposite party.PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra in his cross-examination has admitted that cerebral damage may be caused by dashing of head against a hard surface or a wall or any standing hard object.As per the eye witnesses all the accused were armed with weapons and had beaten the deceased however, there were no corresponding injuries on the body of the deceased.The entries in the malkhana register have not been proved in accordance with law.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 6 of 66D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 7 of 66The Appellant had examined defence witness who stated that Sanjay was sleeping in his house and was taken away by the police.However, this aspect has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.The Appellant has been falsely implicated and thus be acquitted.Learned counsel for Suresh @ Phullu while adopting the arguments of learned counsel for Sunil and Sudhir further submits that manipulation is writ large in the prosecution evidence from the very beginning.Though Neeru stated that she made a PCR call however, as per the PCR call the informant is Pravesh Kumar, her husband.Thus Neeru was not present at the time of the incident rather her husband was present.In cross-examination Neeru admits that though she called from the mobile of her nephew but police recorded the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 8 of 66 name of her husband.Recording of the FIR was deliberately delayed.Local police reached at the spot around 12.35 hours in the night however, FIR was registered only at around 2.30 a.m. The version of Neeru and N is highly improbable as in a melee no person can see much less remember the weapon in the hand of each person and which blow was given by whom.The motorcycle alleged to be involved in the incident has been planted.It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the Appellant was residing near the house of the Complainant and hence there was no necessity of going on the motorcycle.N had also appeared as a witness in another murder case.The Appellant has been falsely implicated and be acquitted.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 8 of 66Learned counsel for Surender @ Sonu Punjabi and Rajkumar @ Danny contends that the incident did not take place as projected.There is no common intention shared by the Appellants to either murder or commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Though the MLC of Neeru and N were prepared after registration of the FIR however, still the FIR number has not been mentioned.Hence the FIR is ante timed.Though iron rod was recovered from the spot however, PW-1 Constable Ravi Malik from the Crime Team did not inform about it.The crime team took photographs of 6/28, West Friends Enclave where the alleged incident took place.It is not the case of the prosecution that any police officer was left behind to guard the place of incident, thus the scene of crime was tampered with.The FIR is a computer generated document and has not been proved in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-10 has not proved the rukka.The application for postmortem does not state as to when the dead body was received and when papers were received.It does not give the time of conducting the postmortem.The site plan does not show the presence of D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 9 of 66 Neeru and N. As per the case of the prosecution when Surender @ Sonu Punjabi was arrested he was wearing his blood stained shirt and pant.This is highly unnatural.Though recoveries were made at different time, however, the seals were not given to independent witnesses.Inspector Yashpal Singh stated that he deposited the case properties with MHCM, however the case properties were deposited in three installments and he did not sign the Malkhana register.Thus motorcycle was naturally to be there.Salamat Ali vs. State, 2010 (174) DLT 558, Ravinder Singh vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2013 (197) DLT 99 (DB).D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 9 of 66Heard learned counsel for the parties.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 10 of 66Since the case property was not available, further examination-in-chief of Neeru was deferred and on 7th March, 2011 when she was examined again, D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 11 of 66 she did not support the prosecution case.Thus, the prosecution sought permission to declare the witness hostile.Learned counsels for the Appellants have sought to assail the testimony of this witness on the ground that this witness had in fact gone to demand the money from the Appellants in the jail and was thus vacillating in her statements.She denied the suggestion that she had gone to bargain with the accused for extracting money for the acquittal.It may be noted that Neeru visited Suresh in Jail on 28th April, 2010 however, despite the said meeting she stood by her version in the FIR on 20th May, 2010 when she deposed against the Appellants.It is only in the deposition dated 7 th March, 2011 that Neeru stated that the accused be set free.From the testimony of N the pressure on the family of the deceased in favour of the appellants is evidence.PW4/A shows two sharp incised wounds on Samir at the chin and left lumbar region.Similarly, Ex.PW-4/D MLC of Naresh also shows the name of investigating officer as Rawal Singh of PS Sultanpuri.PW4/D shows two sharp incised wounds on Naresh at the right hand and left side lower chest besides tenderness at the parietal region.Even though Naresh and Mohd. Samir have turned hostile, the fact that they were present at the spot, were injured in the incident and taken to the hospital is sufficient to corroborate the version of Neeru and N.13. N the daughter of Neeru, when appeared as a witness before the Court on 23rd February, 2012, was highly perplexed and stated that she was stopped by the family members from coming and deposing in Court.She further had the apprehension that if she would speak the truth then legal action may be taken against the mother.This witness was pacified and counseled by the Court whereafter she stated that about 2 or 3 years ago in the month of July, she along with her mother was standing outside her house.Sudhir and Sunil were going in front of gali of their house.They both started passing obscene gestures and commenting on her.Her mother objected to it and D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 13 of 66 asked them to go away from there.On hearing the noise of her mother, Subhash her brother who was inside the house came out and objected to the act of the accused on which they started arguing with him and went away saying that they will see him after sometime.After about 20 minutes, they both came along with many other boys namely Sonu Punjabi, Phullu, Sanjay and Danny.She identified all the accused persons in the Court.They called her brother out of the house.Her brother came out of the house and after seeing the accused persons armed with weapons he ran towards Shiv Mandir in the gali.They all apprehended her brother and started giving beatings with baseball bat, iron rod, glass bottles and knives.She stated that she cannot tell which of the accused was hitting with which weapon.On hearing the noise, her neighbor Samir and cousin Naresh came out who were also given beatings by the accused persons.Naresh and Samir sustained injuries in that quarrel.Even she was given beatings by accused Sudhir by iron rod.Her brother fell on the ground.She along with her mother went towards her brother who was almost dead.Thereafter, they went to hospital with her brother where her brother was declared brought dead by the doctor.She, her mother, Naresh and Samir were also medically examined at the hospital.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 13 of 66Though this witness has deposed about all the main contours of the prosecution case, however in her examination-in-chief she failed to give details as to which of the accused inflicted particular injury and by which weapon.Thus, learned APP sought permission to put leading questions to this witness as she had substantially deposed about the incident but she escaped details.This request was opposed by the defence counsels which request was thus rejected.However, learned APP was permitted to put questions by way of cross-examination in order to establish the facts D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 14 of 66 forgotten by this witness.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 20 of 66N was also examined as SW-1 by the Court wherein she stated that Naresh her cousin and Samir her neighbour tried to save her brother in the incident and also received injuries but during trial they have been pressurized by the accused and thus both turned hostile.She reiterated that after the incident they have been receiving threats from the family of the accused.The Court also examined Inspector Ram Kishore as SW-2 who placed on record the details of involvement of other family members of Sunil and Sudhir, involvement of Surender and Sanjay.The victim was examined on several dates within the period of two years and she had been consistent throughout, that rape had been committed upon her.However, her father died during the trial and it may be because of his D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.Thus, a reasonable inference can be drawn that defence had an opportunity to win her mother."20. N has stated that she was given beatings by Sudhir by iron rod when she went after her brother.This witness was medically examined and PW-4 Dr. Binay Kumar, proved her MLC Ex.PW4/B. As per the MLC, she suffered fresh injuries in the form of abrasions over left side of frontal region of scalp.Dr. Binay Kumar in cross examination also clarified that the injury on the person of N could be caused by the iron pipe or a blunt object.The witness being an injured witness, her presence at the spot cannot be doubted.Further, the version of this witness is also corroborated from the PCR record.The PCR received the information at 23.56 hrs on 20 th July, 2009 vide Ex. PW6/A. After the PCR reached on the spot it noted that 3 men have received knife injuries and the quarrel was on teasing a girl.This noting is made at 00.36 hrs.on 21st July 2009 and by that time four persons namely Mohd. Samir, Subhash, Naresh and Sunil had been sent to the hospital.A perusal of the MLC of Mohd. Samir Ex PW4/A shows sharp incised wound.Even MLC of Naresh Ex. PW4/D shows sharp incised wound.MLC of Sunil also shows incised wound vide ExPW28/D. Merely because post mortem report of Subhash shows that there was no incised wound, the same would not belie the version of the prosecution witnesses, who have stated that one of the accused was armed with knife as knife injuries have been received by two other witnesses i.e. Mohd. Samir and Naresh though they may have turned D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 23 of 66 hostile.However, this Court can look into their MLCs to find corroboration to the version of Neeru and N. PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra in his testimony has stated that injuries to Mohd. Samir, Naresh and Sunil were possible with broken glasses and the knife corroborating the version of the eye witnesses.The contention of defence is that Neeru is not a truthful witness as she stated that Sunil fell down on the broken pieces of glasses and sustained injuries, however the broken glass pieces were not blood stained.This contention is contrary to the evidence on record.Dr. Manoj Dhingra noticed the glass pieces to be blood stained.Even as per FSL report Ex.PX and Ex.PY the broken glass piece was stained with human blood.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 23 of 66In Kuria (supra) their Lordships further held that the position of law in cases of contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis--vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of evidence.Learned counsel for Sunil has tried to urge that Sunil was not present at the spot and he received injuries in a different incident.The case of Sunil in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC is that he had gone to temple on the fateful night to meet Kanwarias where some unknown person attacked him D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 24 of 66 and gave him knife blows with which he suffered injuries to his different parts of body however no statement of Sunil was recorded by the police.Thus Sunil has taken a plea of alibi of not being present in the incident but involved in another incident.This was required to be proved by Sunil.Despite Neeru having deposed that Sunil received injuries by fall on glass pieces she has not been cross-examined on this aspect.As a matter of fact, this witness has not even been cross- examined on behalf of Sunil.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 24 of 66Learned counsels for the Appellants have also assailed the prosecution case on the ground that the FIR was registered belatedly and thus there was sufficient time for manipulating the same.A perusal of Ex.PW6/A PCR form shows that the local Police reached the spot at 00.34 hrs by which time injured Mohd. Samir and Naresh had been taken to the hospital, who were examined in the hospital at 00.35 AM and 1.00 AM respectively.Further Subhash and Sunil were admitted at 00.45 hrs and 1.05 hrs.on 21st July, 2009 by ASI Rawal Singh.It is thus evident that ASI Rawal Singh immediately on D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 25 of 66 reaching the spot went to the hospital whereafter he recorded the statement of Neeru in the hospital and sent the same by Constable Bijender to the Police Station at about 2.15 AM.The time between reaching the hospital, recording of statement of Neeru and thereafter sending the same to the Police Station at 2.15 AM for recording of FIR cannot be said to be unreasonable time which could have given time to Neeru to have manipulated the facts.The genesis of the quarrel being on account of teasing a girl is even noted in the PCR report.Moreover PW-10 HC Sat Narain the duty officer deposed that on 21 st July, 2009 he received the rukka at about 2.25 AM on the basis of which he registered the FIR.This witness has not been cross-examined and thus his testimony has gone unchallenged.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 25 of 66As per the seizure memo three baseball bats have been recovered, one baseball stick/bat with black coloured tape wrapped on it, one black colored baseball stick/bat RAPTOR written on it by red color and the handle of the same being broken and a white coloured baseball bat/stick with the lower portion missing.From the photographs, learned counsel for the Appellants have sought to state that in fact there were four baseball bats however, none of the photographs show four baseball bats.Moreover this fact was required to be put to the witnesses, however the same has not been put to them.In State of U.P. Vs.The report noted as under:-The oft quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C. in Browne v. Dunn, (1893) 6 The Reports 67 clearly elucidates the principle underlying those provisions.It reads thus:A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 26 of 66"I cannot help saying, that it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put to him, the circumstances which, it is suggested, indicate that the story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit.My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness, you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses."Much of the debate of learned counsel for the appellants was centered towards the spot of incident.According to them, there were two spots of incident.Since PCR call was made from the house of the deceased and the Police also reached there, the same had no connection with the incident which took place at Shiv Mandir.This argument deserves to be rejected at the outset.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 27 of 66Learned counsels for the Appellants have also assailed the recoveries on the ground that though they were made at different times however, pullandas were all deposited together.He has explained that after the spot inspection, he went to the mortuary, prepared the inquest papers, got the dead body identified and moved an application for conducting the post-mortem of Subhash.Thereafter, he came back with Constable K.N. Goud to the Police Station and deposited the exhibits with MHCM.With regard to motorcycle being recovered at the instance of Suresh @ Phullu on which Sunil was taken to the hospital, and the blood stained shirt of Surender @ Sonu Punjabi, he deposited the same with MHCM after coming back on the same day in the evening.This witness does not clarify that at around 12.00 to 1.00 Oclock when the alleged incident took place, Sanjay was at home or not.Further, he admits that he made no complaints in this regard to either any authority.Sanjay also assails his conviction on the ground that he was not named in the FIR.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 28 of 66As per PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, the deceased was brought dead to hospital at about 12.45 am on 21st July, 2009 and he conducted his postmortem and prepared the report vide Ex.PW7/A. He noted that the deceased received the following injuries:-"EXTERNAL INJURIES:Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm present on right side of the face, 2.5 cm in front of ear and 5.5 cm outer to outer angle of right eye with abrasion over the area 2 x 1 cm within the lower third of the contused area with a spread area of 1 cm x 0.5 cm within the abrasion and laceration 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm into subcutaneous tissue deep present at upper end of contused area.The contusion is obliquely placed on right side of face.2. Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm on right side of the neck, 6 cm below right ear low with a semi circular abrasion in the middle of the contused area.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on back of the left elbow.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 29 of 66Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on middle back of left forearm, 10 cm above wrist joint.Brain matter meninges - brain weight is 1500 gms, diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage all over the brain.Cause of death is cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head.All injuries are antemortem in nature, fresh in duration and caused by blunt object.Time since death is approximately 12 hours... "Dr. Manoj Dhingra also stated that total inquest papers were 11 in number and he exhibited the same vide Ex.PW7/B-1 to Ex.PW8/B-8 which bear his signature at point A and Ex.PW4/E i.e. MLC of deceased Subhash which bear his signature at point B. This answers the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the application for postmortem did not state about documents sent to the doctor.The documents having been sent along with the application stand duly exhibited.After 20-25 minutes, they came back along with the other co-accused and exhorted Subhash to come out.When Subhash came out of the house, they followed him and all of them assaulted him resulting in his death.As per N when the Appellants came back, they exhorted her brother to come out of the house and when he came out of the house, the Appellants ran after him with different weapons in their hands.As regards order on sentence, since the appellants have been held guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the appellants are directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 years each and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Sunil and Sudhir will also pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh each to the deceaseds family and in default will undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.The sentences for offences under Section 307 IPC qua all the appellants and under Sections 25/27 Arms Act qua convict Sudhir shall remain the same as directed by the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 36 of 66 learned Trial Court and run concurrently.The appellants will be granted the benefit of sentence undergone under Section 428 Cr PC.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 36 of 66The Death Sentence Reference is answered in the negative.The appeals are accordingly disposed of.Copies of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, for his record and for the Appellants.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.I concur with the judgment of Justice Mukta Gupta both as regards conviction and sentence.However, I wish to supplement her reasons with some of my own.A call was made to the Police Control Room (PCR) on 20th July 2009 at 23:56:24 hours regarding a quarrel at Block F-3 Sultanpuri, Delhi.The PCR Form-I (Ex. PW6/A) filled in by the Wireless Staff of the Delhi Police gives the name of the informant as Pravesh Kumar with the address as Block F-3, Sultanpuri, Delhi.The contact name is given as "Neeru".The MLC of PW-23 showed that he had a sharp incised wound.The MLC of PW-12 revealed that he too had sharp incised wounds on the lumbar region.All these MLCs noted the alleged history of physical assault.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.The MLC of A-2 Sunil (Ex. PW28/D1) for some reason was not produced by the prosecution at the time of filing the charge-sheet.It was marked as an exhibit during the cross-examination of PW-28 during the trial.There was a fresh incised punctured wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm over right lateral lower part of the chest.There was another punctured wound of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the lateral part of right upper thigh.A-2 was referred to surgery.She was examined at 3.30 am at the SGMH.An MLC was also prepared for Subhash (Ex. PW 4/E).It notes that the patient was declared brought dead and the dead body was shifted to the mortuary.The evidence of PWs 8 and 9The central issue concerns fixing the presence of the accused at the spot of incident.The prosecution tendered two eye-witnesses to the incident.They were Hari Singh (PW-8) and Sanjay (PW-9).PW-8 turned hostile.He claimed that no statement of his was recorded by the police and that he only D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 42 of 66 identified the dead body of Subhash.The previous statement made by this witness is Ex. PW7/B6 which purportedly identifies the deceased.The statement of PW-8 (Mark A) claims that Subhash was murdered by the accused who lived in the same locality.But in the trial Court he too resiled from his statement.The evidence of the injured witnesses PWs 12 and 23He was hit by something on the left side of his waist due to which bleeding started and he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital by someone.He denied the following statement made by him earlier to the police.With the four eye-D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.She explained that she had missed out the name of A-6 in the first statement "due to nervousness and hopelessness" in her mind.The record of proceedings of the trial Court on 20th May 2010 shows that on that date a further examination-in-chief was deferred "for want of case property".The case was adjourned to 19th and 31st July 2010 for the remaining prosecution evidence (PE)".On 2nd June 2010, A-6 was admitted to interim bail for a period of two months.The proceedings of 19th July 2010 gives no indication that PW-3 was present for continuation of her examination-in-chief.The APP who was present failed to point out this to the trial Court.On 31st July 2010, again PW-3 was not present and the APP did not point this out to the trial Court.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 44 of 66On 11th August 2010, the bail application of A-1 was rejected.The interim bail application of A-4 was rejected.PWs 5 and 6 were examined and discharged.On that date, the interim bail of A-3 was extended and the next date was fixed for 2nd and 8th November 2010 for PE.On 8th November 2010 PWs 8, 9 and 10 were examined and discharged.The above orders have been referred to only to highlight the fact that despite being the star prosecution witness, PW-3 was not bound down so that her examination-in-chief could be completed in a time-bound manner.Till 7th March 2011, by which time 17 prosecution witnesses were examined, the further examination-in-chief of PW-3 did not take place.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 45 of 66Although this visit does not appear to have had an impact on her examination-in-chief on 20th May 2010, between that date and her subsequent examination-in-chief on 7th March 2011 many of the accused were released on interim bail.On 7th March 2011, the Presiding Officer (PO) changed.In response to a question by the counsel for A-3 "What comments were passed against your daughter by the accused?", the observations of the PO read as under:Immediately thereafter, PW-3 made the following statement:"I saw Kanwariyas at the spot of incident but I do not remember the date of incident.It is correct that I have not seen anything or any person and accused present in the court.It is correct that I do not known as to who has caused injuries to my son and to me and my daughter.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."PW-3 was next cross-examined by counsel for A-1 and A-6 and stated as under:"It is correct that lot of people around 100/200 had gathered at the spot.I do not know if police had recorded my statement on the same D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 46 of 66 day or the next day.Police had taken into possession the baseball bat etc. in my presence.Police had prepared some documents at the time of taking into possession the baseball bat and other articles from the spot.I cannot tell the number of papers signed by me which were prepared by the police.Some of those were blank and some were written.It is correct that contents of the papers were not read over to me by the police.It is correct that I have seen the accused first time in the court.I had made the statement in the court on 20.5.10 on the instructions of police officials.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 46 of 66The APP at that stage sought permission to cross-examine the witness.This is followed by the statement of the witness (PW-3) which is recorded as under:It is correct that I have got three daughters and I am residing with my husband along with said three daughters.It is correct that all the accused persons present in the court are residing in my locality and are my neighbours.I have no pressure on my mind and I want that accused be set at liberty and no action should be taken against the accused as I want that I should live with my three daughters peacefully in the same locality.PW-3 was again cross-examined by counsel for A-3 and she said:"Today I have deposed without any coercion or pressure from anyone.Neither I nor my husband and daughters have been threatened to be killed.It is correct that I am living with my family peacefully in my house."PW-3 was finally cross-examined by counsel for A-1 and A-6 when she again stated as under:It is correct that I have no fear from the accused persons either at present or in future and there was no fear in the past also.It is correct that I have not made any statement to the police either on the day of incident or the following day."An application was filed under Section 311 Cr PC on behalf of A-5 pursuant to which PW-3 was recalled for further cross-examination on 12th August 2011 when she admitted that she had gone to meet the "accused in jail".She now mentioned that she had gone to meet one Shakir at Central Jail along with Shakirs mother.She denied the suggestion that she went to the jail to cut a deal and extract money for the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.The evidence of PW-3 reveals a constant flip-flop and she obviously did not speak the entire truth.Apart from the fact that she is both a related and interested witness warranting a more careful scrutiny of her evidence, it is difficult to trust a witness who keeps prevaricating on the version of events.I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the trial Court that since PW-3 gave "valid and plausible explanation" for not mentioning A-6 in the first instance that would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.PW-27 was first examined in the trial Court on 23rd February 2012, more than two years and seven months after the incident.The learned trial judge found her bitterly weeping.When asked the reason, PW-27 stated that her family members had prevented her from coming to the Court.The learned trial judge noted that on being consoled, PW-27 stated that she wanted to depose against the accused but PW-23 and her mother had stopped her from deposing.PW-27 stated that she was being treated for a neuro ailment at Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar and she was in a dilemma whether she should depose truthfully.The trial Court thereafter proceeded to record the deposition of PW-27 who stated as under:"About two and half years or three years back, in the month of July, I along with my mother was standing outside our house.From the gali of our house, accused Sudhir and Sunil present in the court today were going.They both started giving obscene gestures towards me and started commenting upon me.My mother objected to it and she asked them to go away from there.On hearing the noise of my mother, my brother Subhash who was inside the house came out and objected on (sic to) the act of both the accused persons, on which both the accused started arguing with my brother and went away from there by saying that they will see my brother after sometime.My brother came out of the house and after seeing all the accused persons with different weapons in their hands, ran towards shiv mandir in the gali.They all apprehended my brother and started giving beatings with baseball bat, iron rod, glass bottles and knives.I cannot tell which of the accused was hitting with which weapon.On hearing the noise, my neighbor Samir and my cousin Naresh came out who D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 50 of 66 were also given beatings by the accused persons.There were other persons along with the accused persons whom I did not know.My brother fell on the ground, I along with my mother went towards my brother who was almost dead.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 50 of 66The trial Court recorded as under:"Ld. APP wants to put some leading questions as the witness has substantially deposed the incident but she is forgetting the details.The said request is opposed by the Ld. Defence counsels.PW27/A to the police, I had stated that on 20.07.09, my cousin Naresh had come from Haridwar with kanwar and offered the holy water of Ganga at Shiv Mandir of our area and the persons who had brought the said kanwars were dancing opposite Shiv Mandir in the gali.It is correct that I was watching my said cousin dancing and there were many ladies, boys and gents were present and after some time, I came back at my home.It is correct that it was 11.30 p.m. when I was standing outside my house with my mother.It is correct that after watching the dance, accused Sudhir and Sunil were going from my gali when they had commented upon me and made indecent gestures towards me.It is correct that I had stated to the police that I know all the accused persons as they are resident of the same locality.Accused Danny is residing just behind my house.It is correct that accused Sunil and Sanjay were having base ball bat in their hands and accused Sudhir D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 51 of 66 was having knife in his hand and accused Sonu Punjabi was having iron rod in his hand and accused Phullu and Danny were having glass bottles in their hands.(court observation:- The weapons i.e. iron rods and glass bottles in the respective hands of the said three accused were uttered by the witness voluntarily even prior to putting the question in complete sense by the Ld.APP) It is correct that when the accused persons were chasing my brother when he was running towards mandir, accused Sunil was uttering that "is saley ne hamari badmashi ko chunoti di hai, is saley ko khatam karna hai" (the said deceased had challenged their ruffianism so he should be killed).It is correct that accused Sudhir had caught hold of my brother Subhash opposite Shiv Mandir in the gali and accused Sunil and Sanjay hit on the head of my brother with baseball, accused Sonu Punjabi hit on his head with iron rod and accused Danny and Phullu gave blows on the head of my brother with empty liquor glass bottles.It is correct that when I, my mother, my cousin Naresh and neighbor Sameer raised alarm of bachao bachao then accused Sudhir inflicted knife blows on Naresh and Sameer.She only stated: "...my brother Subhash who was inside the house came out and objected on (sic to) the act of both the accused persons, on which both the accused started arguing with my brother and went away from there by saying that they will see my brother after sometime." This assumes D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 58 of 66 significance for the aspect of motive and the absence of an express intent to kill.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 58 of 66The evidence of PW-27 can be taken to support the case of the prosecution to the extent that as an injured eye witness PW-27 has in her examination-in-chief identified the accused, spoken about their chasing and beating Subhash with base ball bats and an iron pipe, and as a result of the injuries Subhash met with his death.The medical evidenceThe post-mortem report of Subhash (Ex. PW7/A) described the external injuries as under:"1. Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm present on right side of the face, 2.5 cm in front of ear and 5.5 cm outer to outer angle of right eye with abrasion over an area 2 x 1 cm within the lower third of the contused area with a spread area of 1 cm x 0.5 cm within the abrasion and laceration 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm into subcutaneous tissue deep present at upper end of contused area.The contusion is obliquely placed on right side of face.2. Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm on right side of the neck, 6 cm below right ear low with a semi circular abrasion in the middle of the contused area.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on back of the left elbow.Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on middle of back of left forearm, 10 cm above wrist joint.The internal examination noted "brain weight is 1500 gms, diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage all over the brain".The cause of death was as under:D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 59 of 66"Cause of death is cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head.Total inquest papers are 11."The post mortem report showed no knife injuries on Subhash.It stated that the death was homicidal.The opinion was not that the death was as a result of the cumulative effect of the external injuries.The opinion was that death was due to "blunt force impact to the head".And yet, there were no external injuries noticed on the head.In his cross-examination by counsel for A-1, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-7) who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased [along with Dr. J.V. Kiran (PW-11)] on 21st July 2009, stated that "Cerebral damage may be caused by dashing of head against a hard surface or a wall or any standing hard object".The first parcel contained a baseball bat with black tape wound around with one end knobbed with a crack, the second one contained a broken black coloured baseball bat with the words RAPTOR written at the distal end.A third pullanda contained a white coloured baseball bat with the distal end broken and a crack on the knob of the bat and a crack at the upper part of the bat.The fourth pullanda contained a hollow iron pipe and fifth pullanda contained a broken stick.In his cross-examination, PW-11 stated that he did not use any scientific instrument for examining the articles shown to him.He admitted D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 60 of 66 that there was an overwriting on the number of parcels received.He did not suggest which weapon could have caused which injury.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 60 of 66As regards Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-7), he stated that the glass pieces sent by him were having blood stains.With reference to the MLC No. 9519 (the MLC of A-2), PW-7 stated that the injuries might be possible with broken glass and also with knife.No fracture of bones was noticed on the right side of the face of the deceased.There was, however, contusion, laceration and abrasion.In the case on hand, the evidence of PW-27 and the medical evidence may be said to establish the presence of the first two elements but not the third viz., there was an intention to inflict any particular type of injury on the deceased. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,960,543 | Order on Crl. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,968,303 | C.R.M. 8746 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on June 10, 2010 And In re.: Saida Begum @ Sahida Begum & Ors.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Bauria P.S Case No. 38/2010 dated 05.4.2010 under Sections 498a/323/326/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and for the State.In case they surrender, their prayer for bail will be considered in accordance with law.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,969,256 | Learned counsel for the applicants is heard on IA No.1124/2017, which is an application under Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence on behalf of applicant-Dhanram.Vide judgment dated 30.1.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.99/2015, applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 304-A (two counts), 338 (five counts) and 337 (nine counts) of IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.200/- for each count under Section 304-A of IPC, six months RI with fine of Rs.200/- for each count under Section 338 of IPC, and two months RI with fine of Rs.100/- for each count under Section 337 of IPC, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was on bail during trial and during pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him.He, therefore, prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submitted that the applicant is not entitled for suspension of sentence and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.2 Cr. | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,949,726 | JUDGMENT N.C. Talukdar, J.The facts leading on to the appeal can be put in a short compass.Both the parties are respectable; the complainant Sri Narayan Chowdhury is the Chairman of the Burdwan Jillah Pari-shad while the respondent is the Editor and Publisher of a fortnightly styled as the "Bardhamaner Dak".The parties belonged to and worked together for Congress in the past and then about 15 years back there was a parting of ways.The prosecution examined 6 witnesses besides proving several exhibits and as a result of the trial the learned trying Magistrate by his order dated the 11th June, 1968, acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence charged.This order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Appeal.The two publications which form the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case viz., the publication dated the 9th April, 1965 and the publication dated the 23rd July, 1965, marked as exhibits 1 and 2 respectively, have not been properly admitted in evidence.Objection to the admissibility of the two exhibits 1 and 2 was taken at the time of the evidence of P. W. 1 who sought to prove the same. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,973,728 | Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Muthulakshmi(Accused No. 4 — appellant herein) had love affair with oneMurugan, son of PW1—Armugam.Ever since their marriagehad taken place, there were frequent quarrels and rifts betweenboth the families leading to strained relations between the couple.Petchimuthu, the father of A-4 had even lodged a complaint againsthis son-in-law—Murugan, his father (PW1) and sister (Poomari) asshe was held to be the root cause for all disturbances between the 3couple.Police had called the couple and advised them to livetogether peacefully, but after some days, Muthulakshmi (A4) cameout of her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home.On 4.8.1999, Ponnu (A1), Ganapathi (A2) and Chitravelu(A3) carrying deadly weapons, spotted Murugan near a street hoteland attacked him.While Ponnu (A1) instigated the other twoaccused to hack Murugan, Ganapathi (A2) stabbed Murugan with aknife on the chest and Chitravelu (A3) had inflicted cut injuries witha sickle on Murugan leading to his instantaneous death on thespot.The assailants then fled away from the scene of offence.Father of the deceased—PW1 (Armugam) and PW2 (Poomurugan—another Son of Armugam) who were standing nearby had witnessedthe occurrence.While that being so, on the same day when Poomari(daughter of Armugam—PW1) along with her daughter Sakunthala(PW3) went to a nearby well for washing clothes and taking bath,the four accused, appeared there and attacked Poomari in front ofher daughter.Chitravelu (A3) inflicted cut injuries on Poomari with 4a sickle and Ganapathi (A2) stabbed thrice with knife in herstomach causing her intestine to come out of her stomach.Afterthat Chitravelu (A3) gave the sickle to Muthulakshmi (A4) andinstigated her to attack Poomari.Muthulakshmi then inflicted cutinjuries on the head, hand and face near nose of Poomari with thesickle, and Poomari had died on the spot.PW3 (Sakunthala),daughter of Poomari, a ten year old school going child, who waspresent at the scene, had witnessed the crime.N.V. RAMANA, J.These appeals by way of special leave petitions arise outSignature Not Verified of a judgment dated 20th February, 2007 passed by a DivisionDigitally signed byASHA SUNDRIYALDate: 2018.03.2715:46:30 ISTReason:By the said judgment, the High Courtconfirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Courtagainst the appellants herein, while acquitting accused no. 1 of thecharges levelled against him.As the order impugnedin both the appeals is one and the same, we proposed to deal withboth the appeals by way of a common order.On the complaint of PW1 (Ext.P1), Ottapidaram PoliceStation registered the Crime Case No. 72/99 against the accusedunder Section 302, IPC and conducted investigation.TheInvestigating Officer visited the spots, conducted inquest (Ext.P31),prepared observation mahazars (Ext. P2, P3) and sketches of scenesof death (Ext.P27,P29), recovered bloodstained earth and normalearth, severed hair locks, mangalsuthra and other incriminatingarticles from the scene of offence in presence of witnesses andobtained their signatures.Other formalities such as recording ofstatements of witnesses and sending the bodies of the deceased forpostmortem were followed.The accused were arrested on 5.8.1999 5at 5.30 am on Velayuthapuram Junction at Ottapidaram CrossRoads and the police seized weapons from them that were used inthe crime and sent the same for chemical examination.The casewas then committed to the Court of Sessions and their statementsrecorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guiltyand claimed to be tried.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,prosecution has relied on as many as 21 witnesses andmarked Exts.P.1 to P.31 and there were 27 material objects.The trial Court, after undertaking a full fledgedtrial, found the accused guilty and convicted accused Ponnu (A1)under Section 302/34, IPC sentenced to undergo life imprisonmentand imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further suffer sixmonths imprisonment.Ganapathi (A2) and Chitravelu (A3) wereawarded life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC (two counts)with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer six monthsimprisonment further.However, their sentenced on each count weredirected to run concurrently.Muthulakshmi (A4) was sentenced to 6undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC with a fine ofRs.500/-, and in default, to suffer further imprisonment of sixmonths.The aggrieved accused approached the High Court byway of appeal.Being dissatisfied with the judgmentsof the Courts below, appellants are before us.As the State has notpreferred any appeal against acquittal of A1, we are only concernedwith the appeals arising out of conviction.We have heard learned counsel for the parties andcarefully gone through the entire material on record.The contentious arguments as advanced by the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants are that the Courts below haveerred in giving undue importance to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2who are interested witnesses as they are father and brother, 7respectively, of the deceased and they are in inimical terms with theaccused.The High Court though disbelieved their evidence againstAccused No. 1, yet relied on their evidence for sustaining theconviction and sentence of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, the appellantsherein.The prosecution case cannot be believed for the simplereason that the alleged incident in respect of deceased Muruganhad taken place at a hotel, which is a public place, but there wasno independent witness to the incident.There is no denial of the fact that themarriage between the deceased Murugan and accused—Muthulakshmi did not take place in a cordial atmosphere and therewere strained relations between the couple and their families aswell.About a month after her marriage, Accused No. 4 came out ofher matrimonial home and due to that fact, the other accusedpersons (brothers of A-4) developed grudge against Murugan andhis sister—Poomari, who was alleged to be the root cause ofdisturbances between the couple.Thus, the motive to commit thecrime on the part of accused is quite clear inasmuch as on theprevious day of occurrence also, the parties met at the policestation and the accused had a heated discussion with the victimsand laid a challenge to finish both Murugan and his sister Poomari. 9The evidence of ocular witnesses, PWs 1 and 2, fatherand brother of the deceased, clearly exhibits the way in which theaccused took away the life of deceased Murugan.It appears that there were two independentwitnesses (PWs 5 and 6) projected by the prosecution, but theyhave turned hostile.In several cases, only the family members arepresent at the time of incident, then the case of the prosecution willbe based only on their evidence.When their evidence is the onlyevidence available, Courts should be cautious and meticulouslyevaluate the evidence in the process of trial and we are not able toappreciate the contention on behalf of the accused that thenon-examination of independent witnesses and conviction based onthe evidence of family members is fatal to the case of theprosecution.13. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'.A witness maybe called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit fromthe result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing anaccused person punished.A witness who is a natural one and is theonly possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot besaid to be 'interested' [See: State of Rajasthan Vs. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,015,736 | Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.6.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.298/12, whereby respondent no.2 Radhey has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16/9/12 at about 1 p.m., respondent no.2 subjected the prosecutrix to rape in his field and threatened him of her life in case she disclosed the incident to anyone.Prosecutrix informed her husband Manesh Chouriya in the same night, and being afraid of the threat of respondent no.2, did not lodge the report immediately.Later, on 2/10/12, report of the incident was lodged by her at Police Station Mohkhed, upon which Crime No.416/12 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant, as well as learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, impugned judgment was perused.Prosecutrix (PW1), who is a married lady aged about 30 years, admitted in her cross-examination that after the incident when she was returning from the field, several people of acquaintance met her in the way, but she did not narrate the incident to anyone.She also admitted that she was having good relations with the neighbours, but she did not disclose the incident to them as well.Manesh (PW2), husband of the prosecutrix deposed that she was informed by the prosecutrix at about 12 in the night, though he admitted that he had returned home at about 6 p.m. Prosecutrix also admitted in her cross-examination that respondent no.2 was an old man aged about 65 years.Moreover, no satisfactory explanation was given for the delay in lodging the FIR.Dr. Rashmi Kaushal (PW3), who examined the prosecutrix, did not notice any external or internal injury on her body.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,016,332 | In the inspection, it was found that 50 Kg. of wheat and 27 Kgs.of Gram was excess and 50 Kg.of rice was less in the stock.It was also found that the 17.50 quintal of gram 1400 lt. of kerosene were also illegally kept by the applicant near the shop for black marketing which were actually reserved for the poor and needy people under the Public Distribution System.On that District Civil Supply Officer lodged written report at Police Station Ganj, District Betul against the applicant.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is a first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Chhagan Lal was arrested on 01.07.2019 in Crime No. 151/2019 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Betul for the offence punishable under Section 3 /7 of Essential Commodities Act and 409 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 29/03/2019 Civil Supply Officer, Baidnath Vasnik, Tahsildar, Ms Rashmi Sahu, District Supply Officer, T.L. Irpanche, Nayab Tahsildar, K.K. Tekam, Assistant District Supply Officer, inspected Government Fair price Shop Machna.At that time the applicant was present there.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.C.C. on payment of usual charges. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,950,190 | G. C. Mathur, for the appellant.The Judgment of the Court was deliveredbyKAPUP., J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and orderof the High Court of Bombay confirming the conviction of theappellant for an offence under s. 302, Indian Penal Code,read with s. 34 for the murder of one Lahu Vithu Patil onthe night between May 23, and 24, 1960 at village Pasarde.Four persons Rama Krishna Patil accused No. 1, Bhiva DouluPatil accused No. 2 (now appellant before us), Lahu SantuPatil accused No. 3 and Deoba approver P.W.5 are alleged tohave taken part in murder of Lahu Vithu Patil.Rama832Krishna Patil accused No.1 was convicted of murder andsentenced to death but on appeal his sentence was reduced toone of imprisonment for life.The appellant was convictedas above stated and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Thethird accused Lahu Santu Patil was acquitted and the 4thparticipant Deoba turned approver and is P.W.5.The case for the prosecution was that the appellant had asuspicion that the deceased bad a liaison with his wife.He, the appellant, approached the approver and suggestedthat the deceased should be killed.On March 17, 1960, Rama Krishna Patil accused No. 1and appellant got a knife prepared by Nanu Santu Sutar P.W.7from a crowbar.The deceased was a wrestler and he and hisbrother used to sleep in the fields and they also had dogsand for that reason the murder could not be committed forsometime.When rains set in, the deceased started sleepingat Patil's Talim (gymnasium).At that time theappellant had a torch and two others Lahu Santu Patil andDeoba were unarmed.Two blows ware given by accused No.1one on the throat and the second one on the left side of thechest.At the place of the occurrence the assailants left atowel and a patka(turban).Both these articles have beenfound to belong to accused No. 1 Rama Krishna Patil.Hearing the noise and growing of the deceased, Lahu VithuPatil, other persons who were sleeping were awakened and oneof them went and informed the brother of the deceased andthen the first information report was made to the police butno names were mentioned therein.On June 6, 1960, Deoba wasarrested on information received by police Sub-InspectorNandke.On June 25, 1960, 833as a result of a statement made by accused No.1 the knifewhich is alleged to have been used for the murder wasrecovered.This knife is stated to be stained with bloodbut it has not been proved to be human blood.It may bestated that the knife was of rather unusually largedimensions The two injuries on the deceased were veryextensive and according to the medical evidence they couldhave been caused with the knife which was recovered. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,031,955 | The mindset of the people are stillfeudal.We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possiblemoment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow the structure ofpolitical democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up."5.There are revolts/dissents against the aforesaid practices byscheduled caste people particularly from younger generation due to awareness oftheir rights and due to education and employment in public services.6.A Primary school teacher in Muniyandipuram, who rode a bicycle onthe street of dominant caste in Villur village was attacked.A complaint to thepolice station was of no use.Likewise, in August 2010, one Thangapandi, whopassed +2 examinations and also underwent Teacher Training Course, rode a twowheeler in the public pathway in the village and he was attacked for the same.A complaint was given to police.The police did not register the case.7.On 11.09.2011, The Hindu, an English Daily, published photographsof a scheduled caste boy pulling a two wheeler by walking instead of riding.8.On 30.04.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. the aforesaid Thangapandij rodea two wheeler in the streets of the village, where the people of dominant castereside and he was prevented from riding the bicycle and he was attacked.Hecomplained to the 10th respondent.The said action of the police to enforcelaw was strenuously opposed by the dominant community and the reaction was theattack on the Dalit's houses and the houses of the Dalits were damaged includingthe house of Thangapandi.9.The 6th respondent visited the village during afternoon on01.05.2011 as the matter involved in untouchability is a serious one.After heleft, the house of the Dalits were damaged as stated above.10.In view of the said situation, the 6th respondent again returnedto the village.A big mob of dominant community attacked the police partyincluding 6th respondent with deadly weapons.The crowd surrounded the policestation and attacked it, when the police party retreated back to the policestation.In those situation, as a self defence, the police fired a fewammunition rounds, after which the crowd disbursed.The following cases wereregistered in the Villur police station against the persons, who indulged in theaforesaid criminal activities.No.70/2011 u/s 147,148,332,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Attack onPolice Station)No.71/2011 u/s 147,148,332,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Firingcase)"10 persons in the crowd sustained injuries and they were also accused in thosecases.They were given treatment in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai/CentralPrision, Madurai.- Villoor Village - Clash between Adi-dravidars and Caste HindusAgamudaiyars - Gun shot by Supdt.Of Police - To disperse the mob - on01.05.2011 - filing of writ in W.P.(MD).No.56711/2011 - impleading ofCollector as XI Respondent - Status report - Sent - Regarding.The history of the case is as follows:There was an incident of violence on 01.05.2011 in Villoor village ofThirumangalam Taluk following the arrest of five people belonging to Agamudaiyarcommunity who intercepted and scolded at one Thangapandi, S/o.Guru of Adi-dravidar (Pallar community) for passing through the Killakku theru of saidvillage riding his motor cycle on 30.04.2011 by 11.00 p.m. Subsequent to this, Thiru Thangapandi has filed a complaint in VilloorPolice Station and a case was registered against five individuals inCr.No.63/2011 u/s.14/341, 506(1) r/w.3(i)(c) and 3(1)(N) of SC & ST Act and alsou/s.109 of IPC and the accused Sathiskumar, S/o.No.71/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 r/w.3(i) of TNPPDL Act It is said that when the Superintendent of Police visited the villageagain during night by 9.00 p.m. on 01.05.2011 around 500 people of both the sexbelonging to Agamudaiyar community were said to have assembled and laid a siegein front of villoor police station with weapons like sickle, stones etc. Onseeing the crowd, the Superintendent of Police seems to have asked the unlawfulassembly to disperse but not heeding to his advice, they have resorted toassault the Police and Revenue Officials.In reply, Police is said to haveresorted to lathi-charge and use of tear gas shells and the crowd has notdispersed even then.In the melee, few policemen of striking force havesustained minor injuries.Ambassador car bearing No.TN64 G 0110 ofSuperintendent of police and Tata Sumo bearing No.TN64 G 0147 of DeputySuperintendent of Police, Peraiyur, were damaged on pelting of stones by themob.On seeing the mob, growing out of control, the Gunman of Superintendent ofPolice is said to have fired a shot in the air using his pistol as a warning.Again on noticing the adamancy of mob and their pelting of stones towards thePolice Station, the Superintendent of Police is believed to have fired a shot inthe air using the gun of the policeman who was on guard the police station.In this incident, the following people sustained injuries and were giventreatment as noted against each.Details of persons who sustained injury during the clash occurred on01.05.2011 at Villoor village of Thirumangalam Taluk.S/o.Periasamyon the thigh Rajaji undergoing treat-ment Villoor of right leg Hospital/ treatment given 02.05.20113 Babu injury in Govt. still proper ----S/o.Apart from these three, enquiry was conducted inVilloor village with regard to any other individuals who sustained injury in theincident.During this time, one Sundarammal, W/o.Gurusamy (aged 33) came tonotice.She has sustained injury in forehead and the elbow of both hands duringlathi-charge resorted by police.She is undergoing treatment in Govt. PrimaryHealth Centre, Villoor.In addition, six individuals as noted in Sl.No.4 to 9are undergoing treatment in Central Prison, as Remand Prisoners.Local enquirymade in Villoor village by Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti along withTahsildar, Thirumangalam revealed that no other individuals than the above tensustained injuries during the incident of violence occurred on 01.05.2011 inVilloor village of Thirumangalam Taluk.A magisterial enquiry has been ordered in this office Roc.No.C3/27810/2011dated:03.05.2011 to investigate the circumstances that led to the incidentu/s.150(3) of Police Standing Order to be conducted by Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Usilampatti and completed in 30 days.A village level Peace CommitteeMeeting comprising the people of both communities was organized and conducted bythe District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate on 10.05.2011 atTaluk Office, Thirumangalam.The said meeting was attended by the followingofficials in addition to the public hailing from both communities:1)Additional Superintendent of Police, Madurai.2)Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti3)Tahsildar, Thirumangalam.Superintendent of Police, PeraiyurSuperintendent of Police, Thirumangalam6)Inspect, T.Kallupatti7)Sub-Inspector of Police, Villoor8)Zonal Dy.Tahsildar, Kallikudi2.All those who have left the village may return to lead a life of normalcy.3.A separate pathway leading to Adi-dravidar burial ground is to be formed.4.All the people of the village without discrimination on the basis of communitymay use all the streets in the village riding two wheelers.5.All the participants in the meeting expressed their concurrence not to observeuntouchability in any manner in future.As a result of the above measures taken by Government machinery life inthe village is normal as of now.I request that a draft counter affidavit in the nature of status reportmay kindly be prepared for filing on 19.05.2011 in Madurai Bench of Madras HighCourt.yours faithfully, Sd/-Theaffidavit is also extracted hereunder:"I am the 7th respondent herein and I am well acquainted with the facts ofthe cases.2.It is humbly submitted that on 01.05.2011 the sowed occurrence hadhappened at Villur village and eight criminal cases were registered in thatconnection viz., 1.Villur Police Station Cr.No.69/2011 u/s147,148, 332, 307 IPC 7.Villur Police Station Cr.No.70/2011 u/s 147,148,332,307IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and 8.Villur Police Station Cr.Out of eight cases, three cases in Cr.Nos.64.2011, 65.2011m, 66/2011have been charged and are pending trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,Thirumangalam in P.R.C.Nos.14.2011, 15.2011, 16.2011 respectively.Theremaining five cases are under investigation.3) It is humbly submitted that, during the course of investigationit was ascertained that one hundred and eighty two persons have been involved inthe offences registered in the above said cases.Out of them seventy oneaccused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.All the accused weregiven treatment at Government hospitals before they were remanded to judicialcustody.4) It is humbly submitted that, in order to bring normalcy peacecommittee meeting was held on 10.05.2011 in the presence of the District RevenueOfficer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty and Additional Superintendentof Police, Madurai District and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peraiyur Sub-Division.All efforts are still going on to restore normalcy at Villur Village.Magisterial enquiry is being conducted by Revenue Divisional Officer,Usilampatty.Police pickets are posted toprevent any untoward incident in the village.15.This Court also directed the Revenue Divisional Officer,Usilampatty, to file his report.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty,who conducted a magisterial enquiry on the firing incident that took place on01.05.2011 has filed his report dated 16.09.2011 and the same is extractedhereunder:"tpy;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; 01.05.2011e; Bjjp eilbgw;w fhty;Jiw Jg;ghf;fp R{Lrk;ge;jkhf crpyk;gl;o tUtha; Bfhl;lhl;rpahpd; tprhuiz mwpf;if (RUf;fk;) kJiu khtl;lk; jpUkA;fyk; tl;lk; tpy;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; 30.04.2011 md;W nut[Rkhh; 11.00 kzp mstpy; Mjpjpuhtplh; gs;sd; tFg;igr; Brh;e;j FU vd;gth; kfd;jA;fg;ghz;o vd;gth; fpHf;F bjUtpd; tHpahf Bkhl;lhh; irf;fps; thfdk; Kyk; fle;Jbrd;wij mfKilahh; rKfj;ijr; Brh;e;j uhkh; kfd; rjP&;Fkhh; kw;Wk; ehd;F egh;fs;tHpkwpj;J jfhj thh;j;ijfspy; jpl;oa[s;sdh;.njd;tpisthf ghjpf;fg;gl;ljpU.jA;fghz;oad;, tpy;Yhh; fhty;epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bra;Js;shh;.njidj;bjhlh;e;J mth; g[fhhpy; bjhptpj;Js;s 5 egh;fs; kPJk; tHf;Fg; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L01.05.2011 Mk; Bjjp ifJ bra;J hpkhz;l; bra;ag;gl;ldh;.njidj; bjhlh;e;J nUtFg;gpdUf;FkpilBa gfik czh;t[ nUe;Js;sJ. 01.05.2011 Mk; Bjjp nut[ 9.00kzpastpy; mfKilahh; ndj;jth;fs; Mj;jpukile;J tpy;Yhh; fhspak;kd; Bfhtpy; Kd;g[Mz;fSk; bgz;fSkhf Rkhh; 500 Bgh; Toa[s;sdh;. mfKilahh; ndj;jth;fs; fy;, fk;g[,fj;jp Mfpa Ma[jA;fSld; MBtrkhf jhH;j;jg;gl;l ndj;ijr; Brh;e;jth;fspd; tPl;ilmoj;J behWf;fp tpl;L mf;Tl;lk; tpy;Yhh; fhty;epiyaj;ij Behf;fpr; brd;Wfhty;epiyaj;ija[k; mA;fpUe;j mjpfhhpfisa[k; jhf;f Kw;gl;ldh;.fytuk;fl;Lf;flA;fhky; BghfBt mjpfhhpfis fhg;ghw;Wk; bghUl;Lk; ghJfhg;g[ eyd; fUjpa[k;jpUkA;fyk; tl;lhl;rpahpd; cj;jutpd; Bghpy; khtl;l fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsh; thdj;ijBehf;fpa[k;, Tl;lj;ij Behf;fpa[k; Jg;ghf;fp R{L elj;jpa[s;shh; Jg;ghf;fpgpuBahfk; bra;jt[ld; Tl;lk; ehyhg[[wKk; Xoa[s;sJ. Jg;ghf;fp R{l;oy; bghJkf;fs;nUtUf;F fhak; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ.Bkw;go Jg;ghf;fp R{L elj;jpaJ bjhlh;ghf.jw;bghGJ tpy;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; epiyik fl;Lf;Fs; cs;sJ. tpy;Yhh;fpuhkj;jpy; ghJfhg;g[ Vw;ghLfs; fhty;Jiwapduhy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Mjpjpuhtplh;kw;Wk; mfKilahh; ndj;jth;fspilBa vt;tpj gpur;rida[k; ny;yhky; RKf cwt[epyt[fpwJ."16.While so, the 5th respondent resolved the issue amicably and thepeace committee meetings were held on various occasions.In the peace committeemeeting held on 24.04.2012, it was resolved by both parties and moreparticularly, the dominant community agreed not to practice untouchability indifferent forms, that is in existence for Centuries in the village.17.The 6th respondent, Mr.ahiua[k; ve;jrKfj;jpdUk; fl;lhag;gLj;jy; TlhJ. ahh; Btz;LkhdhYk; mth;fsJ tpUg;gj;jpw;FVw;whw;Bghy; rhkp Fk;gpl;Lf;bfhs;syhk;.9) Mjpjpuhtplh; ndj;jth;fSf;bfd;W mth;fsJ fhydp gFjpapypUe;J fs;spf;Fo-o-fy;Yg;gl;o Buhl;ow;F tu cj;Bjrpf;fg;gl;L eilKiwgLj;jg;glBtz;oa nizg;g[ rhiyapd;gzpfis tpy;Yhh; fpuhk Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; Jhpjg;gLj;jp tpiuthfmikj;Jf;bfhLf;fg;glBtz;Lk;.10) g[jpjhf Mjpjpuhtplh;fSf;F muR xJf;fp cs;s kahd nlk; rk;ge;jkhf muRBkw;bfhs;Sk; eltof;iff;F nUjug;gpdh;fSk; fl;Lg;gl;L ele;Jbfhs;sBtz;Lk;.11) tpy;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s fz;kha; guhkhpg;g[ rk;ge;jkhf Vw;gLfpd;w bryt[fisfz;khia gad;gLj;Jfpd;wth;fs; midtUk; mr;bryit Vw;Wf;bfhs;sBtz;Lk;.12) tpy;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; Ch; fhhpaA;fs; bra;gth;fSf;F kl;LBk mth;fSf;Fhpakhpahij tHA;fg;glBtz;Lk;.13) Mjpjpuhtplh; ndj;jth;fSk; mikjp Bgr;R cld;gof;ifapd;goele;Jbfhs;sg;glBtz;Lk;.BkYk; rpW rpW gpur;idfis Tl kpifg;gLj;Jjy; TlhJ. BkYk;Mjpjpuhtplh; ndj;jth;fspy; xU rpyh; jA;fspd; Ra eyDf;fhf jA;fs; rKfj;jpdh;fisJhz;otpl;L Chpy; mikjp FiHt[ Vw;gLj;j Kaw;rpf;Fk; egh;fis me;jrKfj;ijr;rhh;e;jth;fis ndk; fz;L mth;fBs Kd;dpd;W fhty;Jiwapd; Kyk; eltof;ifBkw;bfhs;sg;glBtz;Lk;.14) ndptUA;fhyj;jpy; nUjug;gpdh;fSk; ne;j mikjp Tl;;lj;jpy; vl;lg;gl;lcld;gof;ifapd;go RKfkhf jPa vz;zA;fs; nd;wp mikjpa[ld; thH tHp tif Vw;gLj;Jk;tz;zKk;, Kd; gifik czh;t[fis Jsph;tplhky; nUf;Fk; tz;zKk;, fle;j 01.05.2011-e;Bjjpad;W tpy;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; eilbgw;w rl;lk; kw;Wk; xGA;F gpur;ridfspd;BghJVw;gl;l rk;gtA;fs; Fwpj;J gjpt[bra;ag;gl;Ls;s Fw;w tHf;Ffisa[k; mjw;F gpd;dh;gjpt[bra;ag;gl;Ls;s Fw;w tHf;Ffisa[k; kw;Wk; ePjpkd;wA;fspy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;sjdpg;gl;l tHf;Ffisa[k; nUjug;gpdh;fSk; fhty;Jiwapdh;fs; Kykhf KiwaPLfs; bra;JjA;fs; jug;g[ tHf;Ffs; kw;Wk; kDf;fisa[k; thg!; bgw;Wf;bfhs;sg;glBtz;Lk;.15) ndptUA;fhyj;jpy; tpy;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy; bghJ kf;fs; kj;jpapByh my;yJ nisqh;fs;kj;jpapByh my;yJ gpw rA;fjpfspdhByh Vw;gLk; rpW rpW gpur;ridfis Tl cz;zpg;ghfmwpe;J mjid nUjug;igr;Brh;e;j bghpath;fs; Kd;dpd;W fhty;Jiwapdh;fSf;F bjhptpj;Jrl;l hPjpahd eltof;iffspd;go mg;gpur;ridfSf;F jPh;t[ fz;Lbfhs;sg;glBtz;Lk;.I humbly submit that I am the 5 th respondent herein and file thestatus report regarding caste problem between Scheduled Caste and ThevarCommunity people in Villur village in Madurai district.It is brought to the kind notice of the Hon'ble High Court thatVillur is a village in Villur Police Station of T.Kallupatti Circle which isinhabited by Agamudiars and Dalits with the former being in majority.Fromtimes immemorial some forms of untouchability are existing in this village.Forexample, Dalits have to pull the vehicle if they want to cross Agamudiars'inhabited streets, they cannot drive their vehicles; double tumbler system isfollowed in tea shops; Dalits cannot sit on the benches in Agamudiars runeateries for eating etc.,On 30.04.2011 at around 11.15 PM, one Thangapandi (22/11) S/o Guru(SC/PL) was assaulted by the Caste Hindus (Agamudaiyars) when he tried to gothrough the latter's street, riding his two wheeler.The Caste Hindus alsoseized his two wheeler.After I left, a few Dalit houses were damaged by a big mob ofAgamudiar community people.A few Police officers and men and SP's StrikingForce stopped them from further attacking the Dalits which otherwise would haveresulted in a major communal riot.On hearing about this, again I returned to the village.While I wasapproaching the area with a few policemen, suddenly another crowd armed withweapons viz., aruval, swords and stones started attacking us.Because of beingoutnumbered, we retreated back to the Villur Police Station.Finally they surrounded the Police Station and attacked it.Becauseall other legal steps taken by us did not yield any result, in order to protectour lives and the police station, myself and my PSO fired a few ammunitionrounds after which the miscreants ranaway.The following FIRs were registeredfor the above mentioned incidents:No.64/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(1) (x) SC/ST (Damage ofDalit house)No.65/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Damage ofDalit house)Both the communities will take efforts to withdraw cases and petitionsfiled in the Court as per due procedure of law.Caste Hindus shall not oppose the participation of SCs in any festivalor public event.The village tank shall be maintained by the contribution from users ofboth the sides.SC community people shall also ensure that they shall not exaggerateany small personal or trivial issue as if it is a communal issue.They shallalso ensure that if any such anti-social element indulges in magnifying trivialissues and disturbs communal harmony, they shall themselves hand him over to thepolice.It is therefore humbly submitted that this Status Report may kindly beaccepted and pass any such order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in theinterest of Justice."22.In view of the submissions made by all the parties, the writpetition is disposed of recording the peace committee report and the statusreport filed by the 6th respondent.The peace committee report dated 24.04.2012and the status report dated 26.04.2012 of the 56th respondent shall form part ofthis order.The District Administration viz., 6th and 11th respondents, theSuperintendent of Police and the District Collector respectively are directed toidentify the victims belonging to the scheduled caste for providing compensationunder SC/ST Act, as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General and todisburse the compensation to the victims, if already not disbursed.23.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.4.The Inspector General of Police (In-charge) Commissioner, Madurai.5.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peraiyur Sub Division at Peraiyur, Madurai District.Anwarsha, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peraiyur Sub division at Peraiyur, Madurai District.8.The Inspector of Police, Circle at T.Kallupatti, Madurai District.9.The Sub Inspector of Police, Villur, Kallikudi (via) Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.10.The District Collector, Madurai.All administrative and police officers will be accountable anddepartmentally proceeded against if, despite having knowledge of any suchpractice in the area under their jurisdiction they do not launch criminalproceedings against the culprits."3.The Supreme Court found in the aforesaid case about the existenceof two tumbler system prevalent in many parts of Tamil Nadu.This case revealsthe shocking state of affairs i.e. the existence of different forms ofuntouchability, in a village viz. Villur, which is just 30 kms away fromMadurai.There are about 1500 families belonging to dominant community andabout 200 familis of Dalits live in the village.The 12th respondent in thiswrit petition, Tamilnadu Untouchability Eradication Front shortly (TUEF) studiedthe village and has enlisted the existence of the following forms ofuntouchability:(i) The habitats of the Scheduled Caste are secluded from the village andfar away from the main village.School, Post Office, Hospital, Veterinaryhospital, Bank, Police Station, Provisional Stores and Ration Shops etc. all arein the main village, where no scheduled caste people live.(ii) Even Barber and Dhobies are different for Scheduled caste and nonscheduled caste people, i.e. they shall not serve for the scheduled caste andthere are different sets of Barbers and Dhobies for scheduled caste people.(iii) The scheduled caste people cannot ride bicycles or two wheeler inthe streets and pathway, where dominant community reside and they should getdown from the bicycle/two wheeler and pull it on the street by walk.(iv) In tea shops in the village, Dalits shall sit on the jute mats, whilethe others sit on the benches.While tea is provided in silver or glasstumblers to others in the tea shops and the shop owner would take care ofcleaning those tumblers, Dalits are given tea in aluminium tumblers and theDalits shall clean those tumblers after taking tea.(v) The scheduled caste people shall not sit on the bus shelter in thevillage and they should sit on the mud road.(vi) In the case of death in the houses of dominant caste, Dalit peopleshall beat drums (giwaoj;jy;) and also shall inform the death to the village andthe surrounding villages.The scheduled caste people shall dig the pit forburying the dead body and also shall cremate the dead body of people belongingto dominant caste.(vii) While the youngsters of the dominant caste would call by name, eventhe elders of the Dalit community and the Dalits shall address the dominantcommunity people as 'Sir' (Iah).(viii) The scheduled caste people are prevented to worship in the templewhere the dominant caste worship.The later portion of this order reveals that the District Administration namely,the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police have filed reportsaccepting the aforesaid fact of the existence of the pernicious practice ofuntouchability in different forms even after 62 years of the coming into forceof the Constitution.4.The aforesaid factum of the existence of practice ofuntouchability in a village near Madurai shall be seen in the light of thecaution administered by Dr.Ambedkar in his inaugural speech on the inaugurationof the Constitution and the same is extracted hereunder:"On 26 January 1950, We are going to enter into a life of contradictionsin politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will haveinequality.In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man onevote and one value.No.64/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(1) (x) SC/ST (Damage ofDalit house)No.65/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Damage ofDalit house)No.66/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Damage ofDalit house)No.67/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Damage ofSP's official car)No.68/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Damage ofDSP's official vehicle)No.69/2011 u/s 147,148,332,307 IPC (Attack on picket)The writ petition also sought for medical treatment tothe persons, who were remanded after being beaten by the police in 3rd degreemethod.12.When the matter was listed for hearing on 11.05.2011, this Courtsuomotu impleaded the District Collector, Madurai as 11th respondent and adirection was issued to the District Collector, to ascertain the injuriessustained by the villagers in the clash and also to see that proper treatment isgiven to the injured persons.13.The District Collector filed a report dated 18.05.2011 to thisCourt.The report of the Collector throws light on the incident and hence, thesame is extracted in full.Ramar along with four othershave been arrested.As a result of this, there has been a hostile atmospherebetween the two communities and following cases have been registered in VilloorPolice Station of Thirumangalam Taluk.No.64/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 IPC r/w.3(1)(X) SC/STNo.65/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 IPC r/w.3(1)(X) SC/STNo.66/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 IPC r/w.3(1)(X) SC/STNo.67/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 IPC r/w.3(i) of TNPPDL ActNo.68/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 IPC r/w.3(i) of TNPPDL ActNo.69/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 IPCNo.70/2011 u/s.147, 148, 452, 307 r/w.3(i) of TNPPDL Acttreatment given during lathi 2011 charge4 AlexPandi injury Central still proper treat- ---- S/o.Pitchai sustained Prison undergoing ment given Villoor inright leg Madurai/02.05. treatment during lathi 2011 scharge5 Sekar injury in Central still proper treat- ----treatment sustained -2011 during lathi charge10 Sundarammal sustained Private Hospital after initial proper treat ------ W/o.private hospital, elbow of both 2011 now undergoing hands further treatment in Govt.PHC, Villoor.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti met the following individualsundergoing treatment as inpatients in Govt. Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on18.05.2011 in person.The Resident Medical Officer Incharge, ThiruPragatheeswaran, was also present with Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti.1)Thiru Babu, S/o.Periasamy (aged 34) Villoor:- He is undergoing treatment in Convict Ward No.111 for the injury(fracture) sustained in the left elbow during lathi-charge by police.He hassustained this injury on his way back from work as electrician.The bandage ofplaster of paris is yet to be undone.The treatment is going on in propermanner.2)Thiru Kalimuthu, S/o.Palanichamy (aged 17), Villoor: He is undergoing treatment in Ward No.218 of Govt. Rajaji Hospital,Madurai, having sustained bullet injury on the thigh of right leg.He is recovering fast.Proper treatment is being given.3)Thiru Palani, S/o.The forearm which was functionless is slowlyreturning to normalcy.Proper treatment is being given.All the above threeare now in police custody.9)Revenue Inspector, Kallikudi10)Village Administrative Officer, Villoor.In the Peace Committee Meeting people hailing from both communities agreedto the following settlement and put up their signature in proof of theirconcurrence.1.No further arrests other than those named as accused should be resorted to.Collector, Madurai.14.This Court monitored the case by listing the same periodicallyand various orders were passed directing the authorities to file reports.Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the 7th respondent filed anaffidavit dated 06.07.2011 about the stage of investigation of the cases.No.64/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPCand 3(1) (v) and 3(1)(x) SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, 2) Villur Police StationCr.Villur Police station Cr.No.66/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC and and3(1) (v) and 3(1)(x) SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, 4.Villur Police station Cr.No.67/2011u/s 147,148, 307 IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 5.Villur Police StationCr.Asra Karg, the Superintendent of Police,Madurai District has filed a status report dated 26.04.2012 and also requestedto accept the same and to pass an order accordingly.18.The learned Additional Advocate General representing therespondent State also submitted that the State took all efforts for peacefulresolution of the issue and due to its efforts, peace committee meetings wereheld and ultimately, resolutions were passed in the meeting held on 24.04.2012,wherein, both parties have signed in the presence of the police including the6th respondent and revenue officials.16) ndptUA;fhyj;jpy; nUjug;gpdh;fSk; gu!;gukhft[k; xw;Wika[lDk; nUe;J bray;gl;L,Chpy; epue;ju mikjpapid Vw;gLj;j KGikahd eltof;iffis Bkw;bfhs;sg;gl Btz;Lk;.BkYk; ve;j epiyapYk; kw;Wk; R{HypYk; jPz;lhik vd;w bfhoa muf;fid bghJ kf;fs;kj;jpapy; vHtplhky; jLg;gJld; nUjug;gpdh;fSk; Kd;dpd;W ne;j jPz;lhik Fw;wA;fs;epfHhky; nUf;f nize;J BghuhlBtz;Lk;.nUjug;gpdh;fSk; rkj;jtkhft[k;,rBfhjujd;ikapYk;, xw;Wika[lDk; nize;J bray;gl;L tpy;Yhh; fpuhkk; epue;jukhfmikjp epyt[k; fpuhkk; vd;gjpid mg;gFjpapy; Kd;dpUj;jp fhl;lg;gl Btz;Lk;."21.The status report of the 6th respondent referred to earlier inpara 17 of this order is also extracted hereunder:I, Asra Garg, IPS, S/o Prof. Amarjit Garg, aged about 31 years,Hindu, Superintendent of Police, Madurai District do hereby solemnly affirm andsincerely state as follows:Based on the complaint of Thangapandi, a case wasregistered in Villur PS Cr.Since the matter seemed to be a serious one involving untouchability, Ivisited the village in the afternoon on 1.5.2011 in order to assess the actualsituation.No.66/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Damage ofDalit house)No.67/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Damage ofSP's official car)No.68/2011 u/s 147,148,452,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Damage ofDSP's official vehicle)No.69/2011 u/s 147,148,332,307 IPC (Attack on picket)No.70/2011 u/s 147,148,332,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Attack onPolice Station)No.71/2011 u/s 147,148,332,307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act (Firingcase)Recently, in order to make a fresh attempt to bring about peacebetween both the warring groups, leaders from both the communities were engagedand involved in peace process.Both the sides were advised to iron out theirdifferences to make lasting peace.Final round of discussion was held on24.04.2012 in District Police Office, Madurai and the following decisions weretaken by both the communities as detailed below:Both the sides shall iron out the indifferences and to live peacefullyhereafter.That there should not be any form of untouchability in the village.That Caste Hindus shall not oppose the movement of SC community people inthe Caste Hindus' streets either by walk or by vehicles.That the Caste Hindus shall not discriminate against the SC communitypeople in eateries, tea shops etc.That nobody in the village from the SC community should be forced tomenial job.At the same time the SC community people also should not stop anyperson willingly assisting the Caste Hindus.That the Caste Hindus shall not, by forming any sort of committee,punish or impose fine on anybody else.Connecting road from the SC colony to the main village shall beconstructed. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,033,624 | Report dated 22-03-2018 is attached and perused.Compromise has been reached between the parties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs.No.1/State. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,950,346 | When the bus wasproceeding near Valamarakottai Kattur at about 7.30 a.m, the bus dashed againsta tree and thereby four persons were killed and 28 persons were injured.Therelatives of P.Ws.11,14, 20 and 31 were died.After the occurrence, bothconductor and driver ran away from the scene of occurrence.A complaint wasgiven to P.W.35, Lourdhusamy, who was the Head Constable in Tanjavur TalukPolice Station.He received a message from Tanjavur Medical College andproceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of Ramasamy and registereda case in Cr.No.733 of 1995 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) I.P.C. Heprepared Ex.P.36, the printed First Information Report, and sent the same to theInspector of Police attached the the Tanjavur Police Station.Further, heproceeded to the scene of occurrence, at about 13.30 hours, he prepared Ex.P.37,the Inquest report of deceased Pandian.Then P.W.36, the Inspector of Policetook up the investigation of the case, he proceeded to the scene of occurrenceat about 9.45 a.m and prepared Ex.38 the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.39, theRough Sketch in the presence of P.W.7, Sivakumar and P.W.8, Achulingam.He found that Ravichandran, Pandian,Madhavan died in the scene of occurence.Thereafter, he recorded the statementsof Dravidamani, Karunanidhi, Mahalingam, Sivakumar, Achulingam, Ramasamy andThangavel and conducted inquest over the bodies of Racichandran, Madhavan,Malarkodi and prepared Exs.40,42 and 43, the inquest reports respectively.Hesent the bodies to Tanjavur Medical College Hospital for Post-mortem.P.W.35,Ravisankar, the doctor attached to the said hospital conducted Post-mortem andhas given Exs.P.33 to 35, the Post-mortem Certificates, wherein he has opinedthat "all the deceased would appear to have died of Shock and haemorrhage due tomultiple Injuries".The he recorded the statement of P.W.32, Balakrishnan, thedoctor examined the witnesses those who were injured and received Exs.4 to 31,the Wound Certificates of injured.The Judicial Magistrare No.2, Tanjavur.The investigating officer Sent the vehicle toP.W.37, Rodrieso, the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection and receivedEx.P.41, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and also Rx.P.44, the trip sheetfrom the conductor.After completion of investigation, he filed a Charge sheetagainst the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A)Before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 37were examined, Ex.P.1 to 44 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked.On consideration of all the evidence available on record, the learnedJudicial Magistrate found the accused guilty for an offence punishable underSections 279, 337(20 counts), 338 (8 counts) and 304(A)(4 counts) I.P.C., andsentenced him to undergo 3 months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence underSection 279 I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo 3 months each Rigorousimprisonment for the offence under Section 337(20 counts) I.P.C. and sentencedhim to undergo 5 months each Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section338(8 counts) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year each Rigorousimprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section 304(A)I.P.C and further order to the sentences may run concurrently.Aggrieved overthe said judgment of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was preferred before theAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in C.A.No.84 of 2004, wherethe learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal.Challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court, this Revision has been filed bythe Revision Petitioner.The point for determination is:-(ii) In this case, the bus bearing Registration No.TCQ 9079 was driven bythe accused On the fateful day, i.e., 17.09.1995 at 7.30 a.m., the bus was metwith an accident.Because of that accident, four persons were killed and 28persons were injured.So the accused was found guilty by the Trial Judge underSections 279, 337(20 counts), 338(8 counts) and 304(A)(4 counts) I.P.C. P.W.2was the conductor of the bus.After the accident, he and the driver ran awayfrom the scene of occurrence.The bus dashed against a tree and the bus wasdamaged.P.W. 1,3,4,9,10,11,13,15,16,17, 22,23,25,28 and 29 were the passengersof the bus.Their evidence would show that the bus was came in a rash andnegligent manner and the accused tried to change the Audio cassette when the buswas proceeding in a high speed .So it would show the rash and negligent drivingof the driver.When the bus was inspected by P.W.37, the Motor VehicleInspector, his evidence would go to show that the bus was completely damaged inthe front portion.These all would go to show that the bus was driven in a rashand negligent manner by the accused.The relatives of P.Ws.11,14,20 and 31 werekilled in that accident.Further both the conductor and driver disappeared fromthe scene of occurence.So it is clear that thebus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, the appellantdespatched four lives from the earth to the heaven.On careful consideration of evidence, I find that the witnesses wereinjured and four persons were killed in that accident.If he is committed in prison for a long time, it will affect his future andfamily also.He is repenting for the sin committed by him.To meet the ends ofjustice, taking into consideration of the nature of accident and the age of theaccused it would be just and proper to award six months each Rigorousimprisonment for the offence under Section 304 (A)(4 counts) IPC.The sentencemay be run concurrently and the sentence already undergone by him shall be givenset off.With the above modification, the criminal Revision is disposed of.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.The Inspector of Police, Tanjavur Taluk Police Station Thanjavur.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,037,773 | Appellant/accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui has admitted that that much amount was deposited in her bank account but she has claimed that it was her own money.Through : Shri Lovekesh Sawhney, APP for the State CORAM:This order will dispose of appellant's request to release/de-freeze her saving Bank Account No.5817 with the State Bank of India, Gazipur Branch.Briefly the facts are that the applicant was along with other co-accused including her husband, charged with committing various offences including Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code besides other offences under the Arms Act etc. The Trial Court had convicted the applicant.In short the charge against the applicant was culpability and also conspiracy, was in regard to allegation CS(O S) 2411/2010, I.A. N os.160 05/20 10 & 16006 /2010 Crl.M.A.12733/2007 in Crl.A. No. 892/2005 Page 1 of her permitting the bank account in question to be used by other co-accused.She has also admitted that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had come forward to marry her in response to the matrimonial advertisement given by her in newspaper and also that before their marriage during the courtship period also Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been talking to her on phone.She had examined her mother Qamar Farooqui as a defence witness and she had deposed that Mohd. Arif had expressed his desire to marry Rehmana after reading the matrimonial advertisement in the newspaper and that she had agreed for the marriage between the two since he had not raised any demands.She had further deposed that she had saved some money for the marriage of her daughter and her relatives had also contributed for her marriage and that money was put in bank by Rehmana in instalments.The prosecution is alleging that the amount of Rs. 2.80 lacs was deposited in Rehmana's account in four instalments.In cross-examination by the public prosecutor DW-1 denied the suggestion that Mohd. Arif had told her that he was involved in terrorist activities and wanted to set up a base in Delhi.She was asked if Mohd. Arif had paid any money to her or her daughter before the Nikah to which she replied that he had not paid any money to them before the marriage.She, however, admitted the suggestion that in the account of Rehmana with State Bank of India money was deposited in four instalments.The case of the prosecution is that the money so deposited on those four occasions was deposited by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq before his marriage with Rehmana.However, no suggestion was put to DW-1 that that money was paid to her daughter by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and also that it was paid as an incentive to her to marry him so that he could have shelter in their house after getting married to Rehmana.Therefore, it cannot be accepted that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had given lacs of rupees to Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui and she had accepted the same knowing that he was a terrorist.In fact, a suggestion was put to DW- 1 that her daughter and son had enquired about Mohd. Arif and they had come to know that he was a good boy.DW-1 accepted that suggestion to be correct.This suggestion put to DW-1 by the public prosecutor falsifies its case that Rehmana had got married to Mohd.Arif @ Ashfaq knowing that he was a terrorist.And just because one ration card Ex. PW-164/A and one driving licence in the name of Mohd. Arif @ CS(O S) 2411/2010, I.A. N os.160 05/20 10 & 16006 /2010 Crl.M.A.12733/2007 in Crl.A. No. 892/2005 Page 2 Ashfaq had been recovered from the flat where Mohd. Arif and Rehmana were living after their marriage it cannot be said that she was aware that her husband had got a forged ration card or that he had obtained driving licence giving an incorrect residential address and in any event the recovery of forged ration card and the driving licence having the residential address where Mohd. Arif never stayed is not sufficient to draw an inference that Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui really knew as to what her husband was upto and what were his designs and intention behind marrying her.In that case also two of the accused were husband and wife.After the attack on the Parliament house there was a telephonic conversation between the husband and wife and that call had been intercepted by the police.On the basis of that conversation which was taped the Hon'ble Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that from that conversation it appeared that the accused wife was scared and also that an inference could be drawn that her husband and another co-accused had done something wrong which had attracted police surveillance but from that circumstance alone no inference could be drawn that the wife was having knowledge of the plan of her husband to attack the Parliament before the incident.The accused wife had been convicted under Section 123, IPC by the trial Court for not informing the police about the plan of her husband and its associates to attack the Parliament despite having knowledge about that plan.However, in appeal filed by her a Division Bench of this Court had set aside her conviction and acquitted her of the charge under Section 123, IPC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed her acquittal when the State filed an appeal there.In the present case, there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution from which it could be concluded that she was a party to any conspiracy to launch an attack inside the Lal Quila or that she had even some idea about the intentions of her husband to commit that kind of a crime. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,050,935 | None for the remaining respondents.Heard on the question of admission.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred invoking inherent powers of this Court seeking following relief:"By allowing this petition, order dated 03.10.2013 passed by JMFC Guna in an unregistered private complaint and order dated 29.11.2013 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.172/13 be set aside."In that private complaint, on 20.12.2012 one application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.After recording the evidence of complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. private complaint was sent to police for enquiry.On 14.08.2013 enquiry report was submitted by the police officer.Patient Zakir Ali was brought to the hospital by the petitioner voluntarily.They were not invited by the respondents.It was found by the enquiry officer that just to pressurize the respondents false complaint was made.Previously also, complaints were made.Second private complaint was filed on 20.12.2012 by Nisar Hussain.On 04.10.2012, one complaint was also filed by Zakir Ali before the Superintendent of Police and ultimately private complaint was preferred.No evidence was produced by the complainant.Only, he has deposed his statement.During enquiry, CD was also seized by the enquiry officer.In CCTV footage, no evidence was found against the respondents.No medical evidence was produced to show that petitioner was beaten by the respondents and ultimately it was observed by the court that petitioner failed to produce the evidence for taking cognizance.Mcrc.58.2014 Nishar Hussain Vs. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,739,424 | All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 326/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 1 of 27 imprisonment of six months.Further rigorous imprisonment for one year was awarded to each of the accused persons under Section 324/34 IPC.The substantive sentences were to run concurrently.Injured Aas Mohd. was declared fit for statement.As such, he recorded statement Ex. PW3/A wherein he disclosed that he is resident of A-80, Devli Extn., New Delhi and is a carpenter by profession.On 10th July, 2000, his friend Trilok had a quarrel with Chini and Babloo in respect of some money transaction.On 11th July, Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 2 of 27 2000 at about 11:00 a.m. Vinod @ Chini, Babloo @ Vicky, Naresh @ Koki and Irshad met him at Subham Vatika where he and his friend Sunil S/o Ram Prakash were standing.All the four persons caught hold of him and Sunil.Vinod @ Chini and Babloo caught hold of him and Naresh @ Koki and Irshad caught hold of Sunil.He tried to save himself from the said persons but Vinod @ Chini took out a knife and gave a knife blow which landed on his right hand.He shouted Bachao-Bachao and on this, Babloo @ Vicky exhorted "Aaj tum dono ko jaan se hi khatam kar denge." Thereafter, Vinod @ Chini again inflicted knife injury on his stomach.In the meanwhile, he freed himself from both of them and started running.Thereafter all the four persons caught hold of deceased Sunil.Irshad caught hold of Sunil from his back and Naresh @ Koki who was also having a knife inflicted number of knife injuries on Sunil on his chest and stomach.Irshad exhorted "Isko khatam kar ke hi chodna".In the meanwhile, people gathered there and started pelting stones on those persons.Then they ran away.All the four persons, namely, Vinod @ Chini, Babloo @ Vicky, Irshad and Naresh @ Koki inflicted injuries on him and Sunil with intention to kill them.A. 201/2003 Page 3 of 27PW15/C on the statement of Aas Mohd. and sent Constable Yad Ram to police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW12/C was registered by ASI Sarita (PW12).At the instance of PW4 Trilok Singh, site plan Ex. PW15/D was prepared.SI Girish Kumar inspected the place of incident where some blood was lying on the ground.He lifted the blood stained earth and earth control.The same was kept in plastic panni and was sealed with the seal of GKS and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter, he along with Constable Yad Ram and Trilok reached A- 10, Devli Extn.New Delhi where Naresh @ Koki was present.He was interrogated.He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW4/E. He was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW4/D. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, accused Naresh pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo Ex.He also got recovered a knife from near the place of incident.Sketch of the knife Ex.PW4/F was prepared which was seized vide seizure memo Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 4 of 27 Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, accused Babloo @ Vicky, Vinod Kumar @ Chini and Irshad Khan were arrested.Vide DD 15A, Ex.PW14/A, an information was received that the injured Sunil has expired in the hospital.On 12th July, 2000, dead body of Sunil was identified by PW7 Jagdish and PW8 Surinder Kumar.Post-mortem on the dead body of Sunil was conducted by Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani.Scaled site plan Ex.Material witnesses to unfold the case of prosecution are PW3 Aas Mohd., the complainant, PW4 Trilok Singh, PW6 Anil Kumar and PW9 Ajay Kumar.PW3 Aas Mohd. unfolded that all the four accused persons were known to him from before.On 11th July, 2000 at about 11.00 a.m. he was present at Tea Shop near his house at Devli Extn.and deceased Sunil was also sitting with him.All the four accused persons along with one Subhash came towards them and caught hold of him and Sunil.They took out knife and inflicted injuries on his person and then inflicted injuries with knife on the person of Sunil.He further deposed that accused Vinod @ Chini and Babloo @ Vicky gave knife blows on his person and when he fell down, they gave knife blows on the person of Sunil whereas two other accused persons, namely, Irshad and Naresh with Subhash caught hold of Sunil.Accused Vinod @ Chini gave knife blow on the stomach of Sunil whereas accused Babloo gave knife blow on his chest.Sunil started bleeding from injuries and thereafter he lost conscious and regained consciousness in the hospital.His statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the police.He further stated that statement of Sunil was Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 8 of 27 also recorded by police in which he named five persons to be the assailants and he was on a separate bed lying in the same room of the hospital.He further deposed that accused Vinod @ Chini was holding a knife and he gave several knife blows to Sunil.He also denied that accused Irshad ever exhorted "Isko Khatm Karke Chhodna".He also denied that he along with Subhash took Sunil in a scooter to AIIMS or that statement of Sunil could not be recorded as he expired.He admitted that cause of quarrel was money dispute between Trilok and Sunil but later on accused Vinod @ Chini, Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 9 of 27 Babloo @ Vickey and Naresh @ Koki intervened.A. 201/2003 Page 9 of 27PW4 Trilok Singh deposed that he was to take money from Sonu as Sonu had taken atta (flour) from his shop (chakki) on credit.On 10th July, 2000, he demanded money from Sonu but he brought accused Babloo @ Vicky, Vinod @ Chini and Naresh @ Koki to threaten that he should not demand money from Sonu.On 10th July, 2000, in the evening he and Sunil again met four accused persons and quarrel had taken place amongst them.Accused gave beatings to him and deceased Sunil took his side on which accused persons threatened him and Sunil to see them next day.On the next day, i.e., 11th July, 2000, he got an information about a quarrel going on between the accused persons and the complainant.Thereupon, he rushed to the place of incident where he saw all the accused persons holding knives in their hands and saw accused Vinod @ Chini giving a knife blow on the chest of Sunil while accused Babloo @ Vicky, Naresh @ Koki and Irshaad were holding Sunil and as he tried to save Sunil, accused Babloo @ Vicky exhorted "Tu bhi aa ja".People gathered there on hearing his alarm and accused persons ran away.He brought an auto Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 10 of 27 rickshaw and took Sunil to hospital along with Aas Mohd. In his presence, a knife, by which accused Vinod @ Chini inflicted injuries on the person of Sunil, was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. Since this witness also did not support the case of prosecution in entirety, he was also cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and then he admitted that all the accused persons caught hold of Sunil and accused Naresh @ Koki gave several knife blows to Sunil.Aas Mohd. in his deposition before the Court stated that accused Irshad, Naresh @ Koki with Subhash caught hold of deceased Sunil while accused Vinod @ Chini and Babloo @ Vicky gave knife blows on his stomach and chest.He also stated in his cross-examination that accused Vinod @ Chini gave knife blows on his stomach.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 22nd February, 2003 and order on sentence dated 7th March, 2003 arising out of Sessions Case No.133/2000 in case FIR No. 268/2000, PS Sangam Vihar under Sections 302/307/34 IPC vide which the appellant along with co-accused was held guilty of offence under Section 324/34 IPC and 326/34 IPC.Out of the fine, if so deposited, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was directed to be paid to legal heirs of the deceased Sunil Kumar as compensation.A. 201/2003 Page 1 of 27On 11th July, 2000, on receipt of DD No. 17B Ex. PW 12/B SI Girish Kumar Singh PW15 along with Constable Yad Ram reached near Shubham Vatika, Devli Extn., where he came to know that a quarrel had taken place and injured had already gone to hospital.Thereafter, he along with Constable Yad Ram reached All India Institute of Medical Sciences where injured Sunil S/o Ramprakash and Aas Mohd. were admitted.SI Girish moved an application Ex. PW15/A on which injured Sunil was declared unfit for statement.A. 201/2003 Page 2 of 27A. 201/2003 Page 3 of 27On the basis of this complaint, FIR No. 268/2000 under Section 307/34 IPC was registered at PS Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and investigation started.SI Girish Kumar Singh made endorsement Ex.PW10/A was prepared.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused.A. 201/2003 Page 4 of 274. Charge under Section 307/302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses.Thereafter statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of prosecution and alleged false implication in the case.Vide order dated 22nd February, 2003, all the accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.Only accused Naresh @ Koki has challenged his conviction by filing the present appeal.It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of the witnesses are not reliable inasmuch as they have been Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 5 of 27 changing their statements time and again.The role assigned to the accused persons in the initial statement which led to registration of case FIR has been changed during their deposition in the Court.Moreover, complainant himself is a convict in a case under Section 307 IPC and is now languishing in jail.Furthermore, motive to commit the crime is not established.Moreover, exhortation made by the accused persons as alleged in the complaint Ex.PW3/A has been denied by all the prosecution witnesses.Even the place of incident is not established.Recovery of knife from accused Naresh @ Koki is doubtful.Even otherwise PW2 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sunil Kumar, could not deny in his cross-examination that the knife allegedly recovered at the instance of Naresh @ Koki may not have been used in the commission of crime.Furthermore, it has come in the statement of the witnesses that deceased Sunil made a statement to the Investigating Officer, however, that statement has not been brought on record by the prosecution which cast doubt on the prosecution story.Furthermore, the public witnesses have introduced one Subhash with four accused persons but he was not made an accused.As such, prosecution has failed to prove its case.Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 6 of 27 did not convict any of the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC, but convicted them for offence u/s 326 IPC, however, even offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out against the accused.As such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.In case, the conviction is upheld, then the appellant has already undergone half of the sentence, he has a family to support, as such, he be released on the period already undergone.A. 201/2003 Page 5 of 27The Court has already taken a lenient view by convicting them under Section 326 IPC.The motive is also proved from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.Supporting the judgment, it was submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which calls for interference.As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.A. 201/2003 Page 7 of 27He admitted that when he tried to rescue himself from accused Vinod @ Chini and Babloo @ Vicky, at that time, Vinod took out a knife and gave knife blow on his right hand as he tried to save himself.Sunil was bleeding profusely.He, however, denied the arrest of the accused persons or recovery of knife in his presence.A. 201/2003 Page 10 of 27PW6 Anil Kumar deposed that on 11th July, 2000 at about 10:30/11:00 a.m., he reached near Shubham Vatika where accused Irshad and Naresh @ Koki were holding Sunil Kumar and accused Vinod @ Chini and Babloo gave knife blows to Aas Mohd. Thereafter Aas Mohd. managed to escape and then accused Vinod @ Chini and Babloo gave knife blows on the person of Sunil.Aas Mohd. ran away.Sunil fell down due to injuries received at the hands of Vinod @ Chini and Babloo @ Vicky.Public gathered there and pelted stones on accused persons, as a result of which, they started running.He hired a three wheeler scooter and took Aas Mohd. and Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 11 of 27 Sunil to AIIMS hospital and got them admitted there.This witness also did not support the case of prosecution, as such, he was declared hostile.In cross-examination, he admitted that accused Vinod @ Chini was holding a knife in his hand and he inflicted injuries on the person of Aas Mohd but denied the suggestion that accused Babloo ever exhorted "Isko Khatam Kar De".He also denied that accused Irshad, Babloo and Vinod @ Chini caught hold of Sunil and accused Irshad exhorted "Koki Isko Khatam Kar Ke Hi Chhodna".He denied giving knife blows by accused Naresh @ Koki to Sunil.A. 201/2003 Page 11 of 27PW9 Ajay Kumar identified all the accused persons but did not support the case of prosecution by deposing that he had not seen anyone stabbing the injured with his own eyes.He went on stating that when he reached the place of incident he saw a crowd gathered there and he came to know that injured was stabbed by someone.Thereafter Anil, one Shakti and Trilok took Sunil/injured to hospital and he also accompanied them.The prosecution case, from the initial statement made by Aas Mohd., which became the bed rock of investigation, reveals that according to him accused Vinod @ Chini gave a knife blow to him Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 12 of 27 while accused Babloo @ Vicky hold him from the back.Accused Naresh @ Koki gave deadly blows by knife to Sunil while accused Irshad caught hold of Sunil from his back.The roles qua accused Babloo @ Vicky and Irshad are of exhorting.However, as seen above, a twist came in the prosecution story when the witnesses came to depose before the Court.According to PW4 Trilok Singh, all the four accused were present with knife while Babloo @ Vicky, Naresh @ Koki and Irshad were holding the deceased Sunil, accused Vinod @ Chini gave knife blows to deceased Sunil.According to PW6 Anil Kumar, accused Vinod @ Chini and Babloo @ Vicky gave knife blows to Sunil and Aas Mohd. Thus, there is change in roles of accused persons.A. 201/2003 Page 12 of 27In such a fact situation, some contradiction as to who assaulted whom cannot be made a ground to reject their evidence which otherwise is reliable.A. 201/2003 Page 17 of 27 post-mortem report Ex.PW2/A. The post-mortem report Ex.As per the post-mortem report, following material injuries were found on the person of deceased Sunil:-A. 201/2003 Page 17 of 27Injury No.1 is stitched wound 21 cm over chest wall left side laterally going obliquely upward and backward.On dissection underlying mascular haematoma on chest wall with fracture of 5.6 ribs seen.Injury No.2 is stab wound present over it, upper chest laterally of six 1.5 cm x 1 cm situated 9.5 cm above and lateral to it, nipple, 12 cm from shoulder tip & 14.5 cm lateral and left to midline with underline mascular downward piercing second left interpostal space in mid clabucular line penetrating pleura as well.Injury No.7 shows left lung collapsed showing repair at both upper and lower labs at four sides, two at upper and two at lower ribs.Both upper repaired wound were communicated to each other and both lower repaired wound were communicated to each other.Right wt.380 grams and left wt.150 gm."He opined that injury No. 1, 2 & 7 as mentioned in post-mortem report Ex.PW2/A are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.He further deposed that injuries on the persons of deceased were possible with dagger/chhuri Ex.Under the Crl. A. 201/2003 Page 18 of 27 circumstances, ocular testimony of the witnesses finds due corroboration from the medical evidence.A. 201/2003 Page 18 of 27As regards the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that recovery of knife from accused Naresh @ Koki is doubtful, same is devoid of merit inasmuch as although PW4 Trilok Singh who was one of the witnesses in whose presence recovery was effected has not supported the case of prosecution but then there is testimony of PW13 Constable Yad Ram and PW15 Girish Kumar Singh in whose presence the recovery was effected.Record reveals that both the police officials were Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 19 of 27 subjected to searching cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony, as such, recovery of knife at the instance of appellant Naresh @ Koki stands proved.A. 201/2003 Page 19 of 27Furthermore, PW2 Dr. Sunil Lalwani has also deposed that knife/dagger Ex.PW4/1 may be responsible for injuries caused to deceased Sunil.Learned counsel for the appellant, however, referred to his cross-examination where the witness could not deny that injuries on the person of Sunil may not have been caused by this knife.Thus there is variance in the testimony of doctor inasmuch as in examination-in-chief, he deposed that injuries were possible by this knife whereas in cross examination could not rule out the possibility that injuries may not be caused by this knife.This, however, is not sufficient to discard the ocular testimony of witnesses all of whom have deposed that injuries on the person of Aas Mohd and Sunil were caused by knife.It is settled law that where the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses account which had to be tested independently.Where the eye witnesses account is found credible Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 20 of 27 and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive.A. 201/2003 Page 20 of 27Moreover, during the course of investigation, the knife was sent to FSL from where report Ex.PW15/G was received which reflects that blood of A Group was found on dagger which matched with the blood group or blood stained gauge of deceased Sunil.This is another clinching piece of evidence against the accused.As regards the submission that the deceased Sunil had made a statement to the Investigating Officer but same has been Crl.PW15/A for recording the statement of Sunil but he was declared unfit for statement.In cross-examination, no question was put to the witness that Sunil had made a statement which had been withheld.In Chittarmal Vs.State of Rajasthan, 2003 (1) AD SC 239, it was held that if injured witness(s) is/are found to be reliable in respect of involvement of accused then improvement of versions viz. roping of more persons would not make whole statement unreliable.A. 201/2003 Page 23 of 27All the other witnesses have deposed that the place of occurrence was near Shubham Vatika.The Investigating Officer had also visited the place of incident which was an open plot near Shubham Vatika and seized blood stained earth and earth control sample vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. Site plan Ex.PW15/D also reflects that the place of incident was near Shubham Vatika.Under the circumstances, the discrepancy is of a minor nature which does not cast any dent on the prosecution case.As revealed by PW-4 Trilok Singh, he had to take money from Sonu as he had taken atta from his shop on credit.On 10th July, 2000, he demanded money from Sonu, instead of paying the same, he brought accused Babloo @ Vicky, Vinod @ Chini and Naresh @ Koki to threaten that he should not demand money.Thereafter, on the same day, in the evening, a Crl. A. 201/2003 Page 24 of 27 quarrel took place between him and accused persons and Sunil was also present at that time.Accused gave beatings to Trilok Singh and at that time, Sunil took his side on which the accused persons threatened Sunil and Trilok Singh to see them next day.A. 201/2003 Page 24 of 27As regards the quantum of sentence, leniency in sentence was prayed on the ground that the appellant has suffered half of the sentence and he has a family to support.A. 201/2003 Page 26 of 27 imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years only and fine under Section 326 IPC and for one year under Section 324 IPC.SUNITA GUPTA (JUDGE) July 22, 2013 rs Crl.A. 201/2003 Page 27 of 27A. 201/2003 Page 27 of 27 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,959,366 | JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J.(2) Brief facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are as under : that one Charan Singh (Public Witness 3) resident of village Nanak Hen was sleeping in his house on July 22, 1989 at about 9.001 9.30 p.m. His brother known as Mir Singh (Public Witness 5) approached him and apprised him of the firing at his house by the appellant and in regard to the death of a girl known as Anjani.. On receipt of the said information he immediately rushed to the police station and informed the police.His statement was recorded vide D.D. No. 16A (vide Ex. Public Witness 2/A) by Public Witness 2 Mukhtiar Singh.(3) Smt. Ved Wati (Public Witness 7) stated in her statement (Ex. Public Witness 7/A) that she was a resident of H. No. KG-364, Lig Flats, Vikas Puri.She has been residing at the above said address alongwith her husband and children since the time of her marriage.She was married to one Mauji Ram (Public Witness 12) by her father and the brother, appellant herein.Her husband is a physically handicapped person.As such, her father and brother took away from him Rs. 24,0001- for giving her in marriage to him.The appellant had assured that he would return the said money later on.However, the same amount has so far not been returned.She approached her brother (appellant) many a times for the return of the said amount as she was financially weak.However, the appellant put her off on one pretext or the other.(4) On July 22, 1989 she alongwith her daughter Anjani, aged about 13 years, and son Devi Singh who is 5 years of age, arrived at village Nanak Heri by bus as she also wanted to purchase ghee from the village.After having got down from the bus she first of all went to the house of her brother Suraj Bhan who was not available.She thereafter visited one or two places to fetch ghee, but the same was not available.Subsequently, she alongwith her children arrived at the' house of the appellant in order to demand money from him,.She found the appellant sitting on a cot in the courtyard of his house alongwith his wife and children.She also sat alongwith her children on a cot lying nearby.After a short-while thereafter she asked for the money.The appellant felt offended on her demand and tried to put off the matter.She there upon told her brother that he had very recently sold some land and as such he was now in a position to return the money, On , hearing me same the appellant got into his tantrum and abused her.He took out a rifle from the room and told her that he would return the money today.He further said that he would liquidate her family.Un having said so he bred a shot with the rifle at her.She immediately pounced upon the rifle as a result where of the bullet went upward and she escaped unhurt.While the said scuffle was going on M/r Singh also readied there and shouted as to what the appellant was doing? She lost control of the rifle.The appellant immediately tired another shot which hit her daughter i.e., Anjani deceased, below the neck.The deceased bled prolusely.Sue collapsed on the cot itself.She and the above named Mir Singh tried to apprehend the appellant but could net.He freed himself from them and fled away from the spot alongwith the rifle.She raised an alarm which attracted quite a good number of persons who reached the spot on hearing the alarm.(5) Inspector M. S. Yadav' prepared the inquest report (vide Ex. Public Witness 1610).She had deposed to the fact that she went to the house of her brother i.e. the appellant to have her share ie.Rs. 24,000 as her brother had sold some landed property.The remaining amount of Rs. 24,000 was agreed upon to be paid by her father to her as she was married to an invalid person.Then there is the statement of her husband i.e. Public Witness 12 Mauji Ram on this point.According to him, neither the appellant nor his father-in-law took away anything from him by way of consideration for giving the hand of Ved Wati (Public Witness 7) in marriage to him.He further goes on to state that his wife i.e. Public Witness 7 Ved Wati before her departure to the house of her father informed him that as her father sold and disposed of some landed property, she was going to her parents on the said score.This is all the mere.The said Dd entry was marked to Sho M. S. Yadav (Public Witness 18) for purpose of enquiry.Inspector Yadav alongwith Si Gita Ram (PW 17) and other police officers rushed to the place of occurrence.He met over there the mother of the deceased known as Smt. Ved Wati (Public Witness 7).He recorded her statement vide Ex. Public Witness 7{A and sent the same alongwith his endorsement (Ex. Public Witness 18 (A) through Constable Kuldip Kumar (Public Witness 14) for registration of a formal F.I.R. whereupon formal F.I.R. was recorded by Hc Mukhtiar Singh (Public Witness 2) vide Ex. Public Witness 2/B.The dead body was sent for post-mortem to the mortuary through Constables Suresh Kumar and Kuldip Kumar (PW Hand Public Witness 14 respectively).He moved an application for conducting the post-mortem on the dead body.Dr. L. T. Ramani (PW 16) conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Ms. Anjani.The blood was also lifted from the spot with the help of cotton and taken into police custody vide Ex. Public Witness 7 ID.Pieces of cartridge were seized from the spot.The place of occurrence was got photographed.Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded.Different articles, which were collected from the spot and con.verted into sealed packets were sent to the Cfsl for the Chemical analysis.The report of the Cfsl is Ex. Public Witness 18/F. The appellant was apprehended by Si Gita Ram (Public Witness 17) with the help of Constable Suraj Bhan (PW 13) and Hc Rattan Singh (Public Witness 10) from a canal on the basis of a secret information.After completion of investigation the appellant was challenged by the police.(6) The learned Magistrate committed the appellant to the Court of Session to stand his trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session., (7) The learned Sessions Judge after the: appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He thus convicted him accordingly under the said Sections.The appellant was .sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He was further sentenced to undergo Ri for five years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.being suggested to him that his wife went to recover from the appellant and her father the sum of Rs" 24,000 which was given to them by him as a consideration for marriage of Public Witness 7 Ved Wati to him, he denied the same.(17) It is thus abundantly clear from the evidence canvassed above that there is absolutely no evidence to lead us to any conclusion as to in what connection Public Witness 7 Ved Wati approached the appellant at his house.Thus we are of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the alleged motive for the commission of the alleged offence.(18) Learned counsel for the appellant has then contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses in the instant case are replete with material contradictions and as such have set at naught the entire case of the prosecution.Admittedly, as per the prosecution version (vide Ex. Public Witness 2/A) it was Public Witness 3 Charan Singh who first of all went to the police station and lodged the report which was recorded at SI.He stated therein that the appellant had shot at his niece in an adjoining house who had succumbed to the injuries sustained at the hands of the appellant.Astonishingly while appearing before the Court as Public Witness 3 he has deposed to the fact that his brother Mir Singh came to his house and informed him with regard to the death of a girl at the house of the appellant.Thus Public Witness 3 Charan Singh has gone back from his previous statement made before the police.On being cross-examined by the learned App he maintained that he never stated before the police that it was the appellant who had shot Km.Anjani dead at his house.Public Witness 5 Mir Singh has got this to say on this point that on hearing the gun-shots he went to the house of the appellant.He found a girl who was lying dead.The appellant was not present at that time.He further goes on to state that while he was coming out of the house of the appellant Ved Wati (Public Witness 7) and Roop Ram were entering the house of the appellant.Surprisingly enough even the father of the deceased and husband of Public Witness 7 Ved Wati i.e. Public Witness 12 Mauji Ram has also not supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as he has very categorically stated that neither Roop Singh.his father-in-law, nor the appellant, his brother-in-law, took away anything from him at the time of his marriage to Ved Wati (PW 7).He further denied the suggestion that his wife went to the house of the appellant in order to recover the sum of Rs. 24,000 which was given by him by way of consideration of his marriage to Ved Wati.Further we find in his statement that when he arrived at the police station he found his wife lying un-conscious and her clothes were bloodstained.Curiously enough if this is so, we are of the view that the said blood-stained clothes must have been seized by the Investigating Officer by way of evidence of her presence at the time of the occurrence.The Investigating Officer, Inspector Yadav (Public Witness 18) for the best reasons known to him did not do so.Hence an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the prosecution in favour of the appellant that perhaps Ved Wati (Public Witness 7) was not present at the time of the occurrence.After having wished him she also sat on a cot nearby alongwith her children, including the deceased Km. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,117,081 | The petitioner is presently in protective custody at Nirmal Chhaya.On USG she is 23 weeks pregnant.The continuation of pregnancy involve grave risk to her health because of her young age.On mental state examination she was found to be stressed and apprehensive regarding continuation of pregnancy.Further she expressed strong desire to terminate the pregnancy in front of the medical board.After considering all the above facts the board is of the opinion that it is advisable to terminate the pregnancy for physical and mental well being of the child.Report of the examination of the petitioner at AIIMS by Dr. Vidushi Kulshrestha, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, who also discussed the case with Professor Sunesh Kumar, HOD, Deptt.Of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, has been received which notes as under:-"8.8.2019 5.30 pm USG reveals single live fetus with mean gestational age of 23 wks + 6 days.The W.P.(CRL) 2209/2019 Page 5 of 6 element of risk involved in the termination of pregnancy has been duly informed to the petitioner and her father by this Court.The surgery be performed today itself or latest by tomorrow.The hospital authorities shall also preserve the tissues from the foetus for DNA identification relevant for further investigation.W.P.(CRL) 2209/2019 Page 5 of 6After the discharge of the petitioner from the hospital, she will be taken back to the Children Home, Nirmal Chhaya Complex, where the Superintendent, Nirmal Chhaya Complex will ensure that the petitioner is kept separately and adequate medical and other facilities are provided to her for the recovery including counselling.M.A. 33161/2019 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.By this petition, the petitioner who is a minor aged about 16 years and victim of rape seeks medical termination of pregnancy (in short, 'MTP').W.P.(CRL) 2209/2019 Page 1 of 6Since the petitioner is a minor and a child in need of care and protection, she was produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) on 2nd August, 2019 and the Committee directed that her MLC be conducted.Her MLC conducted at DDU Hospital on 5th August, 2019 revealed that the petitioner was pregnant and as per the Ultrasound report, she was 23 weeks pregnant.The victim/petitioner and her father both requested the CWC that the MTP of the victim be got done.The report of the Medical Board constituted to examine the victim child 'T' notes as under:"Medical report of child 'T' (name withheld) The child 'T', a 16 year old female appeared before medical board on 5/8/2019 at 10 A.M.. She was accompanied by her father.She was examined physically and mentally in detail and her medical records were reviewed.She was found to be 22 weeks pregnant on examination.Since the child has 23 weeks of pregnancy, therefore we need the directions from the honourable court for the termination of pregnancy".W.P.(CRL) 2209/2019 Page 2 of 6Since the pregnancy was beyond 20 weeks, the Child Welfare Committee on 6th August, 2019 opined that direction of the Court for termination of the pregnancy was required and hence the present petition.Case discussed with Professor Sunesh Kumar, HOD, Deptt.Copy of this order be communicated to the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS forthwith for necessary action.Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master to the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Addl.Standing Counsel for the State.MUKTA GUPTA, J. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,617,395 | SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 15, 2015/sb Crl.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 5 of 5M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 5 of 5By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and to restore the order of discharge dated 22.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) of aforesaid Court.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 1 of 5 494/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') alongwith an application under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') in the court of learned ACMM.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 1 of 5After hearing arguments on the application, the learned ACMM passed the order dated 19.01.2006, whereby directed SHO PS New Ashok Nagar to register a case under the appropriate provisions of Law and to file a compliance report within three days.Accordingly, a case under Sections 323/494/506/34 IPC was registered and chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on 28.06.2006 in the Court.The petitioners were summoned by the learned Trial Court under Sections 323/494/506/34 IPC.Thereafter, the petitioners were admitted on bail.Accordingly, observed that no permission was taken by the Investigating Agency under Section 155 Cr.P.C. before investigating into the non-cognizable offences.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 2 of 5Consequently, the learned ACMM held that the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC on the basis of police report, thus, the charge framed on the said basis cannot be sustained.The aforesaid order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 104/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.04.2015 by the learned ASJ.As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant had filed a complaint and a case has been registered by the police for non-cognizable offences.Also submits, the complaint shall continue and let complainant lead evidence before framing of charge and opportunity be given to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses.Section 198 Cr.P.C. provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter XX of IPC except upon complaint of aggrieved person.As offence under Section 494 IPC falls under Chapter XX, it is required that a complaint is to be made by an aggrieved person.In the case in hand, the first wife Ms. Neelam Singh had indeed Crl.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 3 of 5 filed a complaint case.Accordingly, an FIR came to be registered consequent upon her application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and a chargesheet came to be filed after completion of the investigation.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 3 of 5As regards two other offences under Sections 323/506 IPC are concerned, before dealing with the same, it is necessary to peruse provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., which read as under:-Thus, there could not have been any defect in taking cognizance of the non-cognizable offences.There was implied Crl.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 4 of 5 permission to investigate even the non-cognizable offence(s) as well.Directions given under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. contained permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C. also.Even otherwise, the police report could be considered as a complaint and cognizance could be taken.M.C.No.3809/2015 Page 4 of 5Keeping in view the statutory provisions and facts recorded above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the Revisional Court.Accordingly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed.M.A.No. 13517/2015 (for stay) With the dismissal of the petition itself, the instant application has become infructuous. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,232,521 | No.28 C.R.M. 2692 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11/05/2018 in connection with Tamluk P.S. Case No. 148 of 2018 dated 20/03/2018 under Sections 448 /506 /354 /354A /342 /323 /366 /384 /500 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 10 of the POCSO Act.And In the matter of: - Totan Samanta @ Bapal Samanta & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. A. K. Samanta ...for the petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,949,862 | It may be stated at the outset that the CriminalProcedure Code of India as such has no application to theState of Saurashtra.After the State acceded to the IndianUnion, there was an Ordinance promulgated by the Rajpramukhon 5th of April, 1948, which introduced the provisions ofthe Criminal Procedure Code of India (Act V of 1898) withcertain modifications into the Saurashtra State.The preamble to the ordinance sets out the objective of theordinance in identical terms.It appears from the affidavit of an officer ofthe Home Government of the Saurashtra State that soon afterthe integration took place, an alarming state of lawlessnessprevailed in some of the districts within the State.Therewere gangs of dacoits operating at different places andtheir number began to increase gradually.The ordinance, as stated already, providedprincipally for preventive detention and imposition ofcollective fines'; and it was hoped that armed with theseextraordinary powers the State Government would be able tobring the situation under control.Appeal under Arts.132(1) and 134(1)(c) of the Constitu-tion of India against the Judgment and Order dated 28thFebruary, 1951, of the High Court of Saurashtra at Rajkot(Shah C.J. and Chhatpar J.) in Criminal Appeal No. 162 of1950, The material facts appear in the Judgment.S.L. Chibber (amicus curia ), for the appellant, B. Sen,for the respondent.The following Judgments weredelivered.PATANJALI SASTRI C.J.--This appeal raises questionsunder article 14 of the Constitution more or lesssimilar to those dealt with by this Court in Criminal AppealNo. 297 of 1951, The State of West Bengal v. Anwar AliSarkar(1), and it was heard in part along with that appealbut was adjourned to enable the respondent State to file anaffidavit explaining the circumstances which led to theenactment of the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures(Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949 (No. XLVI of 1949),hereinafter referred to as the impugned Ordinance.As in the West Bengal case, the jurisdiction of theSpecial Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, which tried andconvicted the appellant, was challenged on the ground thatthe impugned Ordinance, under which the Court was constitut-ed, was discriminatory and void.The Objection was overruledby the Special Judge as well as by the High Court of Sau-rashtra on appeal and the appellant now seeks a decision ofthis Court on the point.As the majority concur in overruling the preliminaryobjection the appeal will be heard on the merits.The appeal has not been heard on its merits as yet. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,986,261 | The appellants are husband and wife.A2 is third wife of A1 .A1 was running a grocery shop and he used to go to Namakkal for purchase of groceries.Being agitated over the same, A1 decided to finish of the deceased.In the above circumstances, on 24.01.2011, at about 8.30 a.m., A1 asked A2 to call the deceased to his house saying that A1 already left to Namakkal and she was alone.A2 also called the deceased over cell phone to come to her house.Believing the words of A2, the deceased came to the house of the accused and A2 and deceased had intercourse in the house.At that time, A1 came there and strangulated the deceased with a towel and A2 poured insecticide into the mouth of the deceased and caused his death.Thereafter, A1 and A2 took the dead body of the deceased to the land of P.W.3 and threw it near a bush.P.W.1, mother of the deceased, found the deceased missing.Hence, she has given a complaint, Ex.3. P.W.8, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2011 for man missing.On receipt of the above information, P.W.5 went there and found the skeleton.Immediately, he gave a complaint, Ex.P.4, before the respondent police at 4.00 p.m.On receipt of the complaint, P.W.8, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.19/2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and sent the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate court and copy of the same to higher officials.P.W.14, Inspector of Police, on receipt of First Information Report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.3 and Rough sketch, Ex.P.26 in the presence of withesses.He recovered a cotton lungi(M.O.3) and blue jeans shirt (M.O.2) under the cover of Mahazar, Ex.He also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayathars and prepared inquest Report, Ex.P.29 and sent the skeleton through Head Constable with requisition for postmortem.6. P.W.7, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Sendamangalam, on 17.02.2011, at 1.30 p.m., conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-A lightly decomposed body exposing the bones was present.Soft tissues were absent except little over neck, little of both shoulders and little tissue over vertebral column and tissue in the upper abdomen maggots present.Both tibia, fus bothsides proximal portions present.Vertebral column intact.All bones present were partially damaged and eroded. Ex.P.16 is the Postmortem certificate.He also sent the hyoid bone and visceral parts of the body of the deceased for chemical examination.After receipt of the report, he gave an opinion that the deceased appears to have died of organo phosphorus type insecticide and the death appears to have occurred more than 7 days prior to autopsy.In the meantime, both accused appeared before P.W.5, on 18.02.2011, at about 10.00 a.m., and voluntarily gave a confession admitting their guilt.After recording their statement, P.W.5 produced both accused before the respondent police along with a special report, Ex.The accused denied the same.In order to prove its case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 35 documents were exhibited, besides 6 Material Objects.Subsequently, P.W.3 informed her that a skeleton was found near his agricultural land.Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 reached the place and identified the body from the shirt and lungi worn by the deceased.They also informed the same to the police.P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased.He also identified the body from the lungi and shirt worn by the deceased.P.W.3 turned hostile.10. P.W.4 is a witness to the observation mahazar and also seizure of shirt and lungi (M.Os.2 an 3) of the deceased.P.W.5 is the Revenue Inspector in the Valavandhinadu circle.According to him, one Chandran, Village Administrative Officer, informed him that a skeleton was found near the agricultural field of P.W.3 and after seeing the skeleton, he lodged a complaint, Ex.J) The appellants are A1 and A2 in S.C.No.4 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal.They stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/2.302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 23.02.2016, the trial Court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 201 r/w.302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo imprisonment for 6 months.The trial Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Chest 24 ribs, sterum was absent.Hyoid bone preserved.Head no fracture skull-brain linquified, mandible present.32 teeths present.Abdomen- little tissues over liver, stomach, intestine area.Extremities both femur, humans both sides present.P.W.14 arrested the accused and on such arrest A1 and A2 voluntarily gave confession statement and based on the disclosure statement, P.W.14 seized half burnt cellphone of the deceased (M.O.4), insecticide (M.O.5).Based on their confession statements, P.W.14 altered the case into 302 IPC and the alteration report is Ex.P.30 and he sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate-II, Namakkal.P.W.14 recorded the statement of the witnesses.He also closed the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 for man missing.According to her, the deceased was found missing.Hence, he lodged a complaint, Ex.P.1, on 07.02.2011 to the respondent police.Based on that, a case was registered for man missing.Subsequently, on 18.02.2011, both the accused appeared before him and voluntarily gave a confession and after recording their statement, he produced the accused before the respondent police with special report.11. P.W.6, Head Constable, sent the material objects for chemical examination.P.W.7, Doctor, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and gave opinion with regard to the cause of death.P.W.8, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, earlier, registered the complaint in Crime No. 17 of 2011, which was given by P.W.1 for man missing.Subsequently, based on the complaint given by P.W.5, P.W.8 registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and sent the First Information Report to Judicial Magistrate Court and copies of the same to higher officials.P.W.9, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, accompanied the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Sendamangalam, for postmortem and identified the body for postmortem.P.W.10, Doctor, working in the Forensic Department, Chennai, examined the visceral parts of the deceased and gave report, Ex.According to him, in the visceral parts of the body he found a poisonous organo phosphorus type insecticide.P.W.11 is the Deputy Director in the Serology department of Forensic Department.He examined the bloodstained material objects and gave a report, Ex.P.W.12 is Scientific Officer in Forensic Department, Chennai, conducted super imposition test on the skull of the deceased and gave a report, Ex.P.W.13 is the sister of the deceased.She identified the dead body from the Lungi and shirt worn by the deceased.P.W.15, Inspector of Police, completed investigation and laid a charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, one Subramani, was examined as D.W.1, however, they did not choose to mark any documents.He has spoken about the motive between A1 and the police.According to him, A1 has already been detained under Goondas Act by the respondent Police.Already the police arrested A1 and two other persons and kept them in police custody.Subsequently, they also brought A2 to the police station and after keeping A1 and A2 for some time in the station, they let out other two persons.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty under the said charges and accordingly, sentenced them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Subsequently, on 18.02.2011, both the accused appeared before P.W.5 and voluntarily gave a confession admitting their guilt.P.W.5 recorded the statement and obtained their signature and along with a special report, he produced them before the respondent police.A perusal of Ex. | ['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. |
19,498,634 | The brief facts of the case are as follows:-(i) P.Ws.1 and 3 are the neighbours.P.Ws.3 and 4 are the husband and wife.They are the residents of Puravacheri village.On 28.09.2003 at about 12.00 a.m., the accused and two others were barged with deadly weapons and sticks into the house of P.W.1 by breaking open the door and committed decoity and they committed theft a sum of Rs.65,000/- by putting P.W.1 into fear.On the same day, P.W.3, a practicing Advocate, while returning to his house at about 12.10a.m., he found that three of the accused standing out of his compound and three others were on the compound Wall.On suspecting, he instructed his wife to inform the Police about the unknown persons, who were standing in front of his house.At thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 time, all of the accused had entered into the house of P.W.3 with the weapons by broking open the door of P.W.3’s house.A1 threatened P.W. 3 on knife point and A3 took the tender aged child of P.W.3 and placed a knife on its neck.One of the accused, against whom the case has been split up, attacked P.W.13, mother-in-law of P.W.3, with a stick.(ii) Thereafter, they took the key of the bureau from P.W.13 and took away a sum of Rs.25,000/- and also some gold ornaments.Thereafter, they left the place by saying that if they inform this to Police, they would kill them by throwing bombs.COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Assistant Sessions Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagerkovil in S.C.No.74 of 2007 dated 10.04.2008 and allow this appeals.For Appellants : Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.Anandhraj Additional Public Prosecutorhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 COMMON JUDGMENT Aggrieved over the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil in S.C.No.74 of 2007, dated 10.04.2008 convicting the appellants under Sections 457(1) and 397 IPC and sentencing the appellants to undergo 3 years R.I under Section 457(1) IPC and to undergo 10 years R.I., under Section 397 IPC, these criminal appeals have been filed.P.W.3, immediately on the same day at about 02.30 a.m., gave a complaint [Ex.P13] before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station.P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, at the relevant point of time after receiving the complaint had registered a case in Crime No.285 of 2003 under Sections 457 and 395 IPC and referred P.Ws.3, 13 and his husband to the Hospital for treatment.(iii) P.W.2, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Medical Hospital, Kanniyakumari treated P.W.13 and her husband and found the following injuries on the husband of P.W.13[Ex.1. 1 ½ * 1/2 * ½ c.m., cut injury on the forehead 2.1* ½ * ½ c.m., cut injury on the right side shoulder(iv) He also treated P.W.13 and found 5*3 c.m., contusion on the right neck [Ex.P2].P.W.14, Investigating Officer, conducted Investigation and went to the place of occurrence at 05.00 a.m., and prepared observation Mahazar [Ex.P4] in the presence of P.W.5 and one Mandiramoorthy and also seized the stick, broken wooden pieces, a piece of chepal.Thereafter, P.W.14, had drawn a rough sketch [Ex.P16], in continuation of the investigation.Thereafter, the Investigation Officer seized 186.800 ingots from one Vairavan, P.W.8, in the presence of witnesses, thereafter, seized the stick from the accused and also a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the accused namely, Sengan @ Sankar and remanded the accused with the material objects to the Court.(v) Thereafter, P.W.12, conducted the identification parade in respect of A1, A3, one Suriyan and other accused.P.W.3, has identified above accused in the identification parade.P.W.14, in continuation of investigation, recorded the statement of other witnesses and laid a final report against the accused for the offence under Sections 457, 395 and 397 IPC.Six accused were originally charged.But two of the accused absconded, thus the case against them was split up and A1 to A4 were charged for the offence under Sections 457 and 397 IPC.(vi) Before trial, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined.P1 to P16 were marked.Based on the evidences and materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 397 IPC and convicted the accused as stated above.Aggrieved over the same, the present appeals came to be filed.The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the investigation was belatedly conducted and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.Besides, the entire property alleged to have been stolen from the house of P.W.3 had not been recovered by the Investigating Officer.In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be decided whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.Originally six accused have charge sheeted.Two of them absconded and hence, the case has been split up against them.Only A1 to A4 faced trial.The trial was conducted only against A1 to A4 as stated above.Evidence of P.W.1 shows that on the date of occurrence, these six persons barged into his house and committed theft of Rs.65,000/-.The same has not even been denied in the cross examination.P.W.3 also, in his evidence, has clearly stated that on 28.09.2003, at about 12.10 a.m., while he was returning to his house, these members were standing outside of his house with weapons.On suspecting them, he informed his wife to send an information to the Police.However, the police has not responded at that time.A1 to A4 came with deadly weapons.A3 took the child of P.W.3, and placed a knife on its neck and threatened P.W.3 and his family members.Besides, one of the accused, against whom the case has been split up, attacked the husband of P.W.13 with a glass piece.All of them removed the jewels from P.Ws.3, 4, 13 and also from the child.They opened the bureau and took the cash of Rs.25,000/- and other jewels also.Thereafter, they fled away from the place of occurrence.P.Ws.4, 13 and the husband of P.W.13 were injured in the above said occurrence.It has been clearly established by the evidence of P.W.2, the Medical Officer, who treated P.W.13 and her husband that the husbandhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 of P.W.13 sustained cut injury on the forehead and also right side shoulder and P.W.13 sustained contusion in her right hand also.From the entire evidence of P.W.3, I am unable to find any materials even to suggest any false implication of the accused.9. P.W.4, wife of P.W.3, has also clearly spoken about the barging into the house of P.W.3 and commission of the offence of decoity.P.W. 13, in her evidence has also clearly concurs the same.It is to be noted that the occurrence took place in the mid night.The accused six in number had barged into the house of P.W.3, and placed a knife in the neck of the child of P.W.3 and put the whole family into fear.Besides, the accused caused injury on P.W.3 and his wife.Barging into a house at midnight is an offence on the part of the accused.Therefore, one cannot expect that all the witnesses, who were present in the place of occurrence, should know minute details about the accused, who participated in the decoity.Therefore, I am of the view that merely because of P.W.4 and 13 had not identified all the accused, that may not be a fatal for the prosecution.P.W.3, in his entire evidence, has clearly identified all the accused, who committed decoity.Evidence of the witnesses clearly indicates that the accused were present in their house and committed decoity.They got the key from P.W.3 and opened the bureau and had taken away cash and other jewels kept inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 the bureau also.Apart from that, they also removed all the jewels worn by the witnesses.It is further to be noted that all the four accused were brought for identification parade, conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate.At the identification parade, P.W.3 identified all the accused.Immediately after the arrest, within a week, therefore it cannot be stated that there is due delay in conducting identification parade.The evidence of P.W.13, and her husband clearly proves the fact that there was a decoity committed by the accused.Evidence of P.W.10 clearly indicates that he has received such ingots through one Rajendran.Of course, the prosecution has nothttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 examined the said Rajendran.But the statement of the accused clearly indicates that the stolen articles were originally given to Rajendran.The evidence of P.W.8 clearly indicates that he has handed over more than 480 grams ingots.However, the prosecution has produced only 186.860 ingots.There was no information about the remaining property.This aspect makes it very clear that the Investigation Officer has not properly conducted the investigation.Merely an Investigation Officer committed some error or conducted a defective investigation, the same cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses, who were affected by the serious crime of decoity.Hence, I am of the view that merely because of entire property could not be produced before the Court, the same cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version of the witnesses.Admittedly, ingots alone have been produced.When the witnesses evidence clearly establish the fact that the accused in fact broke open the door and barged into the house and put the witnesses into fear and also caused injuries and committed theft, merely becausehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 entire stolen properties could not be recovered as its original form same cannot be fatal to prosecution.Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the FIR, entire details have not been mentioned.It is to be noted that P.W.3 went to the police Station, immediately after the occurrence at 02.45 a.m., and registered a complaint [Ex.P3].P.W.3 has narrated that these accused have entered into the house and committed decoity.FIR is mere an information as to the offence.The above sentences are ordered to be run concurrently. | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,988,179 | 3.1 The respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”), was a partner of M/s.Ram Company engaged in business of wood processing and sale.The company had its premises at Kosikala, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.3.2 On 18.12.2010 at 3.00 AM fire broke into the premises of M/s. Ram Company.Fire brigade and police were informed, which reached on the spot and fire could be controlled after several hours.The cause of fire was shown as electric short circuit in electric cable.Fire caused damages of stocks, plant and machinery and building.This report is being submitted without prejudice and is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.Signed Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd.”3.5 On 14.11.2011, respondent No.2, i.e., complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging offences under Sections 383, 384, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C. In the complaint, allegation was made against the appellant that he alongwith two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant’s house on 02.10.2011 at 7.00 PM and abused him in filthy language and was about to assault him, When some neighbours arrived there, the appellant and two or three other unknown persons fled the spot on their 6 vehicle.Insurance company by letter dated 12.12.2011 repudiated the claim of M/s. Ram Company.Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the said letter are to the following effect:-That during the course of carrying out survey & assessment of this claim, the overall approach & conduct of the surveyor was found to be satisfactory.ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.Leave granted.This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.02.2017 by which judgment, the criminal revision filed by the appellant was dismissed.The criminal revision was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting his discharge application moved under Section 239 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. in aSignature Not Verified complaint case No.483 of 2013 under Section 504 andDigitally signed bySANJAY KUMARDate: 2019.04.2615:50:15 ISTReason:506 of I.P.C.The brief facts of the case, which need to benoted for deciding this appeal are:-Total claim raised by the 2 company was Rs.3,62,45,114/-.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “insurance company”) appointed the appellant M/s. Protocol Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited, who is a certified surveyor by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.The appellant being Director of M/s. Protocol Surveyor and Engineers Private Limited undertook survey of insurance claim of the company.3.3 On 04.04.2011, the appellant visited the premises at Kosikala, District Mathura for the purposes of preparing a survey report.Joint Inspection note was prepared on 04.04.2011, for which various documents were asked from the company.M/s. Ram Company wrote letter dated 15.07.2011 and 22.07.2011 to the surveyor, 3 which was duly replied on 23.07.2011 by the surveyor.M/S. Ram Company has also written to insurance company, which was replied by insurance company on 08.08.2011 informing M/s. Ram Company that surveyors have been asked to submit their final report at the earliest.3.4 On 11.09.2011, the M/s Ram company submitted a letter to insurance company requesting to make payment of policy amount of Rs. 285.60 Lacs.In the said letter, some complaints were also made against the surveyor.Again on 19.09.2011, a letter was sent by M/s. Ram Company to the insurance company, where allegations were made against the surveyor.The surveyor, i.e., the appellant submitted final report on 23.09.2011 with regard to claim of M/s. Ram Company, in detail noticing all aspects of the matter.In the Survey Report in the last paragraph, following was stated:-(a) The insured has mis representedtheir claim of building.That after scrutiny of the submitted survey report and in consultation with the technical team of our Head Office, we have repudiated the said claim vide our letter ref.no.VKJ:RK:FC:2011: 235:11 dated 06.12.2011.”3.6 I.O. conducted the investigation calling the appellant also and submitted a closure 7 report.In the closure report, I.O. alsohad stated that as per the call details andlocation of Vikram Singh’s mobile(appellant), there was no roaming of hismobile from 1st October to 4th October andhis location was within the NCR area.After recording the statements of severalpersons, the I.O. submitted final form,closure report.Against the report, aprotest petition was filed by thecomplainant before the Judicial Magistrate,who by order dated 18.05.2012 allowed theprotest petition and directed for furtherinvestigation in the Crime No. 448 of 2011.Further investigation was also conducted byanother I.O., who again submitted a finalreport opining that no offence has beencommitted.Again, a protest petition wasfiled.The Judicial Magistrate by Orderdated 21.12.2012 held that no furtherinvestigation is required and it shall bejustified to try and dispose of the case as 8 a complaint case.Complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C was recorded.Complainant also got recorded statement of PW1- Ganesh Sharma and PW2 – Roop Singh @ Munna.High Court while disposing of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. observed that in case, if discharge application is moved by the applicant within 30 days, it is expected that the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order, and till disposal of the application on merit, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant.9 3.8 An application was filed by the applicant under Section 239 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate praying that appellant be discharged.In the application under Sections 239 and 245, details of claim, various reports and consideration by insurance company was mentioned.Aggrieved, by above order, this appeal has been filed.Learned counsel for the appellant in support ofthis appeal contends that complaint filed by thecomplainant was nothing but proceeding for harassmentof the appellant.The appellant, who was surveyorhaving given adverse reports regarding the fire claimof the company, the complainant due to annoyance and 10 to teach a lesson to the appellant has filed thecomplaint.It is submitted that incident is allegedof 02.10.2011 when appellant is claimed to be visitedhis house and threatened him whereas the complaint inthe Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was filed on14.11.2011, i.e., about more than one month and 12days, which itself indicate that whole story wasconcocted to harass the appellant.Learned counsel appearing for the respondentshave refuted the submissions of the appellant andsubmits that there was sufficient material before theJudicial Magistrate to issue process to summon the 11 appellant and there was no ground for discharging theappellant from the offence.Learned counsel for the parties have also placedreliance on various judgments of this Court, whichshall be referred to while considering thesubmissions in detail.We have considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the parties and have perused the records.We have noticed the facts and sequence of events,which led to filing of the application under Section156(3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant against theappellant.Our consideration has to confine only tothe question as to whether the appellant has made outa case for discharge under Sections 504 and 506I.P.C.From the facts noticed above, it is clear thatappellant’s role was only of a surveyor appointed byinsurance company to survey and submit report on thefire insurance claim alleged by the complainant withregard to incident dated 18.12.2010, which took placein his factory premises at Kosikala, DistrictMathura.The appellant is Director of M/s. ProtocolSurveyor & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. at Sector-7, Noida,Uttar Pradesh.Appellant visited the premises at 13 Kosikala and held joint inspection on 04.04.2011.Various correspondences were made by the complainantwith the appellant as well as insurance company.We have noticed above that in the final surveyreport recommendation has been made to repudiate theclaim due to misrepresentation and false declarationmade by the appellant, which is breach of policycondition.The incident alleged against theappellant is dated 02.10.2011, i.e., immediatelyafter submission of final survey report.It was onlyafter final survey report submitted by the appellanton 23.09.2011, which was received on 27.09.2011 that 14 the appellant alleged the incident dated 02.10.2011,in which appellant has alleged to have threatened thecomplainant.The allegation in the complaintagainst the appellant with regard to incident dated02.10.2011 are as follows:-“…………..When the complainant did not entertain the accused Surveyor Vikaram Johar, he and 2-3 other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, whom the complainant can identify, came to the complainant’s house on 2.10.2011 at 7.00 Pm and abused him in filthy language and about to assault him.When some neighbour arrived there, the Surveyor Vikaram Johar, he and 2-3 other unknown persons fled the spot on their vehicle.The people who had saved the complainant has seen the occurrence.” | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,949,928 | The present application has been filed by the applicant, who is the Police Sub-Inspector, on the ground that he cannot be prosecuted by the non-applicant unless the sanction under S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obtained.It has been argued by Mr. Chouby, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the P.W. I applicant that the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant have been committed in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, the learned trial Judge was not right in directing issuance of process against him.He has also invited my attention to the notification dated 2nd June 1979 in this behalf.The facts, in brief, which gave rise to the present application are as under : The non-applicant Syed Javed Ali is an advocate.He filed a complaint on 28-8-1990 against the applicant and two others under Sections 294, 506 Part I & II, 336, 427, 341, 342, 500 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 110 read with Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act. According to the complainant/non-applicant, the police asked him and his two brothers, viz., Syed Ashar Ali and Kumar Ali, to accompany him to Tahsil Police Station.Accordingly, the complainant and his brothers went to the police station, where the applicant was present.The complainant introduced himself to the applicant by showing his identity card and wanted to sit on the bench.The applicant is alleged to have said "Khada Rahe Sale Tere Bap Ka Ghar Nahin Hai".The complaint further shows that the complainant then wanted to telephone to his relations from the police station, but the applicant abused him saying "Bhosdi Ke Yeh Tere Bap Ka Phone Nahin Hat, Yhe Sarkari Phone Hai".According to the complaint, on 11-8-1990 at about 6-30 to 7-00 a.m. the applicant ordered his men to take the complainant and his brothers to the Mayo Hospital, Nagpur in handcuffed conditions, notwithstanding that the complainant pointed out legally he could not be handcuffed.The applicant was enraged and alleged to have said "Sale Chup Rahe, Jyada Bolega to Ek Jhapad Dunga, Aur Apna Supreme Court Apne Jeb Main Rakh".The applicant continued saying "Bhosdi Ke Vakilon Ne Bahot Ane Main Laliya Nain, In Ki Masti Jirana Hai".In this decision, a complaint was filed by the clerk of the divisional secretary of National Union of Postal Employees against the Post Master General, Rajasthan, alleging that the Post Master General came on test to Jodhpur on 23-10-1971 and thereafter arrived at the Head Post Office Jodhpur in connection with inspection.The complainant submitted his representation to the Post Master General for cancelling his transfer.The Post Master was enraged by the complainant and kicked the complainant in his abdomen and abused him by saying "Sale, Goonda, Badmasa, on one hand you are complaining and on the other hand you are requesting for cancellation of transfer." Objection was taken by the Post Master General that the complaint was not tenable in the absence of sanction u/S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Though the Munsiff Magistrate dismissed the application, the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the Post Master General and set aside the order of the lower court.Petition dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,949,931 | She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood.She expects not only to be a daughter in law, but a daughter in fact.Alas! The alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams.Inlaws are characterized to be outlaws for perpetrating a terrorism which destroys matrimonial home.The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles in every possible direction.With a view to curb the spiraling number of cases where demand for dowry leads to loss of life, Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 1986 brought about sweeping changes in the penal statutes, and Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') came to be enforced.Other appellants Hiralal and Angoori Devi were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively.Since the death was unnatural, information was lodged with police and investigation was undertaken.Grievance was made by the family members of deceased that she was subjected to torture for dowry and that led to her suicide.J U D G M E N TARIJIT PASAYAT,J Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage.A bride leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories therewith a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom's house.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498A IPC.Trial was conducted by learned Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions case No. 11/1999 and the appellants were found guilty under Sections 304-B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC.They were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation of SI for one year, and also one year RI with fine of Rs.5000/- with stipulation of SI for one month for the two substantive offences respectively.It is relevant to note that for substantiating the accusations twelve witnesses were examined.Bahadur Singh (PW-1), Sobha Rani (PW-5), Ratti Ram (PW-10), Manju (PW-11), the father, brother, cousin brother and sister, respectively of the deceased spoke about the dowry demands.The testimony was accepted to be truthful and cogent by the Trial Court.The matter was carried in appeal before the Delhi High Court.By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge reduced the sentence to 3 years RI instead of 10 years RI in respect of accused-appellants Hiralal and Angoori keeping in view their old age.The fine imposed was maintained but the default sentence was reduced to six months, custodial sentence and fine for offences punishable under Section 498A were maintained.In case of appellant-Surender, the sentence was reduced to 7 years in respect of first offence, while for the second offence the sentence was maintained.There was no evidence regarding any dowry demand.On the contrary it was confirmed that at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry.It is of relevance to note that while deceased was married to accused-Surender, her sister, Manju (PW-11) was married to Virender, elder brother of Surender.Both the marriages were solemnized on the same date.It has been accepted by the prosecution witnesses that there was no demand for valuable articles at any point subsequent to the marriage in case of Manju.If the demand was made for deceased as alleged, there is no reason as to why a departure was made in case of her sister.The evidence of relatives (PW-1, PW-2, PW-10 and PW11) does not inspire any confidence.Before the alleged suicide, there were differences between the deceased and her husband for which allegations were made with the police.Finally the difference was sorted out by settling that they shall stay separately from other members of the family.There was a conciliation made by the officials and the conditions indicated related to separate residence.There was not even inkling about demand of money or articles.It is, therefore, submitted that both Trial Court and the High Court fell in grave error by going into surmises to convict the appellants.It however was candidly admitted that there was no mention about any dowry aspect while the differences were ironed out.The settlement arrived at on 30.11.1998 was essentially for separate residence.Both the sentences relatable to Sections 498A and 306 IPC shall run concurrently.Since the appellants 1 and 2 were released on bail pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2002, they shall surrender to serve out the remainder of the sentence, if not already served.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,949,993 | Special Judge, Madras, in CC.The Prosecution case is as follows :- ] The appellant was working as the Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Inungambakkam, Madras.P.W. 1 is the Managing Director of Metal Forum (P) Ltd. and P.W. 2 is the Assistant Manager of this company.P.W. 4, the Inspector of E.S.I. Corporation, attached to its Villivakkam Officer, inspected Metal Form (P) Ltd. on 17-1-1985 and he found that the Security Guards were not brought under the E.S.I. Scheme.P.W. 2, sent the reply Ex. P. 2 explaining that they were not liable to pay the amount.Thereafter, as the final order was to communicated to Metal Form (P) Ltd., P.W. 2 enquired the appellant in his office as to the final order relating to his company.On 21-1-1987 P.W. 2 against met the appellant in his office and when he enquired about the final order, the appellant demanded Rs. 1,500 as bribe to reduce the amount mentioned in Ex.P1 notice.P.W. 2 answered the appellant stating that he would consult the Managing Director for payment and after coming to his office contacted P.W. 1 over phone and conveyed the demand of Rs. 1,500/- made by this appellant.P.W. 1 informed him not to pay any amount but to launch a complaint to the vigilance police.Therefore, he went to Central Bureau of Investigation office and met the Inspector P.W. 10 to whom the complaint Ex. P. 5 was given by him.P.W. 10 asked him to bring Rs. 1,500/- which was demanded by this appellant to lay the trap to catch the offender.Therefore, P.W. 2 collected Rs. 1,500/- from P.W. 1 and returned to the office of Central Bureau of Investigation.In the meanwhile, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, on the request of P.W. 10, contacted the Income-tax Officer to deput two persons to be the witnesses for a trap case and P.W. 3 and one Karthigeyan were deputed by their superior officers to be the witnesses for this trap case, when P.W. 2 returned to Central Bureau of Investigation office, he was introduced to P.W. 3 and Karthigeyan.P.W. 10 the Inspector sprayed phenopthalene powder over the currency notes M.O. 1 series brought by P.W. 2 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and Karthigeyan and he explained to them the salient features of the chemical reaction when phenopthalene is dissolved in the solution of sodium carbonate.When the currency M.O. 1 series were touched by fingers and the fingers were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, it turned to pink colour.For this demonstration and also for the currency notes M.O. 1 series, Ex. P. 7 mahazar was prepared in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation.This appeal is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IX Addl.P.W. 10 instructed P.Ws. 2 and 3 to proceed to the office of the Assistant Regional Director Office, Nungambakkam and pay the amount to the appellant only when demanded and give a signal to him if the appellant had received the money.Therefore, P.Ws. 2 and 3 came in advance to the office of the appellant followed by P.W. 10, Karthigeyan and the other members of the police party.P.Ws. 2 and 3 met the appellant in his room and P.W. 3 was introduced to the appellant as the Accountant of Metal Form (P) Ltd. The appellant asked P.W. 2 whether he had brought the amount.P.W. 2 Placed the M.O. 1 series currency notes on the table of the appellant as directed by him and he immediately placed a file over the currency notes.The appellant informed P.W. 2 that the Accountant of Metal Form (P) Ltd., could come and collect the order after the Pongal holidays.Both of them came out and P.W. 2 gave the signal to the Inspector P.W. 10 as instructed by him.The appellant got perplexed to answer to his questions.P.W. 10 prepared the sodium carbonate solution and asked the appellant to dip his fingers in the solution which turned to pink colour when dipped by the appellant.P.W. 10 collected the solution in two bottles M.O. 2 and M.O. 3 in the presence of P.W. 3 and others and he also prepared a mahazar Ex. P. 9 there itself, in the presence of the witnesses and the same was attested by P.W. 3 and Karthigeyan.He collected the file relating to the proceedings against Metal Form (P) Ltd. and issued the receipt Ex. P. 10 for the file.He sent the articles seized, to the Court with a request Ex. P. 15 to send one of the sodium corbonate solutions to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis.P.W. 11 the Director General of E.S.I. Corporation, after perusing the records placed before him, sanctioned under perusing the records placed before him, sanctioned under Ex. P. 22 for the prosecution of the appellant.After the evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence.The appellant denied the allegations and said that P.W. 1, who owns three companies, was not remitting the contribution amount to the E.S.I. Corporation properly and when notices were issued, the son of P.W. 1 threatened him stating that his uncle is an officer in the Central Bureau of Investigation and on account of these ill-feelings, he has been implicated.The accused was the Assistant Regional Director in E.S.I. Corporation in Nungambakkam Office and he sent the notice under Ex. P. 1 in August 1986 for remittance of Rs. 17,783,60 by Metal Forms (P) Ltd. Co. to which P.W. 1 is the Managing Director.P.W. 2 is the Assistant Manager of the said company.As it was found that a road was formed within the factory premises engaging labourers at a cost of Rs. 18,707/- P.W. 5 has stated in his report Ex. P. 13 that the contribution has to be made under the E.S.I. Act for the wages paid to the labourers.Further, as security expenses also were found in the account, P.W. 5 had pointed out in Ex. P. 13 that contribution for the security guards also should be made by the company.But the company replied under Ex.P2, sent through P.W. 2, disputing the claim of the E.S.I. Corporation.The accused also has admitted that an enquiry was conducted on 16-9-86 and 1-10-86 on production of the statements and the matter was reserved for orders of the appellant.According to P.W. 2, as the order was not passed even in November 1986, he met this appellant in his office on 4-11-86 enquiring about the final order and according to P.W. 2, the appellant informed that the order would be issued in January.As the final order was not received by Metal Form Pvt. Ltd., till 11-1-87, P.W. 2 went to the appellant on 12-1-87 to enquire about that and the evidence of P.W. 2 is that only on that date, this accused demanded Rs. 1,500 as the bribe to reduce the contribution amount.It is the prosecution version that on the request of P.W. 10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, requested the Income-tax Commissioner to depute two persons to be witnesses for this trap case and P.W. 3 and one Karthigeyan, belonging to the Income-tax Department, were deputed to the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation to be the witnesses and in their presence, the trap was laid by P.W. 10 by spraying the phenopthalene powder in M.O. 1 series currency notes brought by P.W. 2 and later on its was found after the trap, that this appellant had handled M.O. 1 series currency notes as the phenopthalene test revealed the change of colour of sodium carbonate solution.It is also in evidence from P.Ws. 2, 3 and 10 that the salient features of the phenopthalene test were demonstrated in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation by P.W. 10 by spraying phenopthalene powder over M.O. 1 series currency notes and thereafter allowing Karthigeyan to handle those currencies and dip his fingers in the colourless sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour indicating the change of colour when phenopthalene came into contact with sodium carbonate solution.The prosecution version is that the same currency notes were handed over by this appellant to P.W. 10 in his office when enquired by P.W. 10 and before handing over of this cash by him, when his fingers were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, it changed the colour of the solution indicating the handing of M.O. 1 series currency by this appellant and therefore the prosecution relies upon this phenopthalene test as a piece of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.The learned counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation would concede that the phenopthalene test or recovery of the money from the accused alone will not to be the conclusive proof for the guilt of the accused and according to him there is other evidence from the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 10 corroborate the prosecution case.But the learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. Natarajan would contend that P.Ws. 2 and 3 cannot be treated as independent witnesses and the testimony also has to be taken with a point of salt as P.W. 2 has grievance against this appellant as Rs. 17,783,60 was ordered to be remitted and though P.W. 3 was deputed from income-tax Department, he was very much interested in the success of the trap and therefore, they cannot be treated as independent witnesses.This appellant, basing upon the inspection report of P.W. 5, issued the notice Ex. P. 1 for remittance of Rs. 17,783.60 to E.S.I. Corporation for which the company had sent its reply Ex. P. 2 through P.W. 2 and it was expecting the final orders.This appellant did not make any personal inspection of the accounts of the Metal Form pvt.Ltd. and as he sent the report Ex. P. 1 basing on the particulars furnished by P.W. 5, there cannot be any grievance for P.W. 1 to implicate him in the offence.According to P.W. 2, as this appellant, when enquired on 12-1-87 as to the delay in passing of the final orders.Demanded Rs. 1,500 to reduce the contribution, he launched the compliant Ex. P. 5 as per the instruction of his boss P.W. 1 and on the direction of P.W. 10, he handed over the money sprayed with phenopthalene powder.In view of this evidence of P.W. 2 it cannot be stated that P.W. 2 had any other motive against this appellant to falsely implicate him in this crime.That was a case in which the currency notes were not recovered from the accused person and the trap witness himself produced the currency notes stating that the accused threw away the currency notes sensing the arrival of the police and the trap witness picked up those currency notes and produced before the police officer.The currency notes planted for the purpose of detection were not found in the possession of the accused but with trap witness.In that case, it was found that there was no other independent evidence to prove the demand of the bribe.P.W. 2 has stated that on 12-1-87 morning when he met this appellant to enquire about the final order, he demanded Rs. 1,500/- to reduce the contribution.Therefore, on his complaint, trap was laid and when P.W. 2, the complainant and the trap witness P.W. 3 entered into the room of this appellant, P.W. 3 was introduced by P.W. 2 to the appellant as the Accountant of Metal Form Pvt. Ltd. and that he would come to receive the final order.The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is that thereafter, this appellant asked P.W. 2 whether he had brought the money.For the reason that P.W. 3 was introduced as the Accountant of Metal Form Pvt. Ltd., that by itself will not lead to the conclusion that P.W. 3 was interested in the success of the trap.If he had denied before the appellant that he was not the accountant of Metal Form Pvt. Ltd., there was no possibility to find out the truth.The presence of P.W. 3 is only to observe what was happening between P.W. 2 and this appellant.If the real identity of P.W. 3 was made known to this appellant, he might have questioned him as to why he came there and the revelation of the truth to the appellant that he came there as a trap witness would gave set at naught the very purpose of the trap.Therefore, to observe the transaction and conversation between P.W. 2 and this appellant, P.W. 3 had to necessarily conceal his identity and therefore he was passive when introduced to this appellant that he was the Accountant of the Metal Form Pvt. Ltd. and this behaviour of P.W. 3 will not in any way characterize him as an interested witness.As mentioned above, P.W. 3 also would say that this appellant asked P.W. 2 whether the money was brought by him corroborating the version of P.W. 2 that the appellant demanded the bribe from him.After the question put by this appellant, M.O. 1 series cash Rs. 1,500/- was offered by P.W. 2 to the appellant and P.Ws. 2 and 3 would state that this appellant asked them to leave the cash on the table and when P.W. 2 did so, this appellant placed the file which he was reading, on the M.O. 1 series currency notes to conceal it under the file.The version of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is that only thereafter this appellant told P.W. 2 to come and receive the final order after the Pongal holidays and they came out and signal was given by P.W. 2 to P.W. 10 informing that the cash was paid.and thereafter prepared sodium carbonate solution in which this appellant was asked to dip his fingers and the solution turned to pink colour.The solution was preserved in two containers, which are marked as M.Os.It is only thereafter P.W. 10 asked this appellant to handover the money and this appellant produced M.O. 1 series currency note which were kept in between telephone directory and the annual report on the left side of his table.Therefore, the contention of the appellant that M.O. 1 series currency notes had been left in the table by P.W. 2 deliberately to implicate him by planting the currency notes, cannot be true because he himself had produced the currency notes, taking out from another place, namely, in between the telephone directory and the annual report.The contents in pages 7 to 9 of Ex. P. 17 are only the notes prepared by this appellant fixing the contribution amount payable by Metal Form Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 2007.95, for approval of the Joint Regional Director.It is true that the Joint Regional Director has approved this on 21-10-86 and thereafter the appellant has made a note for dictation of orders accordingly".Therefore, the order was not passed by the appellant though his notes alone had been approved by the Joint Regional Director.They establish the demand made by this appellant from P.W. 2 for doing a favour of reducing the contribution amount.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,004,629 | Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta assisted by Sri Manish Kumar and Ms. Shambhavi Gupta learned Advocates for the appellants, Sri L.D. Rajbhar and Sri Prem Shankar Mishra learned A.G.A.(s) for the State.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.2.2011 passed by the Special Judge Dacoity Prohibition Area, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.53 of 1998 arising out of Case Crime no.42 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 396 read with Sections 149 and 412 IPC, as also in the Sessions Trial No.46 of 1998 arising out of Case crime nos.52 and 53 of 98 under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S-Punchh, District Jhansi.The appellants herein (7 in number) have been sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 396 taking aid of Section 149 IPC along with Rs.3000/- as fine.In case of default in payment of fine, the appellants have to undergo six months of additional rigorous imprisonment.Four appellants Ratan Lal, Khadak Singh, Jitendra Kumar and Dinesh Kumar have been sentenced for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 412 I.P.C. In case of default in payment of fine, they have to undergo additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.Appellants Ratan Lal and Khadak Singh have been sentenced for three years imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 25 Arms Act and in case of default in payment of fine they have to undergo three months additional imprisonment.All the punishments are to run concurrently.The prosecution story starts with the written report dated 14.3.1998 given by Jitendra Singh s/o Surendra Pal Singh resident of Gram Fatehpur, P.S-Punchh, District-Jhansi wherein it is averred that on 14.3.1998 at about 5.30 p.m, first informant alongwith his maternal grand father Sri Indrabhan Singh and Kishore Singh s/o Ramdas, Veerpal Singh s/o Jai Karan Singh, Rampal Singh s/o Veer Singh, Kushal Pal Singh s/o Jagdish Singh went to P.S Punch District Jhansi to register a First Information report lodged by Kishore Singh and to get release of the licencee rifle/revolver and gun of Indra Bhan Singh deposited in the Police Station during elections.When they reached on a puliya about 9 kms away from the village, all of them had seen the accused persons standing on their way.Ratan Lal and Dinesh sons of Karore were carrying guns in their hands, Narendra was having farsa, Jitendra was with Kulhari, Murat s/o Dinesh was carring country made pistol in his hand, Karan Singh was carrying farsa and Ram Khilawan was having lathi whereas Khadak Singh had gun in his hand.They stopped the tractor and while using abusive language, they told "you .... went to the police station to lodge report against us.The court will give its verdict later but we would give your verdict today, just now." Then Ratan lal opened fire upon Indrabhan Singh with an intention to kill him, other accused persons started hitting and cutting Indrabhan Singh through farsa and kulhari while yelling at deceased that "this .... became leader" and all others had fired from the country made pistol and guns on him.Resultantly, Indrabhan Singh died on the spot and Kishore Singh and Kushal Pal Singh got injured.It was further stated that the accused persons keeping the dead body of his grand father in the trolly took away the tractor and trolley to Kashipura mod, leaving the trolley with dead body there, they took away the tractor towards the river.This incident occurred at about 9.00 p.m and they all witnessed it in the torch light and the light of the tractor.They all recognized the assailants being the accused persons named in the F.I.R. It was also averred that the licencee revolver and gun of Indrabhan Singh, maternal grand father of first informant, was also looted by the accused persons.Informing the police that the dead body was lying in the trolly on the spot mentioned above, this First Information Report was drawn by Jitendra Singh in his own hand writing.The chik FIR was prepared and registered at about 22.45 hours 10.45 p.m under section 396 I.P.C for the offence of loot and murder.To deal with the arguments put forward by the counsels for the rival parties, we may note at the beginning that the incident-in-question had occurred on the fateful day at about 9.00 p.m. The first report of the incident was given by Jitendra Singh in writing which was proved as 'Exhibit Ka -1'.The said report was registered in P.S-Punchh District Jhansi as Chik No.15 of 1998 at 22.45 hours (10.45 p.m).They have also been sentenced for three years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC.Recovery of gun of Ratan lal, Khadak Singh and Axe of Jitendra Singh had been made on 2.4.1998 on their own pointing out from the field of co-accused Dinesh.The items of recovery were proved as material 'Exhibit Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-4' by the constable Kamal Singh, a witness of recovery.After recovery of the illegal fire arm, First Information Report under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against Ratan Lal and Khadak Singh on 2.4.1998 at about 20.10 hours.The recovery of it was proved by P.W-5 and the memo of recovery has been exhibited as Exhibit Ka-5 as P.W.-5 proved his signature on the same.Blood stained and plain earth collected from the spot were kept in the recovery memo as Exhibit Ka-19 proved by the Investigating Officer.Chaap (Belt) of SBBL gun and two used 12 bore empty cartridges were recovered from the place of incident and kept in 'Exhibit Ka-20'.Two torches belonging to Rampal Singh and Kushal Pal Singh were handed over to the police and have been exhibited as 'Exhibit Ka-21' and 'Exhibit Ka-22.' Recovery memo 'Exhibit-Ka-24' dated 2.4.1998 of recovery of murder weapons records that when the police party along with witnesses went to the field of Dinesh, after recovery of two guns and Axe belonging to the accused persons, Ratan lal and Dinesh further lead to the police party towards the northern side of the field and after walking about 25 paces, they removed some hay covered on the pit and the mud over it but nothing was found there.Upon asking, the accused told that looted gun and rifle of Indrabhan Singh and rifle of Dinesh (used in crime) were concealed there but probably some relative got to know and took them away.Thus, by means of the recovery memo, (Exhibit Ka-24) it was sought to be presented by the prosecution that the looted gun and rifle of Indrabhan Singh were misplaced from the custody of the accused persons.At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention here that the entire prosecution case is silent about the recovery of gun and rifle of deceased Indrabhan.At one point of time, during cross examination of P.W-2 Jitendra Singh, he was shown a rifle no.315 Bore No.1665 from material Exhibit, which was released by the Court in favour of Aniruddha Singh s/o deceased Indrabhan Singh.P.W-2 Jitendra Pal Singh identified it as the looted gun of his maternal grand father deceased Indrabhan Singh.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the silence of prosecution about the place and time of recovery of alleged looted gun of Indrabhan Singh speaks volume about falsity of the prosecution case.There is no recovery of the looted articles (gun and rifle) either at the pointing out of the accused persons or from their custody or possession.No one knows as to when and from where or at whose instance the looted gun rifle no.315 Bore No. 1665 (shown to P.W-2) was recovered by the police.Learned counsel has further drawn attention of the Court to the deposition of P.W-1 and P.W-2, wherein they had denied that the said gun was released and handed over to Indrabhan Singh at the P.S Punch, District Jhansi in their presence.Submission is that in absence of any evidence regarding the recovery of looted articles i.e. licencee gun and rifle of Indrabhan Singh, entire prosecution case under Section 396 I.P.C would fall.It was further argued that as far as tractor No.UP 85 A 0902 belonging to the victim party, it was recovered from the Canal as per own case of the prosecution, the said recovery on the alleged pointing out of the accused persons under the recovery memo 'Exhibit Ka-5' is also of no relevance.The entire prosecution case based on the alleged loot of gun, rifle and tractor falls apart and the conviction of accused persons under Section 396 read with Section 149 I.P.C is liable to be set aside being without any basis.It is further argued that the first informant stated that two persons namely Kushal Pal Singh and Kishore Singh got injured in the incident-in-question, however, only one of the alleged injured Kishore Singh was produced in the witness box.As far as injured Kishore Singh P.W-1 is concerned, his injuries as per the injury report are (i) a contusion in the right knee and (ii) abrasion in the left leg lower outer part.His deposition of having sustained injuries during the course of occurrence of the incident in question reported by Jitendra Singh does not seem to be a true story.Submission is that P.W-1 cannot be placed in the category of an injured witness to accord any credit for the same in the present trial.Moreover, his deposition is full of falsehood and cannot be taken as a proof of his presence at the place of incident.With regard to the deposition of P.W.-2 first informant Jitendra Singh, it is argued that admittedly a previous incident of Marpeet (physical assault) had occurred during the course of the day and as per narration of P.W-2, seven (7) persons accompanied Kishore Singh (appeared as P.W-1) to lodge the First Information Report whereas deceased Indrabhan Singh went to the Police station for a different purpose, P.W.-2, however, did not prove either of the reason set up by the prosecution to go to the police station in his testimony.On one hand he denied that the gun was released and handed over to his maternal grand father in his presence and on the other he also showed ignorance about the contents of the F.I.R lodged by Kishore Singh.Even the copy of the said F.I.R has not been brought on record by the prosecution.All these inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses make them highly unreliable.Atleast one of the witnesses could come out with the clear version about the genesis of the incident.If the version in the F.I.R is to be believed, the accused persons were annoyed from deceased Indrabhan Singh as he led Kishore Singh and others to the police station to lodge report.It is not disclosed as to who were the accused persons implicated in the said report and whether the appellants herein have been assigned any role in the said incident.Even if the version of P.W-2 about the genesis of incident is taken as true, there is no question of bringing Section 396 I.P.C which talks of offence of dacoity and murder committed in the course of dacoity.The narration in the First Information Report and the deposition of P.W.-2 the first informant, does not indicate any nexus or any connection between death and alleged loot of gun and tractor.The previous incident and the entire story of P.W-1 going to the police station Punchh to lodge F.I.R along with deceased Indrabhan Singh is a concocted story created to make his presence natural with deceased at the time of murder.Projection of P.W-1 as an injured witness was nothing but a failed attempt of the prosecution to add strength to its case.First Information Report itself becomes a suspicious document as it narrates a different story.In fact, no one had seen the incident.The lodging of First Information Report at the time when the chik F.I.R is prepared is not proved by the competent witness.There were interpolations in the general diary and, moreover, original general diary was not brought by the prosecution witness.The special report of the incident was not sent.The prosecution witness P.W-7, constable Mohiuddin who had prepared the Chik F.I.R had admitted that though it was written in the F.I.R that report under Section 157 Cr.P.C was sent to the higher official through post but there was no receipt of C.A office nor any entry with regard to the dispatch post was brought by him to prove the same.Submission is that intimation of registration of FIR to the higher officials under Section 157 Cr.P.C ensures that the F.I.R was lodged at the time mentioned in the Chik report.The common object to commit the crime is, thus, not proved.Above all, homicidal death of Indrabhan Singh at the site of occurrence is proved by the prosecution.There are three eye witnesses who made their depositions before the Court to clearly prove the place and time of the incident and the involvement of the accused appellant in the murder of Indrabhan Singh.Eight persons were named as accused in the First Information Report.The first informant narrated the place of incident and the manner in which the murder was executed as also the motive to cause murder of Indrabhan.However, it appears that because of loot of licencee gun and rifle of Indra Bhan Singh, the First Information Report was registered for an offence under Section 396 I.P.C which deals with the offence of committing Dacoity/Robbery coupled with the murder in so committing Dacoity/Robbery.It is recorded in the report that the inquest was done on the spot in the morning and the body was found lying in the trolly of a tractor near Kashipura mod on a kachha rasta.As there was no sun light, the inquest could not be done before 7 a.m. The post mortem report indicates fatal injuries of gunshot and sharp-edged weapon on head, neck and abdomen of deceased.It was a brutal and cold blooded killing of 65 years old man.Three eye witnesses produced by the prosecution are Kishore Singh (P.W.-1) Jitendra Singh (P.W-2) and Veer Pal Singh (P.W.-3).The first witness (P.W-1) Kishore Singh was produced as an injured witness and in the words of learned counsel for the appellants he was falsely projected as an eye witness and was given the colour of being injured witnesses so as to add strength or give credit to the testimony of other eye witnesses namely P.W.-2 and P.W-3, whose presence on the spot also is doubtful.Submission is that in cross-examination of P.W.-1, he admitted that he sustained injuries in the previous incident which occurred at about 4.30 p.m, the report of which was lodged by him at about 5.30 p.m. when P.W-1 went along with Indrabhan and others to the P.S Punchh, District Jhansi.Submission is that the act of the prosecution to project P.W-1 as an injured witness itself demolishes the whole prosecution case being untruthful as this witness is proved to be a liar.Having said that, it was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that this witness (P.W-1) had a previous enmity with one of the accused Dinesh and, therefore, entered in the witness box to depose against the accused party, whereas another alleged injured person Kushal Pal Singh did not enter in the witness box.As per the prosecution story, seven persons without any reason or purpose had joined at one place in order to execute the crime, i.e. killing of deceased Indrabhan Singh.The victim party consisted of seven persons who according to the prosecution were coming back from the P.S-Punchh District Jhansi on a tractor no.One of them, Kishore Singh went to lodge the First Information Report of a previous incident of assault occurred during day time whereas deceased Indrabhan Singh had joined them to get his rifle and gun released from the police station.It is the same rifle and gun which was projected as items of loot/dacoity by the prosecution.None of the incriminating material suggesting loot or dacoity was recovered from the possession of the accused persons.The entire story of loot had been created at the behest of the victim party to grant severe punishment to five persons of the accused party with whom they had previous enmity.The recovery of looted articles namely rifle and gun of Indrabhan Singh from the possession of accused persons has not been proved by the prosecution.In fact prosecution is silent over the issue.As far as tractor is concerned, the same was recovered from an open place and not from the possession of the accused persons and that too the recovery of it is a planted one and has illegally been shown to be at the pointing out of the accused.With these, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out various discrepancies in the statements of the three eyewitnesses which would be dealt in this judgment at the relevant juncture.Coming to the testimony of P.W-1, Kishore Singh, we find that purpose of him joining the victim party to the police station Punchh was to lodge a first information report.In cross, this witness has stated that a report was lodged by him under Section 307 I.P.C on the fateful day at about 5.30 p.m and after that while returning from the police station they stayed on way to Sirsa village for a short duration.They reached at the place of the incident at about 8.30 pm.He states that the persons of accused party attacked Indrabhan Singh while yelling at him that they would teach him lesson for becoming leader of the villagers.All accused persons were armed with deadly weapons such as gun, farsa, Axe (kulhari), country made pistol and lathi.According to P.W-1, Dinesh Kumar fired a shot at the deceased and others had attacked him by farsa and kulhari.With regard to his own injury, P.W-1 states that he was hit by Jitendra and Karan by Axe (kulhari) whereas the injury report clearly proved that there was no injury corresponding to the weapon Axe (kulhari).P.W.-1 suffered two injuries of which one was a contusion on the back side of right knee joint and another was an abrasion of 2cm x 2 cm on the left side of leg upper 1/3 area of Fibula bone.Both these injuries cannot be said to have been caused by Axe (kulhari), moreso, when P.W-1 stated that he was hit on his back by kulhari and clot of blood was created.The cross examination of this witness (P.W-1)gives a clear suggestion that his injuries in all likelihood had been caused during the previous altercation occurred at about 4.30 p.m, which was reported by P.W-1 (Kishore Singh) with the allegation of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. We, thus, find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W-1 cannot be placed in the category of an injured witness as projected by the prosecution so as to attach credibility to his version of necessarily present at the scene of occurrence.However, by saying so we do not mean to say that we can discard the whole testimony of this witness being an eye witness for the above reason only.It is settled principle of appreciation of evidence that falsity in the statement of witnesses on some point would not make his whole testimony untrustworthy, in as much as, it is proved that Kishore Singh (P.W-1) went to the police station on 14.3.1998 with P.W -3 Veerpal Singh and lodged a First Information Report under section 307 I.P.C. It is stated by P.W-3 Veer Pal Singh in his examination-in-chief that they went to lodge the report of the altercation which took place between Dinesh and Kishore Singh.Dinesh and his son are accused in the present trial.The statement of P.W-1, P.W.-2 and P.W-3 for going to the P.S-Punchh on the fateful day and being present at the place and time of incident is consistent.They categorically stated in their testimony in examination-in-chief that they went to the police station to lodge the report by Kishore (P.W-1).Nothing could be elicited from their cross examination so as to discard this version.The presence of P.W-1, Kishore Singh as one of the members of the victim party at the place of incident is, thus, proved.As far as Jitendra Singh, P.W-2 is concerned, he is grand son of deceased Indrabhan.Three eye witnesses (P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3) proved in their testimony that Indrabhan went to the police station to get his gun and rifle released, which were deposited during the course of election.Various questions were put to these witnesses as to whether the licencee gun and rifle of Indrabhan Singh were handed over to him in their presence but no plausible answer could be given by anyone of them.Their shaky answers have been placed before us to vehemently contend that they were making a story on their own and were actually not present with deceased Indrabhan Singh.In our opinion, the minor inconsistencies in the statement of eye witnesses regarding the return/release of rifle and gun to the licencee Indrabhan Singh and their presence at the relevant point of time inside the police station is immaterial and does not discredit the prosecution story.Further noticeable is the fact that P.W.-2 was cross-examined over the stretch of a period of one year.When one witness is examined on different dates for different accused persons over a long period of one year, some discrepancies in his statement are bound to occur.However, nothing much could be elicited from his statement recorded on recall.As far as another injured witness Kushal Pal Singh is concerned, it has come on record that he could not enter in the witness box as he died after 4-5 months of the incident.In this case, the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses commenced only in the year 2001, i.e. after about three years of the incident.Thus, analysing the testimony of P.W-2 the first informant, it is proved that he left the spot of crime at about 9.30 p.m to lodge the First Information Report.There is no doubt about the report being registered at 10.15 p.m. No circumstance could be placed before us to establish that it was an Ante-time report.The prompt report of the incident by P.W-2 who himself was driving the tractor carrying seven members of the victim party is proved by the prosecution and is an assurance of earliest reporting of the crime without any embellishment or cooked up story.As far as the discrepancy in the statement of P.W-1 and P.W-2 as to who had opened the first fire on Indrabhan, we may note that the members of the victim party were taken by surprise and when Indrabhan was attacked, all of them rushed to save their life.P.W-2 was driving the tractor, he stated that he jumped from the tractor and hid to save himself, others followed the suit.In this scenario, it is not possible for the prosecution witness to describe the manner of assault vividly.The discrepancy which has occurred in the statement of eye witnesses (P.W-1 to P.W-3) as to which of the assailants first assaulted deceased and how, was natural and was bound to occur.Atleast this much is proved that only person of the victim party namely Indrabhan came in the hands of the accused persons as he was first hit on the trolly of the tractor and could not run to save his life.Further, the accused party attacked Indrabhan and while assaulting took him on the tractor with trolly to another place and caused his death.It, therefore, could not be ascertained clearly as to how many shots were fired by whom or actually who killed deceased by inflicting fatal injuries.The post mortem report indicates that there were seven injuries on the person of deceased and all of them were on his vital parts:-(i) Injury no.1, is Incised wound of 1 cm x 7 cm bone deep on the neck with bone cut in the middle.(ii) Injury no.2 is Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm skin deep on chin deep with bone cut.(iii) Injury no.3 is lacerated wound 11 cm x 5 cm skull bone deep, brain cut.Brain matter was coming out.(iv) There is one gun shot injury (entry wound) (Injury No.5) on the abdomen left side below ribs corresponding to which an exit wound (Injury no.6) was found at the back, scorching present around the entry wound (Injury no.5).Brain & its membranes were damaged.Heart was empty.Gases present in small intestine.Faecal matter was present in large intestine.Cause of death was shock and hemorrage due to Ante-mortem injuries.This shows that deceased was hit from the front while he was on the trolly.Since P.W-2 was driving the trolly he could not have seen as to how the attack was made.And further, as he and other members of victim party hid to save their life, they could not give the details as to how murder was caused.There is one more argument which was placed to dispute the presence of the eye witness, that is the entry wound of gunshot, which was inverted and scorching was present around the same.The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that it was a close range firing which is in clear contradiction to the statement of eyewitnesses that Indrabhan Singh (deceased) was fired first while he was on tractor and then was assaulted with sharp-edged weapons.As per the witnesses the members of the accused party were on the road.Eye witnesses, in the instant case, consistently stated that attack on deceased was made in the trolly and accused party took the tractor and trolly to another place while attacking him.The deceased Indrabhan Singh could not left the trolly.Such consistent evidence can not be discarded on the ground that the oral depositions of eye witnesses do not match with the medical evidence regarding the distance from which deceased was fired.Rather, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, looking to the nature of assault it was natural that the witnesses missed the details of attack and when they were cross examined for a long period of seven years from the incident.Moreover, scorching around the firearm wound would also depend upon the constituent of the propellant charged.Some discrepancies as to the distance of gun shot on the facts of this case would not weaken the prosecution case.The medical evidence cannot be given primacy to discredit the value of the eye witness testimony when their presence at the time of the incident otherwise has been established.From the above analysis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this much is clear that deceased was brought to death at the time and the place narrated in their testimony, by the accused persons from the weapons carried by them.It is also proved that deceased was challenged by the accused persons when the victim party expressed their annoyance for the support given by him to Kishore Singh (P.W-1).From the narration in the First Information Report and the statement of three eye witnesses, it is proved to be a case of brutal and cold blooded killing of Indrabhan Singh for the reason of annoyance of accused party on account of lodging of the First Information Report against Dinesh a co-accused.Dacoity or robbery was not the motive.Though during the course of cross examination, P.W-2 was shown a rifle no.1665 315 bore which was released by the Court in favour of the son of deceased Indrabhan Singh, but it has not come in evidence as to in which proceeding the said rifle was released and how and from where it was recovered.The recovery memo dated 2.4.1998 (Exhibit Ka-24), police does not disclose recovery of rifle from the possession of the accused or at their pointing out.The prosecution is completely silent about motive and recovery for conviction under Section 396 I.P.C, which requires that two ingredients are satisfied:The appellant nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 Ratan lal, Narendra @ Vinnu, Jitendra and Ram Khilawan; respectively, are in jail.The appellant nos.2, 5 and 7 namely Dinesh, Karan and Khadak Singh; respectively, are on bail.Order Date :- 10.7.2020 Harshita (Dinesh Pathak,J) (Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,007,589 | This revision is filed as against the order dated 04.06.2010 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in C.A.No.42 of 2010 against the conviction and sentence ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Thiruvotriyur dated 22.03.2010 in C.C.No.186 of 2009 for an offence u/s.323 of IPC and to pay a fine amount of Rs.750/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.2.The petitioner herein is the accused and the respondent is the complainant.3.The petitioner herein as an appellant has filed Crl.A.No.42 of 2010 before the Lower Appellate Court under Section 374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction passed in C.C.No.186 of 2009 dated 22.03.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Thiruvotriyur and he is convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed to pay a fine amount of Rs.750/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.When the appeal is posted for hearing on 04.06.2010, the same was dismissed for default for non appearance of the appellant, namely, the petitioner herein.Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this revision.6.I have perused the materials available on record.7.On a perusal of the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, it could be seen that though the petitioner-appellant appeared before the Lower Appellate Court below on earlier occasion, since he could not appear before the court on 04.06.2010, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for default, which is not permissible in law and that too, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his case.10.In view of the same, the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.A.No.42 of 2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration.The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur shall decide the matter afresh, after providing opportunities to both the parties and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.It is made clear that the petitioner herein shall appear before the Lower Appellate Court in the next hearing date and shall continue to cooperate, failing which, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur shall pass orders on merits as stated above.11.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.07.08.2015cseIndex: Yes/NoInternet:YesTo1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, M1 Madhavaram Police Station Madhavaram, Chennai2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur.3.The Judicial Magistrate at Thiruvotriyur4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasB. RAJENDRAN, Jcse Crl.R.C.No.925 of 201007.08.2015 | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,054,182 | % (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 909/2014, under Section 420/34 of IPC registered at police station Hari Nagar, Delhi is sought in this petition on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,950,597 | JUDGMENT M. Thanikachalam, J.The accused, in C.C. No. 164 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Salem, are the revision petitioners, having failed in their attempt, by filing a petition under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., praying to discharge them from the case.The respondent herein, by name Smt.S.Padma, is the wife of Mr.T.P. Ravichandran, the first petitioner.It is reported, the other petitioners are the relatives of the first petitioner.In that H.M.O.P., as reported by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the wife was served with the notice, but she failed to contest the case, as a result, on 24.9.1998, an ex-parte decree came to be passed, granting divorce i.e. dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent.The first petitioner/husband, admittedly, married another lady on 15.11.1998, which was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Marriage Certificate was issued on 4.12.1998, probably on the ground that his marriage with the respondent was not subsisting.The respondent/wife, who suffered a decree for divorce, in her absence, approached the Sub Court, Sankari, for setting aside the same, by filing an application and notice in the same was served upon the first petitioner/husband on 25.1.1999 and in evidence of the same, the postal acknowledgment copy has also been filed.Neither the counsel for the revision Page 2261 petitioners nor the counsel for the respondent are able to give the dates regarding the setting aside of the ex-parte decree.However, one thing is clear that till 22.1.1999 or 25.1.1999, the ex-parte decree of divorce was not set aside, which suffice to decide the dispute in this case.Now, it is reported that the ex-parte decree of divorce has been set aside and it is also further reported by the learned counsel for the respondent that the H.M.O.P. No. 29 of 1998 filed by the husband, for divorce, itself was dismissed, on merits.Because of the fact that the husband married another lady, the respondent/wife has filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Salem, as if the first petitioner/husband has committed an offence under Section 494 IPC, for which other accused have abetted, thereby the other respondents are also to be dealt with under Section 494 r/w. 109 IPC.The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken up the case on file in C.C. No. 164 of 2000 and the same is pending.All the accused in C.C. No. 164 of 2000 have filed a petition, under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., praying to discharge them, on the ground that no offence has been made out under Section 494 IPC, since the first accused had married another lady, when the decree for divorce was in subsistence.However, the trial Court, considering the fact that subsequently, the ex-parte decree granted for divorce, was set aside, unable to accept the defence raised on behalf of the accused, had dismissed the application, which is under challenge in this Revision.Heard Mr.It is also not disputed that the first petitioner/husband has filed a petition, for divorce, in H.M.O.P. No. 29 of 1998 and obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, on 24.9.1998, thereby proving that after 24.9.1998, the relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent, viz. husband and wife, ceased.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Mr.P.Jagadeesan, would submit that when the husband has married another lady, after the divorce, when the decree was in subsistence, viz. till the same was set aside, if he marries another lady, the same would not attract the offence under Section Page 2262 494 IPC and in aid, he brought to my notice a decision of the Apex Court in Gopal Divedi v. Prabha Divedi [(2002) M.L.J. (Crl.) 726].The wife preferred a complaint against the husband on 28.3.1995, alleging that he had committed the offence under Section 494 IPC, which was challenged by the husband, unsuccessfully.Then, the matter reached the Apex Court.Admittedly, before that, i.e. on 15.11.1998, he had married another lady.At the risk of repetition, it should be said that when there was an ex-parte decree for divorce, in other words, when the relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent, as husband and wife, came to an end, the first petitioner married another lady and there was no legal bar for that.For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 6.6.2003 made in Crl.M.P. No. 5107 of 2002 in C.C. No. 164 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Salem and C.C. No. 164 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Salem is quashed. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,950,674 | JUDGMENT Debabrata Mookerjee, J.On the jury's unanimous verdict Sarju alias Jagneswar Kumar, Sadhu alias Deodhari Goala, Tilakdhari Dosad alias Pasman alias Palwan.and Yasin Khan have been convicted of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.By reason of a previous conviction Tilakdhari has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and the rest to five years' rigorous imprisonment each.Of these four convicted men Sarju and Sadhu have been represent ed by counsel; Tilokdhari has preferred an appeal from jail; Yasin Khan has submitted to the sentence.The case for the prosecution is that on the 9th of January, 1959, at about 7 p.m. these appellants with several others raided the house of one Shewnath Pandey within police station, Asansol.As soon as the miscreants appeared Shewnath's servant Ram Janam Cope P. W. 5 gave an alarm; Shewnath himself bolted the front door leading to the house and went up with his servant on the roof of a ground-floor room, but Shewnath's wife and son stayed on in the ground-floor.The door was broken open and the miscreants armed with spears and lathis entered the courtyard.Crackers were thrown towards the roof.An iron safe was broken open in one of the rooms; trunks and suit cases containing clothes, ornaments and cash to the tune of about Rs. 2500/- were removed.Shewnath and Ram flanam recognised the appellants and their co-accused when they were in the courtyard in the light of a burning hurricane lantern which was tied to a post.After a short while the miscreants left and neighbours appeared on the scene.Meanwhile an information had been given to the police by one Birendra Nath Bhaduri who sent a telephonic message on hearing the explosion of crackers coming from the direction of Shewnath's house.The police arrived and took a detailed statement from Shewnath.In consequence of the information the police commenced investigation; the appellants and the said Yasin were arrested and two dhotis said to belong to Shewnath were recovered on search.A test identification parade was held and then a charge-sheet was submitted against them,After a preliminary enquiry the appellants were committed to take their trial before the court of- Session.As we have indicated all were charged with having committed dacoity; there was an additional charge against Sarju under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants pleaded not guilty and the defence was that they had been falsely implicated.Tilakdhari stated that he had been pointed out to the Witnesses by the investigating officer at the police station.He claimed to have brought the matter to the notice of the Magistrate who held the test identification parade.Sarju denied that the dhotis had been found in his 'possession and alleged that ho had been severely assauked by the police who had pointed him out to the identifying witnesses.The appellant Sadhii stated that he bore a cut mark on his forehead which made his identification easy and the police officer concerned had pointed out that special mark to the witnesses so that they might be enabled to identify him without difficulty.The jury obviously believed the prosecution case, discounted the defence and found the appellant guilty.9-18 On behalf of the appellants Sarju and Sadhu the learned Judge's summing-up has been assailed on several grounds.It would be necessary to notice the criticisms.After considering the objections and rejecting them, the judgment proceeds as under.There might have been a charge of dacoity and in the alternative a charge under Section 412; but the mere fact that he was charged with both, would not invalidate his conviction based on the jury's verdict on the charge of dacoity.The appeals are dismissed.D.N. Das Gupta, J. | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,071,742 | alias Munna Shah, Gaffar Shah and Sultan Shah have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 327 and 329 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24/10/10 at about 2 p.m., respondents intercepted the Motorcycle of complainant Narayan Kherwa and upon his refusal to give money for consuming liquor, assaulted him leading to injuries on his nose, mouth and head.Anil and Sanjay Jat present on the spot intervened and the respondents, while threatening to kill the complainant, fled from the spot.Upon the information of complainant, Crime No.123/10 was registered at Police Station Handia and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.To bring home the charges, prosecution examined Narayandas (PW1), Sanjay(PW2), Anil (PW3) as material witnesses.After considering their evidence and other material available on record, trial Court found that the case of prosecution was not trustworthy because evidence of all the witnesses was not only contrary to each other, but was also full with contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.Besides this, trial Court found Sanjay (PW2) to be an interested witness and existence of previous enmity between the parties was also established from the evidence on record.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,072,792 | In that case, marriage was performed at Delhi, the daughter was born at Delhi.Matrimonial home was in Patiala.They also wanted the police to recover money paid in 1994 in 2005 after enjoying the fruits of the agreement and having assigned their interest in the property to a third party for consideration.The petitioners have prayed for quashing the Complaint and the Order dated 1.7.2005 as also the FIR No. 436/05 registered at PS Defence Colony New Delhi interalia on the following amongst other grounds:-This starts from Section 200 and ends up to 210 of the Code.All the respondents are at Bombay.The land in question is also situated at Bombay.All the agreements were executed in Bombay.and circumstances vary from case to case.The above judgment is not attracted in the present case.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all transactions took place at Bombay.Mother and the child were thrown out from the matrimonial home at Patiala in the clothes that they were wearing.A report was lodged at Patiala about torture and dowry demand.Thereafter, complainant came to Delhi and lived with her parents.Threats from her husband continued and then she lodged a report in crime against Women Cell at Delhi.Subsequently a case under Section 498-A/406 IPC was registered whereupon the husband was arrested at Patiala and was brought to Delhi.The husband challenged the jurisdiction at Delhi.Husband-wife disputes stand on a different footing.In the present case the immovable property [Crl.M.C.Nos.6122-23/2005 & Crl.M.C.Nos.6133-34/2005 Page 14 of 69] is situated at Mumbai.Considering all the circumstances and the facts available on the record, I stay the operation of the impugned orders dated 1.7.2005 and 5.10.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, till further orders.Renotify on 20th March, 2006, for disposal Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.Special Leave Petition filed by the second respondent/complainant before the Honble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order stands dismissed.I am conscious of the fact that the interim order does not decide the merits of the case.Accordingly, the matter was heard on all aspects at length.The learned counsel for the petitioners, complainant as also the counsel for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi have made their submissions orally and have also given written notes.That the complainant prefers this complaint u/s 415/420/465/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC before this Honble Court and the details of which may be read and taken as the part and parcel of this application.That as cognizable offences have been committed, the complainant made a police complaint against the above mentioned accused persons at P.S. Defence Colony, which is duly acknowledged as received on Dt. 25.05.2005 (Copy of the complaint duly acknowledged is annexed herewith)That after having got received complaint in the Police Station, the complainant approached the police official through its Attorney, and other officials, [Crl.These facts are akin to illustration (i) to Sec. 415 IPC.And the complainant paid Rs. 25.64 instead of Rs. 21.60 due to fraudulently and dishonestly concealment of facts by the accused.That the accused persons have made/execute false documents of mortgage/charge without authority and hence committed cognizable offence of forgery punishable u/s 465 IPC.That the accused persons made false documents in respect of valuable security, i.e. land and hence cognizable offence u/s 467 IPC has been committed.ii) Who other persons have got benefited out of this cheating?iii) How actually has this mortgage been effected and who are the beneficiaries?iv) What was the status/economic conditions of [Crl.The very basis on which the present complaint had been filed is ex-facie non-existent.The complainant had deliberately not annexed the agreement between the parties, which agreements he annexed before the Supreme Court.Fourthly, the Complainant has instituted arbitration proceedings claiming damages on this very account on the ground that it is breach of agreement.(iii) After the interim order of 05.12.2005 was passed by this Court, Complainant also approached Bombay police and filed a complaint in Bombay.The complainant made similar allegations before the Bombay Police regarding creation of mortgage.The order has been passed without application of mind.The complainant has also suppressed material facts.Since the first question is one of public importance.I have heard all concerned including the intervenors at length for the purpose of understanding scope and ambit of the powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code in the light of the provisions contained in Chapter XII and Chapter XV of the Code.All parties have filed written submissions and have also cited case laws.The issue has also been addressed by both sides even while addressing the final arguments.The petitioners have relied upon following judgments on the first question:-i) Maksud Syed Vs.iv) Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs.Shivam Sunderam Promoters Ltd.v) Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs.The 2nd respondent/complainant has referred to the following Judgments:(i) Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr.(iii) Puran Mal Gupta & Ors.State & Anr. 2008 (4) JCC 2347(iv) Priya Gupta Vs.State 2007 (2) JCC 1058(v) Vijay Bahadur Pandey Vs.(vi) Hira Lal Vs.State of U.P. 2008 Crl.(vii) Rajni Palriwala Vs.D. Mohan 2009 (3) JCC 1896(viii) Ritu Rawat Vs.[Crl.M.C.Nos.6122-23/2005 & Crl.M.C.Nos.6133-34/2005 Page 22 of 69](ix) Aloshia Joseph Vs.Dr. Joseph Kollamparambil & Anr.2009 Crl.(x) Suresh Chand Jain Vs.(xi) Ram Babu Gupta & Anr.2001 Crl.(xii) S.P. Sharma Vs.NCT of Delhi 1991 JCC 59 (Delhi)(xiii) Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr.Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.2005 II AD (Crl.) S.C. 12(xiv) Surinder Singh Sobti Vs.The State & Ors.1999 (I) JCC 107 (S.C.)(xv) Suprintendent of Police, CBI & Ors.Tapan Kumar Singh 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1305 (xvi) Renu Kumari Vs.(xvii) H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab Chandigarh Vs.State, 1980 (4) SCC 631 (xviii) Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs.Alnoori Tobacco Products and Anr., 2004 (6) SCC 186 (xix) Sakiri Vasu Vs.State of U.P. & Ors.(xx) Mohd. Yusuf Vs.Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and Anr., 2006 (1) SCC 627 (xxi) Dilawar Singh Vs.State of Delhi 2007 (12) SCC 641 (xxii) R.R. Chari Vs.State of U.P., 1962 Crl.(xxiii) Tula Ram & Ors.Kishore Singh 1977 (4) SCC 459 (xxiv) Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas Vs.State of West Bengal, 1959 Crl.L.J. 1368 (xxv) Devarapalli Lakshminarayan Reddy & Ors.V. Narayana Reddy & Ors., 1976(SCC) 252 (xxvi) Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Bhadai SAh.(xxix) Madhu Bala Vs.(xxx) Supdt.& Remembrance W.B. Vs.Abani Kumar, 1951 Crl.The interveners cited following additional Judgments :-i) S.P. Shenbagamooty Vs.LJ. 271ii) Arvind Bhai Rajiv Bhai Patel Vs.State of Gujarat 1998 Crl.Thus the said order cannot be sustained.Even the mortgage was executed at Bombay & stands re-conveyed.It is also a matter of record that after the interim order was passed by this Court the complainant did approach the Bombay Police for the same grievance but without success.vii) Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.xiv) B.Suresh Yadav Vs.Sharifa Bee & Anr.(2007) 13 SCC 107xv) Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs.State of Bihar & Anr.(2005) 10 SCC 336 xvi) Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs.State of Punjab & Ors.(2009) 7 SCC 712 xvii) Sunil Kapoor & Anr.State & Anr.102/2004 decided on 6.10.2009 xviii) Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr.State of Uttaranchal & Ors.(2007) 12 SCC 1 xix) Kalpana Kutty, Proprietor of K. Film Kompanie Vs.the State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2007) 109 BOMLR 2342 xx) Kusum Sandhu & Anr.Ved Prakash Narang 2008 (106) DRJ 721 xxi) Utam Kumar Bose Vs.National Capital Territory Delhi 2004 (76) [Crl.M.C.Nos.6122-23/2005 & Crl.M.C.Nos.6133-34/2005 Page 45 of 69] DRJ 197 xxii) Mohd. Salim Vs.xxiii) Sanjay Poddar Vs.CBI 103 (2003) DLT 801 (DB) xxiv) Sundar Babu & Ors.State of Tamil Nadu 2009 (5) SCALE xxv) M/s Cogent Enterprises Ltd. Vs.As such the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.The additional reason for not going into these aspects is that a civil suit is pending inter se the parties for the amounts in question.It is also the contention of the petitioner that the complainant had no locus to lodge the present FIR because the title of the land was always with SRM.The land was never sold to UTILITY or to any other person.The mortgage was, however, executed in favour of IL&FS and on their satisfaction the complainant cannot raise any grievance.Moreover, the said mortgage stands re-conveyed.Rather the attempt of the Complainant was to get something more from the petitioners having lost in earlier civil litigations.The action of the Complainant is only an attempt of a frustrated litigant who cannot be permitted to invoke the criminal jurisdiction for the purpose of abusing the same to the detriment of the petitioners and others without any rhyme or reason.The counsel for respondent no.2 also submits that the Complaint clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence.It is also stated that complaint is not required to reproduce verbatim all the ingredients of offences as alleged in the body of the complaint.Reliance in this regard has been placed uponi) Rajesh Bajaj Vs.iv) Devendra Singla Vs.Krishna Singla 2004 (iii) AD(Cr.) SC 217only and secondly, they entered into an agreement with Ansals dated 28.06.1996 whereby they also assigned all their rights and obligations vide agreement dated 28.6.96 with Ansals to build flats on the aforesaid area.These facts were not informed to the Magistrate for reasons best known to them.The allegation of the Company that this was to hide the truth, gain strength in this way.The respondents on the other hand have submitted that even if the disputes raised by the Complainant are civil dispute as the parties are before an Arbitrator and other Courts of higher status, it cannot be made basis for quashing of the criminal proceedings because the complainant is entitled to take out criminal proceedings if the same set of facts also discloses commission of Criminal proceedings as held in the following judgments:iv) M.S. Sheriff Vs.The complainant before filing the FIR had been filing various proceedings against the petitioners to create pressure.He filed a Section 9 petition, which also was rejected on 04.05.2001 and appeal against it, was also dismissed.i) State of M.P. Vs.Awadh Kishore Gupta 2004 (2) CRJ 161 [Crl.M.C.Nos.6122-23/2005 & Crl.M.C.Nos.6133-34/2005 Page 60 of 69]ii) Angad Paul & Ors.M.D. Jindal (Delhi) 2005 (2) JCC 1093iii) State of Orissa & Anr.Saroj Kumar Sahu 2006 (2) CRJ 569iv) State of Bihar & Anr.v) State of Karnataka & Anr.Pastor P. Raju, 2006 (3) JCC 1398vi) Major S.J. Dubey Vs.State of Punjab & Ors.1986 (Supp.) SCC 675vii) Dr. Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr.State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.Accordingly, the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as well as the FIR No. 436/2005 registered at the Defence Colony, Police Station, New Delhi are hereby quashed. | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,077,848 | The prosecution case is as follows:Palanichamy [P.W.-1] and his wife Eswari [P.W.-2] were residing in A.K.G.Nagar near Marudhanadhi Village.On 04.05.2011, Palanichamy [P.W.-1] came with his two children, viz., Kalidass (11 years) and Kaleeswari (6 years) to Marudhanadhi Village for the village festival and dropped his two children in the house of his family friend Meena [P.W.-5] and her husband Pandi [P.W.-6] and left for work.The appellant is the nephew of Meena [P.W.-5] and he had also come to her house for the temple festival.On the same day around 3.00 p.m., when Palanichamy [P.W.-1] and his wife Eswari [P.W.-2] came to Meena's [P.W.-5's] house to pick up their children, they did not find Kaleeswari [deceased].When Kalidass [P.W.-3] was asked, he said that the appellant took Kaleeswari with him for getting her biscuits and chocolates.When the appellant was questioned, he stated that after getting her biscuits, he dropped her in the temple.The families of Palanichamy [P.W.-1] and Meena [P.W.-5] searched for Kaleeswari [deceased], but in vain.Announcements were made through the publichttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 address system in the temple, but to no avail.Ultimately, on the complaint [Ex.P.-1] lodged by Palanichamy [P.W.-1], Murugesan [P.W.-24] Head Constable, registered a case in Crime No.121/2011 for 'girl missing' on 07.05.2011 at 14 hrs.and investigation of the case was taken over by Srinivasan [P.W-27] Inspector of Police.On 08.05.2011, the appellant was arrested and based on his confession, the decomposed body of Kaleeswari was recovered from a desolate place amongst the bushes at Peelikaradu near Marudhanadhi Dam.The Investigating Officer [P.W.-27] prepared the observation mahazar [Ex.P-4] and the rough sketch [Ex.P-18].In the presence of Panchayatdars, he [P.W.-27] conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 12 and 14 hrs.and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P-19].The Investigating Officer [P.W.-27] despatched the body through Karuppiah HC-131 [P.W.-25] to the Government Hospital, Batlagundu for postmortem.Juliana Jeyanthi [P.W.-19] conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P-5], and final opinion [Ex.P-6], after receiving the biology report.In herhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 evidence as well in the postmortem certificate [Ex.P-5], the following injuries have been noted:“Appearances found at the postmortem: Moderately nourished decomposed body of a female aged about 06 years.Finger and toe nails were blue.Crawling maggots seen all over the body.The following ante-mortem injuries were noted over the body;1.Fracture of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x through and through and 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x through and through seen over the middle of the left greater horn and right greater horn of the hyoid respectively with the surrounding bruise injuring the surrounding muscles.2.Vaginal introits was torn (3 cms x 3 cms x 1.5 cms) at 6' O clock position with the surrounding bruise injuring the surrounding muscles, vessels and nerves.Margins were irregular.Hymen was torn.Vagina freely admitted one finger.Other findings:Peritoneal cavity, pleural cavities – empty, pericardium contains 5 ml of decomposed fluid, heard – flabby; lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys – cut section congested.Larynx and trachea – decomposed; hyoid bone- described in the injury column.Reserved pending chemical examination report.The prosecution has proved beyond cavil the following facts: (1) the deceased Kaleeswari was the younger sister of Kalidass [P.W.-3] and daughter of Palanichamy [P.W.-1] and Eswari [P.W.-2];2.they were living in A.K.G.Nagar;P.N.PRAKASH, J.This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 03.04.2017 in S.C.No.168/2012 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul.The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.168/2012 and the trial Court framed three charges, as detailed below:Charges Penal Provisions 1 366(A)IPC 2 376 IPC 3 302 IPCBy Judgment dated 03.04.2017, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused, as detailed below:-Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 366 IPC To undergo rigorous Rs.1,000/-, in default to imprisonment for ten undergo imprisonment for six years months 376 IPC To undergo imprisonment Rs.1,000/-, in default, to for life undergo imprisonment for six months 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment Rs.1,000/-, in default, to for life undergo imprisonment for six months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the saidhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.Note: Certival swab taken and handed over to incharge PC HC131 Karuppiah for chemical examination at Regional Forensic Lab, Madurai.” The vaginal swabs and the garments including the under garments of the deceased were sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory and the Biology reports, viz., Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 state that no blood or semen was detected in any of the items.After obtaining the reports, Dr.Juliana Jayanthi [P.W.-19] gave the final opinion, which reads as under:The deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation, five days, prior to autopsy.The appellant was examined by Dr.Thirumalaisamy [P.W.-21], who, in his evidence as well in his report [Ex.P-8], has stated that he is capable of coitus.Chandrasekar [P.W.-23], Radiologist, performed the radiological test and determined the age of the appellant and gave his opinion that the age of the appellant would be between 21 and 24 years vide Ex.Karthiga [P.W.-22] Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul conducted Test Identification Parade on 18.05.2011, in which, Kalidass [P.W.-3] and Murugan [P.W.-4] identified the appellant.The Test Identification Parade report was marked as Ex.After examining some witnesses and after obtaining various reports, the police completed the investigation and filed final report in P.R.C.NO.32/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai for the offences under Sections 366(A), 376 and 302 IPC against the appellant.On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.168/2012 and was made over to the Mahila Court, Dindigul, for trial.The trial Court framed the charges as stated in paragraphhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 No.2 supra.When questioned, the appellant pleaded not guilty.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses, marked 23 exhibits and 7 material objects.When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.After considering the evidence on record and on hearing either side, the trial court convicted the appellant as stated in paragraph No.3 above, challenging which, the present appeal has been preferred.3.The Muthumariamman temple festival had begun in Marudhanadhi Village on 04.05.2011;4.Palanichamy [P.W.-1] came to Marudhanadhi Village for the temple festival on 04.05.2011 and dropped his two children in the house of Meena [P.W.-5] and Pandi [P.W.-6];5.Thereafter, Kaleeswari went missing on 04.05.2011 and thereafter, her body was recovered on 08.05.2011 amongst bushes in a desolate place a little away from Marudhanadhi Village;6.The medical evidence shows that Kaleeswari was sexually abused and murdered;The moot question is whether the appellant had committed the offences, for which, he was charged.Meena [P.W.-5] has stated that she lives with her family in Marudhanadhi Village and the family of Palanichamy [P.W.-1] is known to her well; on 04.05.2011, the Muthumariamman Temple festival was going on in her village, for which, Palanichamy [P.W.-1] and his two children, namely, Kalidass [P.W.-3] and Kaleeswari (deceased) came to her house; the appellant Karthick is her nephew and he had also comehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 for the temple festival; after dropping his children, Palanichamy [P.W.-1] went for work; Karthick was playing with the children; her [P.W.-5's] children were taking biscuits and chocolates, on seeing which, Kaleeswari also wanted chocolates; so, the appellant took Kaleeswari with him to get her chocolates from the shop of Ochammal [P.W.-7] around 11.00 a.m.; after that, the appellant did not return; around 3.00 p.m., Palanichamy [P.W.-1] and his wife Eswari [P.W.-2] came to her house after worshipping in the temple; when they asked for their children, she [P.W.-5] told them that the children will be somewhere around; they went in search of the children and did not find Kaleeswari; two days later, they lodged a police complaint; thereafter, she learnt that the body of Kaleeswari was found near the dam.In the cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant had come with his parents and stayed in her house and they all left on Friday.Pandi [P.W.-6] her husband has generally corroborated her evidence.He has stated that on 04.05.2011, he came with his father [P.W.-1] andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 sister to Meena Aunty's [P.W.-5] house for the temple festival; he was playing with his friends near the temple; around 12.00 p.m., the appellant took his sister with him saying that he wants to get her chocolates and biscuits; thereafter, he [P.W.-3] did not see his sister Kaleeswari; around 3.00 p.m., his parents [P.W.-1 and P.W.-2] came to take them back and at that time, when they asked him about Kaleeswari, he told them that the appellant had taken her for getting her chocolates and biscuits; when he [P.W.-3] and his father [P.W.-1] asked the appellant as to where Kaleeswari is, he [appellant] told them that he dropped Kaleeswari in the temple after getting her biscuits and chocolates, for which, his father shouted; thereafter they all searched for Kaleeswari and his father gave a police complaint on 07.05.2011, after which, Kaleeswari's body was found near the dam.He has further stated that on 18.05.2011, he identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade that was conducted in the jail.In our opinion, there was no necessity for the police to conduct the Test Identification Parade for Kalidass [P.W.-3], because, the appellant was not a stranger to him.Therefore, hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 must have been studying in the 9th standard in 2011, when the incident took place.In the cross-examination of Kalidass [P.W.-3], he has reiterated that while he was playing with his friends near the temple, he [P.W.-3] saw the appellant taking his sister and when he asked him, he [appellant] told him that he is taking her for getting chocolates and biscuits for her.Further, in the cross-examination, he has stated that on 08.05.2011, he saw the appellant at Peelikaradu.It may be recollected that the body of the deceased was recovered from Peelikaradu, based on the disclosure of the appellant.The prosecution examined Ochammal [P.W.-7] and Muniyandi [P.W.-8] to prove that the appellant had come to their shop with the deceased Kaleeswari and had bought bread and chocolates.Ochammal [P.W.-7] in her evidence has stated that she runs a petty shop in Marudhanadhi Village and she knows Palanichamy [P.W.-1] and his family.She has stated that 2½ years back, during the Muthumariamman Temple Festival, the appellant came with Kaleeswari to her shop and bought bread and chocolates; on the same day,http://www.judis.nic.in 13 around 3.00 p.m., Kaleeswari's father Palanichamy [P.W.-1] came to their shop and asked about the whereabouts of Kaleeswari and she [P.W.-7] told him that she does not know her whereabouts.In the complaint [Ex.P-1], that was given by Palanichamy [P.W.-1], he has narrated the following facts:(a) Kalidass [P.W.-3] told him that the appellant had taken Kaleeswari for getting her biscuits and chocolates;(b) That he went to Ochammal's [P.W.-7's] shop and asked her and she told him that the appellant had indeed come with Kaleeswari and got her chocolates;(c) that when he [P.W.-1] confronted the appellant, he [appellant] said that he got chocolates for Kaleeswari, but left her near the temple;Apart from this evidence, we have the evidence of three persons, namely, Murugan, S/o.Thangam [P.W.-4], Murugan, S/o.Ramaraj [P.W.-14] and Murugan, S/o.Veeranan [P.W.-15], who have also stated that they saw the appellant and the deceased near the Peelikaradu area.N.Ananthapadmanaban attacked their evidence vehemently and submitted that Murugan, S/o.Thangam is the own brother of Eswari [P.W.-2] and the maternal uncle of the deceased.While that being so, had he seen his niece with the appellant near Peelikaradu, he would not have left it at that, but would have definitely questioned the appellant as to where he is taking the child.There appears to be sufficient force in the submission of Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban with regard to the evidence of the three Murugans.N.Ananthapadmanaban contended that the appellant had not absconded and was available when Palanichamy [P.W.-1] came to fetch the children.He further contended that when Palanichamy [P.W.-1] questioned the appellant, the appellant did not deny that he did not take Kaleeswari, but told him that after getting chocolates, he dropped her near the temple.He further contended that had thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 appellant committed such a heinous crime, he would not have been available in the village and would have absconded.Though at the first blush, this argument did sound appealing, yet, the fallacy in it can be discerned on a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record.Meena, [P.W.-5] who is none other than the aunt of the appellant, and her husband Pandi [P.W.-6] have supported the prosecution case and have stated that it was the appellant, who had taken Kaleeswari from her house on the pretext of getting her biscuits and chocolates.Thereafter, neither the appellant nor Kaleeswari returned.Only after Palanichamy [P.W.-1] came at 3.00 p.m. and started searching for his daughter, the appellant became available.When the appellant had taken the child from the house of Meena [P.W.-5], his explanation that after getting the chocolates, he dropped the six year old child near the temple just like that, does not cut ice with us.The explanation proffered by the appellant did not satisfy Palanichamy [P.W.-1] also and that is why, Palanichamy [P.W.-1] shouted at the appellant, about which, Kalidass [P.W.-3] has spoken to.N.Ananthapadmanaban submitted that the complainthttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 [Ex.P-1] in this case was not given on 04.05.2011, but was given only on 07.05.2011, which, does cast a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution.To appreciate this contention of Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban, it may be necessary to scrutinise the evidence of Palanichamy [P.W.-1]:Now, let us examine the status of Palanichamy [P.W.-1]: A reading of his evidence shows that he [P.W.-1] is an ordinary daily wage earner and does not even know to write. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,950,817 | Petitioner No.1 alleges that after having been beaten and thrown out from the matrimonial home, relations between the parties became stained and, therefore, to harass the petitioner respondent No.3 lodged the complaint against her and others including Chaman Lal.Respondent No.3 in her complaint alleged that on 20th January, 1989, petitioners alongwith Chaman Lal came to the residence of the complainant to invite her and her father-in-law and sons on the marriage of petitioner No.1's younger brother Prakash Chand.JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.(1) This Revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 22nd May, 1995, thereby dropping the charge framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 420/120-B against the accused persons.(2) The impugned order has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the Addl.Sessions Judge, without the consent of the petitioners on the basis of counsel's statement could not have dropped the charges and thus disposed of the Revision petition.(3) To appreciate the challenge made by the petitioner the facts are important and necessary.Brief facts are that the complaint was lodged by Smt.Kusum respondent No.3 herein against the petitioners and one Sh.Chaman Lal.After greetings the petitioner induced the complainant to get her gold ornaments prepared from petitioner No.l's brother and father.Complainant also wanted to get jewellery prepared because her daughter was to get married.Since the complainant was in need of money and intended to get prepared two sets of gold ornaments, she agreed and handed over 22 tolas of gold in the shape of two gold bars to petitioners 1 to 3 and accused Chaman Lal.It is further the case of prosecution that petitioners herein alongwith Chaman Lal represented that out of 22 tolas of gold bars they would prepare two gold ornament sets weighing about ten tolas and for the balance gold they would pay her the market price.But neither the gold ornaments, nor the gold bars nor any money has been returned by the petitioners inspite of the repeated reminders given by the complainant.When the petitioners and Chaman Lal did not return 22 tolas of gold nor the cost for the same complainant lodged this complaint pursuance to which police registered the case under Section 420/120-B read with Section 406/ 120-B, Indian Penal Code Charge was framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioners as well as against Chaman Lal.The petitioners challenged the order of framing the charge by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge.Matter was listed before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi, on 22nd May,1995for arguments.That while the arguments were being heard the counsel for the petitioners made a statement.The counsel vide the said statement stated that he would not press the Revision provided charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, was deleted and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate be directed to properly frame the charge under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings under Section 406 may continue against the accused persons.The said statement was made by the counsel without any instructions from the petitioners.Under criminal procedure there is no provision to drop a charge on a counsel's statement.Petitioners ought to have been appraised of the same before the Additional Sessions Judge acted on counsel's statement. | ['Section 120B 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. |
1,950,826 | ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J.The applicants were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Hapur, Meerut for an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, The Magistrate also passed an order forfeiting the cycles of the applicants.The case for the prosecution is that the applicants ware found cutting wire from the side of the Government Tube Well Raghunathpur.Nanak applicant was perched upon the pole and cutting the wire.Abdul Haq and Momin applicants were collecting the out wire and making rounds thereof.They were arrest, ed on the spot.An Art, two cycles and one wrist watch were also recovered from their possession at the time of their arrest.This case of the prosecution has been proved by the evidence on the re. cord.The finding of fact recorded by the trial court has been confirmed by the appel.late court.The High Court did not admit the revision on merits but observed at the time of admission that it was doubtful whether the order forfeiting the two cycles was an order in accordance with law.Counsel for the State was granted time to study this question,I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,954,210 | Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.On 19-12-1989 prosecutrix (P.W. 8) lodged a report (Exhibit P-7) to the effect that about a month back while her mother-in-law was hospitalised at Icchawar hospital and her husband had gone to the school, in the afternoon when she was alone in the house, her father-in-law/appellant having entered into the house locked the back door and thrown her on the ground committed rape with her and threatened that if she will cry he will kill her.After satisfying his lust, he left the house.Prosecutrix narrated above incident to Rajkunwar Bai (P.W. 6), Harnath Chamar as well as to her husband in the evening.After 15 days, complainant's husband left prosecutrix to her paternal house.Prosecutrix intimated whole incident to her parents.Next day, they went to Police Station Icchawar to lodge the complaint against appellant.Meanwhile, appellant, maternal father-in-law, brother-in-law and some community members persuaded prosecutrix and her father to settle the matter in the caste panchayat.On their persuasion, they did not lodge the report.The community panchayat was held on 10-12-1989 in the village of appellant but no settlement could have been taken place in that panchayat, therefore, on 19-12-1989 F.I.R. (Exhibit P-7) was lodged.On the basis of this report Crime No. 215/ 89 under Ss. 376 and 506B of I.P.C. was registered.JUDGMENT S.C. Sinho, J.Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 142/90 vide impugned judgment dated 1-9-1992 recording conviction of appellant under Section 376 of I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years.Prosecutrix (P.W. 8) was sent for medical examination.As per medical examination report (Exhibit P-9) given by Dr. T. Khanna (P.W. 9), no marks of injury was seen on any part of her body.The alleged accident took place a month back, prosecutrix being married lady and consequently habitual to sexual intercourse, no opinion about rape was given by lady doctor.Completing the investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted,Appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he is being falsely implicated in this case because prosecutrix wants to live with her lover Ravishankar and she has lodged the F.I.R. after many days of the incident.The Court below in S.T. No. 142/90 vide impugned judgment relying upon the testimony of prosecutrix (P.W. 8) held that appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix.As such, recording conviction under Section 376 of I.P.C. he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years.As per this, the incident occurred about a month back at 15.00 p.m. when her mother-in-law was hospitalised at Icchawar Hospital and her husband had gone to the school.When she was alone, appellant thrown her on the ground and committed rape with her and left the house.Prosecutrix intimated the incident to Rajkunwar Bai (P.W. 6), Harnath Chamar and to her husband when he came back from school.Prosecutrix (P.W. 8), aged about 18 years has stated that when she was alone in the house, at about 15.00 p.m. her father-in-law/appellant came and locked the back door of the house and thrown her on the ground.Thereafter, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and left the house.In the evening, at about 17.00 p.m. when her husband came back from the school, this incident was narrated to him as well as to neighbours Rajkunwar Bai and Harnath Chamar.Her husband assured her that they will live separately from the appellant but after 15 days her husband left the prosecutrix to her paternal house.Prosecutrix intimated the whole incident to her parents when she met them.Next day along with her father she went to Icchawar police station to lodge the report.At Icchawar her brother-in-law, maternal father-in-law and appellant met them and convinced that the matter will be settled in community panchayat.P.W. 5 Ramprasad has also attended that panchayat.P.W. 7 Pannalal is the main panch of their community.He has also supported the prosecutrix version that her father and appellant have called the above panchayat on 10-12-1989 which was attended by them.As soon as prosecutrix reached to her paternal house, she intimated whole incident to her father Gheesilal (P.W. 11) and next day with Gheesilal she went to lodge the report at Icchawar Police Station.There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed.They might not immediately think of going to the police station.Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,954,277 | JUDGMENT P.L. Bhargava, J.This is an appeal by Mohammad Sharif and his own brother, Laiq Ahmad, residents of Kot Sharki in the town of Sambhal district Moradabad.The charge against Laiq Ahmad was that he had, on 9th June 1948, at about 7 or 8 p. m., committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Badri Prasad, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Penal Code.It was alleged that he had stabbed Badri Prasad with a knife while he was passing in front of his (Laiq Ahmad's) house in the company of his sons, Mahesh Chandra, Girish Chandra and Bishesh Chandra.Daring the course of the occurrence Badri Prasad was fatally wounded.He was immediately removed to the hospital at Sambhal.Dr. Chimman Ltd, the Medical Officer of the hospital at Sambhal, examined Badri Prasad and found a penetrating wound 3" x3/4" opening into the abdominal cavity in front of abdomen left upper pact, some portion of intestine coming oat of the wound and a cat 1/2" long or over the intestines through which focal matter had come out.He also found three incised wounds in front of the index, middle and ring fingers of the left hand and also three abrasions on the right side of the face, on the inner side of the right elbow and in front of the right chin upper part.I at once went a little distance and after that I sat in a tonga and came to the hospital.The name of my elder son is Mahesh Chander.When I was stabbed with the knife at that time two Punjabi men were there.The name of one of them is Munshi Lal but I do not know the name of the other.There were other persons also.He did not notice the abrasions which were found by Dr, Chimman Lal.He found:He also found one pound of liquid blood in the abdominal cavity.Mohammad Sharif was charged under Section 302/109, Penal Code and also under Section 392, Penal Code.In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the abrasions were caused by friction against some hard substance while the other injuries had been caused by some sharp, edged weapon.When the condition of Badri Prasad appeared serious the Medical Officer called Shri Shamshad Ahmad, who was then the Tahsildar of Sambhal.He immediately reached the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of Badri Prasad at 8-30 p. m. In this dying declaration, the following version of the incident was given."It was about 7-30 or 8 O'clock when after closing my shop I was returning home along with my sons Mahesh Chander, Girish Chancier and Bishesh Chander.On the way in Mohalla Kot near the post office and the stall of Kallan lies the house of Sharif, Hanif, Idris and Laiq.Sharif caught hold of the hand of my son Mahesh Chander and made him sit on the oat and Bald 'as long as yon will not pay my money you will not be able to go.' Mahesh said you owe me money and I do not owe you any money.' He then said 'unless you pay my money you will not be able to go otherwise I will get you all killed.' Laiq, Sharif, Hanif, Idris, Ismall, Kallan and Mushtaq caught hold of all four of us at once and Laiq brought a knife and stabbed me in my abdomen.I caught hold of the knife but the fingers of my left hand got out.As soon as the knife pierced, the intestines from my abdomen came out.When I started many persona had assembled there.It was dark when I was stabbed with the knife.In the dark I did not see what persons saw me being stabbed.I have made this statement while I am in my senses."The same story was repeated in the first information report, which was made by Mahesh Chandra at P. S. Sambhal the same night at 9-30 p. m. In the report Ram Murti, Prem Prakash and Nand Kishore were named among the witnesses of the occurrence."(1) Stiched wound 3" x 1/8" by cavity deep in the left hypechondriac region.21/2" from the middle line.There were five stitches of silk.They out through the whole thickness abdominal wall, the left part of the Omentum and the transverse colon.The transverse colon had a stitched wound 11/2 ' x 1/3 with three stiches on its front surface at the site of the wound, (2) Incised would 1" x 1/2 x bone deep on the palmer surface of the digit, the lett index finger.(3) Incised would 11/2 x"1/3"x skin deep on the palmer aspect of the pronominal digit of the left middle finger."In his opinion death was due to shock and haemorrhage from the abdominal wound.6. S. I. Moti Ram, who was present when the first information report was lodged, started the investigation and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses.There was a communal riot at Sambhal on 12th June 1948, and the Sub-Inspector got busy in that connection.He completed the investigation in due course and the appellants were prosecuted.In the committing Magistrate's Court, the appellants denied having committed the offences with which they were charged and alleged that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity.Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.The case for the prosecution rested upon the dying declaration and the oral evidence consisting of the statements of Mahesh Chandra, Prem Prakash, Nand Kishore and Munshi Ram, who claim to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the dying declaration should not have been relied upon because it contained obviously false statements, it shows that an attempt has been made to rope in all the brothers of the appellant and certain other persons, it contains interpolations, which throw doubt on its genuine-ness, and it does not mention the names of witnesses.[His Lordship considered the dying declaration and the oral evidence and held that the dying declaration was genuine and the appellant Laiq Ahmad was rightly found guilty. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,433,898 | Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.This document does not mention the printed name of the school but at the bottom there is a seal of the Principal of the college mentioning Swami Vivekanand Inter College, Rampur, Deoria.Petitioner no.1-Pooja Chaurasiya @ Ruksar Khatoon and petitioner 2-Rajesh Chaurasiya are present before the Court.The petitioner no.1, when questioned by us, stated that her date of birth is 01.01.2001 but no proof of her age has been filed in the writ petition in support of this claim other than her Adhar-card.She has, however, admitted before the Court that she is a student of Swami Vivekanand Inter College, Rampur, Gaunaria, District Deoria, and this year she will be appearing for High School examination i.e. Class-X examination.All these facts require scrutiny and investigation during trial.We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the investigation of case crime no.0007 of 2020, u/s 363, 366, 120-B IPC, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria may go on and be carried to its logical conclusion but no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.A copy of the radiological report of the Department of Radiology, T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad and the report of the C.M.O. Prayagraj dated 11.2.2020 shall be made available to the learned A.G.A. today itself.The original Class-IX mark-sheet of the petitioner no.1 Pooja Chaurasiya @ Ruksar Khatoon dated 30.03.2019 is being returned to Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, after retaining its photocopy on the record, Order Date :- 12.2.2020 m.a. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,434,235 | To repel the charge of rape of a married woman, the plea of consent is being put forth on behalf of the appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2008 Page 1 this appeal.The version of the prosecutrix (PW-1), aged about twenty two years, is that her husband was not present in the house at the time of this incident and appellant/accused along with co- accused came there and enquired about the owner of the house and had told the prosecutrix (PW-1) to call the owner of the said house, who was said to be residing in a nearby area.The prosecutrix (PW-1) innocently did so and thereafter, appellant expressed desire to have some food and his co-accused went away to fetch the food and during the intervening period, appellant/accused had misbehaved with the prosecutrix (PW-1) and when she resisted, he had torn her clothes and had forcibly raped her.Attempt by the prosecutrix (PW-1) to raise voice was stalled by the appellant/accused by closing her mouth.On the pretext of urinating, prosecutrix (PW-1) had managed to escape from the spot while locking the appellant/accused in the house and she had informed the neighbours and this matter was reported to the police, which led to registration of FIR No. 221 of Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2008 Page 2 2004, under Section 376/34 of the IPC, at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi.The law was set into motion on the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1).During the investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was got done.Since the arrest of the appellant/accused was from the spot, his medical examination was also got done and he was arrested in this case.The exhibits of this case were sent for analysis.Investigation in this case came to a close with the filing of the charge-sheet against the appellant/ accused and his co-accused for the offence under Section 376 (g)/34 of the IPC.The trial had commenced, as the appellant/accused and his co-accused chose to contest the charges framed against them in this case.Out of the deposition of thirteen witnesses, the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was the one which was referred to, during the hearing of this appeal.The plea taken by the appellant/accused before the trial court was of false implication because of a loan dispute.The evidence led by the appellant/accused and his co-accused before the trial court was of three witnesses.The first defence witness Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2008 Page 3 had deposed regarding the plea of alibi taken by the co-accused Deepak and the second witness was a jail official who had said before the trial court that the prosecutrix (PW-1) had come to meet the co-accused and the third witness was a neighbour who had purportedly informed the police about this incident.The trial of this case ended with the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence of rape simplicitor and impugned order on sentence of 5th February, 2008, orders for imprisonment of the appellant/accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine.Arguments advanced by both sides have been duly considered and with the active assistance of the Counsel for the parties, the evidence on record has been looked into.To probablise the plea of consent, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant/accused was that the prosecutrix (PW-Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2008 Page 5 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,442,839 | Application No. 3818 of 2018) are the in-laws and brother-in-law of the complainant-wife respectively.The rest of the applicants are cousin brothers of husband of complainant.Her marriage was solemnized on 01-07-2017 with petitioner- Vaibhav.After marriage, complainant - wife joined the company of husband for cohabitation at Jamner.The spouses were residing in rented premises with in- laws and brother-in-law.After the marriage, inmates of matrimonial home treated her in proper manner for about two/three months.But, thereafter, the complainant - wife was subjected to mental torture by the applicant-mother-in-law on account of domestic work.The inmates of matrimonial home used to instigate the applicant- husband, which resulted into abusing and beating to the complainant-wife.According to complainant, whenever she had been to parents' home, she used to disclose her ordeals to the parents.But, they used to give understanding to the complainant- wife and send her back for cohabitation.The father of complainant also made endeavour to give understanding to the in-laws for proper treatment to the complainant, but all efforts found unavailing.It has been alleged that father-in-law was demanding Rs. Twenty Lakhs for purchasing the house property and motorcycle for the applicant-husband.They insisted the complainant-wife to bring the amount from her parents and on that count also she was being harassed and abused by the applicants.The father-in-law also::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 5 930-CriWP-1299-18 used to advise the applicant-husband to keep the complainant-wife unfed until she satisfy the demand of money.He had also hurled abuses and given threats of life to the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::- cousin brothers of husband of complainant-wife also attempted to instigate the in-laws and husband against complainant and consequently, the complainant-wife had to face mental and physical torture at the hands of husband and other inmates of matrimonial home.According to complainant, her husband was on training at WALMI, Aurangabad, for a period of one month, and therefore, he left the complainant-wife at the house of her parents.But, at that time applicant-husband was taking suspicion on her character and abused the complainant and her parents.ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per: K.K. SONAWANE, J.)1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel for parties.The point of controversy in both the proceedings are centered on the issue of quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding bearing Crime No. 150 of 2018 on the similar and identical facts and circumstances, therefore, both these allied proceedings are dealt with together for its decision on merit by this Common Judgment.The petitioners-applicants preferred present application/ petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking relief to quash and set aside the First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 150 of 2018 registered at Harsool Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as the criminal proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 1718 of 2018 filed pursuant to aforesaid crime.It has been alleged on behalf of prosecution that the first informant - complainant Mrs. Jyoti Chaudhari, approached on 18- 08-2018, to the Police of Harsool Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, and ventilated the grievance that the::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 4 930-CriWP-1299-18 petitioner- Vaibhav S/o Sukram Chaudhari (in Cri.WP No. 1299 of 2018) is her husband, whereas, applicants No. 1 to 3 (in Cri.Eventually, she approached to the Women's Grievance Redressal Forum, but all her efforts did not evoke result.At last, she filed present report to the Police of Harsool Police Station for penal action against the applicants.Pursuant to FIR, Police of Harsool Police Station, Aurangabad District Aurangabad registered the crime and set the penal law in motion.Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.He collected relevant documents of matrimonial dispute between the spouses.The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner/applicants prayed to absolve from the charges pitted against them and quashed and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. 150 of 2018 and::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 6 930-CriWP-1299-18 consequential proceeding arising thereof bearing RCC No. 1718 of 2018, pending before the learned Magistrate at Aurangabad for further process.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::Before embarking into the merits of the matter, in view of nature of allegations made against each other by the spouses, their young age and period of marital life since July-2017 after performing marriage ceremony, the educational career of spouses being an Graduate in Civil Engineering, etc. we find it justifiable to provide reasonable opportunity to the spouses to get their marital discord settled amicably.Therefore, we, on couple of occasions, postpone the hearing of present proceeding.But, all our efforts did not evoke favourable result.Both the spouses are bent upon for fighting a legal battle.At last, we preferred to proceed further for adjudication of matter-in-issue on merit.The petitioner-husband - Vaibhav Chaudhari, party in person (in Cri.W.P. No. 1299 of 2018) submits that there were no physical and mental cruelty to the complainant-wife on his part or by any other members of her matrimonial home.But, she has filed present false penal proceeding with an malafide intention to harass all of them.The behaviour of respondent No. 2 was adamant and arrogant in nature.The respondent No. 2 wife was insisting to reside separately from his family members and tortured him on flimsy reasons.In the aftermath, he (husband) filed divorce petition under Section 13 (1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 for::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 7 930-CriWP-1299-18 dissolution of marriage.The husband in-person further submits that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false, baseless and general in nature.It would unjust and improper to compel the applicants including himself to face the agony of trial.In case, the present penal proceeding is not quashed and set-aside, it would cause serious prejudice and injustice to him.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::The learned counsel for applicants (in Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018) vehemently submits that there were no physical and mental cruelty to the complainant on the part of these applicants.But, she has filed present false penal proceeding with purported motivation to harass the applicants.There were no specific allegations about maltreatment and torture meted out to the complainant - wife.According to learned counsel, all the applicants are residing separately from the spouses.Learned counsel further added that petitioner-husband has filed the proceedings for dissolution of marriage.However, instead of cohabitation, she filed the FIR against husband and others.Learned counsel for applicants submits that relations between husband and wife became strain and she is not interested for cohabitation with the husband.The applicants have no any concern with the marital life of applicant No.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 8 930-CriWP-1299-18 1 and complainant-wife.They have no any reason to cause interference into the domestic affairs of the spouses.The complainant did not mention any specific instances of maltreatment at the hands of other applicants.The learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the FIR are vague and general in nature.It would unjust and improper to compel the applicants to face the agony of trial.In case, the present penal proceeding is not quashed, it would cause serious prejudice and injustice to the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::Respondent No. 2-first informant party in person opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of petitioner/applicants and submits that the allegations of ill-treatment nurtured on her behalf in the FIR discloses commission of crime under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 etc. of IPC.The complainant categorically described the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands of petitioner/ applicants.There was unlawful demand of Rs. Twenty Lakh from the petitioner/applicants for purchasing house property and motorcycle etc. There were allegations of physical and mental torture to the complainant for unlawful demand on the part of applicants.Respondent No.2-complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply on record.10. Having given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, we find that there is no scope for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 9 930-CriWP-1299-18 favour of applicants No. 1 to 3 (in Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018) as well as petitioner-husband (in Cri.Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2018) as it appears from the FIR that prima facie case is made out against them.There are specific allegations cast against husband, in-laws and brother-in-law about cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of I.P.C. There was unlawful demand as well as physical and mental torture to the complainant following marital discord.Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the applicants No. 1 to 3 (in Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018) as well as petitioner-husband ( in Cri.Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2018).It cannot be said that the present criminal proceeding against applicants No. 1 to 3 (in Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018) as well as petitioner-husband (in Cri.Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2018) is abuse of process of law.However, the allegations nurtured on behalf of complainant-wife and applicant- husband against each other are to be tested on the anvil of merit in detail trial before concerned Court of Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::In regard to allegations nurtured against applicants No. 4 and 5 i.e. Kiran S/o.Jairam Choudhari and Gopal Raman Choudhari (in Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018) , we find that the allegations cast on behalf of complainant - wife against these applicants No. 4 and 5 are totally vague and general in nature.There are no specific allegations attributing overt-act of these applicants No. 4 and 5 to::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 10 930-CriWP-1299-18 maltreat and harass the complainant - wife.There were no detail particulars given in the FIR about participation of No. 4 and 5 for their act of cruelty to the complainant or for demand of money etc. The allegations about cruelty by No. 4 and 5 are found stray and sweeping in nature.The complainant-wife attempted to put-forth that the applicants No. 4 and 5 - the cousin brothers of her husband always made endeavour to instigate her husband and misguided him in the marital affairs between spouses.But, these allegations are omnibus and general in nature.The complainant-wife produced the extract of massages forwarded on cell-phone to fortify her contentions.It is to be noted that the applicants No. 4 and 5 are the distant relatives and residing separately from husband and complainant.In view of factual aspect of the matter, it would hard to perceive that the applicants No. 4 and 5 have any purported motivation to cause interference in the marital affairs of the spouses.It is fallacious to appreciate that they are the beneficiaries from the marital discord between the spouses.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::In the cases, where accusations are made, the overt-acts attributed to persons other than husband, are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.Their Lordships of Apex Court further observed that, "in their over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused."::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court cases, 273, the Honourable Apex Court elucidated the fact that, "Section 498-A of IPC is a cognizable and non bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 12 930-CriWP-1299-18 provisions."::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::Bhajan Lal and others reported in MANU/SC/0115/1992 : 1991(1) RCR(Cri), 383 (SC) held that "where the proceedings is instituted with an ulterior motive or were the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable,::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: 13 930-CriWP-1299-18 the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/FIR".Moreover, if the allegations in the FIR against the applicants are taken at their face value and accepted the same in its entirety would not constitute any offence or make out case against applicants, in such circumstances, there would not be any propriety to allow the prosecution to proceed further into the matter.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::In the light of aforesaid exposition of law, in the instant case, it would be unjust and improper to allow the prosecution to proceed further against applicants No. 4 and 5 (in Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018).The ends of justice would be served by ensuring that the applicants may not be forced unnecessarily to go on litigation before the Criminal Court.Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicants No. 4 and 5 deserves to be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :ORDER i. The Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2018 stands dismissed.The Criminal Application bearing No. 3818 of 2018 is partly allowed.The Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018 in respect of applicants No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 :::14 930-CriWP-1299-18 iv.The Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018 in respect of applicants No. 4 and 5 is hereby allowed.v. The penal proceeding initiated against applicants No. 4 and 5 (in Criminal Application No. 3818 of 2018), vide FIR bearing Crime No. 150 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered with Harsool Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, as well as criminal proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 1718 of 2018 pursuant to aforesaid crime is ordered to be quashed and set aside.The Criminal Application is disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 10:53:13 ::: | ['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. |
195,448,532 | Ayushi Sethi, Sh.Apar Sethi, Smt. Anita Vij for quashing of FIR No.165/2013 dated 19.09.2013, under Sections 498- A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station C.A.W. Nanak Pura on the basis of the Memorandum Of Understanding executed in view of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 through his attorney Sh.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 26.10.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremony.The dowry articles given Crl.M.C. 790/2016 Page 1 of 9 in marriage, allegedly, seemed insufficient to the husband of the complainant and to her in-laws and that the mother-in-law of the complainant started demanding a car by make and model Renault Duster.On 17.11.2012, the husband of the complainant beat her mercilessly her for demand of more cash and the car named above.The complainant was allegedly beaten and tortured for dowry almost on a daily basis.On 8th March, 2013, the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house after which she left for Karnal, where she was treated for depression.In-laws of the complainant came to Karnal and took her away, allegedly fearing a police case due to the complainant's condition.The complainant's parents and village elders brought her back soon after.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.M.C. 790/2016 Page 1 of 9Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners.It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- ('Settlement Amount') to respondent no.2 in full and final settlement towards all her claims arising out of the marriage between them including maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, istridhan and dowry articles.It is agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs in the form of pay order or DD to respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question and recording of her statement for the same before this Court.It is also agreed that the after taking the jewellery items and the Settlement Amount from petitioner no.1 and after recording of statements in the first motion under Section 13-B(1) of H.M.A., 1955, the parties shall withdraw shall make necessary statements for the withdrawal of the cases filed by them before the Court(s) concerned.It is also agreed that they shall not file any further cases of any nature against each other or their families in the future and that they shall not claim any maintenance and/or any right, title, claim or interest, of any nature whatsoever in the property, movable or immovable of the other party and/or their family members, relatives at all times.Respondent Crl.M.C. 790/2016 Page 3 of 9 No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 04.02.2016 supporting this petition.All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent.Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them.In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.165/2013 dated 19.09.2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station C.A.W. Nanak Pura and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.This petition is accordingly disposed of. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,954,570 | The head load workers of Trichur taluk,.which includesvillage Adattu, own allegiance to different trade Unions.While Vincent and his brother Davis (the two deceased)belonged to one of those Unions the accused belonged to arival one.On December 9, 1979 a dispute between the membersof those two Unions over unloading of a lorry atPuranattukara Centre in the above village took such aviolent turn that it had to return without unloading thematerials.To seek advice of his leaders in the matterVincent, who was the treasurer of their Union, went to theirheadquarters at Mundor on the following day, that is onDecember 10, 1979, accompanied by Ashokan (P.W.1).In theevening they returned by bus and alighted at thePuranattukara centre at or about 7.30 P.M. A1, who waspresent there, called Vincent aside under the pretext ofdiscussing the issue.He was then surrounded by some membersof A1's Union and wrongfully restrained.In course of thealtercation that followed A1 shouted that Vincent was thetrouble maker and he should be done away with.Then A1 andanother caught hold of Vincent.In an attempt to savehimself Vincent brandished a knife which he had with him andmanaged to escape.The accused persons however chased himand ultimately succeeded in apprehending him at the gate ofPambungal Ramakrishnan.There A1 stabbed him with a knifeand A2 beat him with an arecanut split on various parts ofhis body.Finding his younger brother a helpless victim ofsuch attacks, Davis, who was nearby, rushed to his rescuebut A1 stabbed him also.Both the brothers died soon after.On that very night Ashokan (P.W.1) lodged aninformation about the incident with the police and on thatinformation a case was registered for the above two murders.J U D G M E N TM.K. MUKHERJEE, J.N.G.Sreedharan and V.K. Sudhan, the two appellantsherein, (hereinafter referred to as A1 and A2 respectively)alongwith four others were placed on trial before theSession Judge, Trichur to answer charges under Sections 143,147,148,341 and 302/149 (two counts) I.P.C. The trial endedin and acquittal of all of them; and aggrieved thereby therespondent-State preferred and appeal.In disposing of theappeal the High Court reversed the acquittal of A1 and A2and convicted and sentenced them under Section 302/34I.P.C., while upholding the acquittal of others.Hence thisstatutory appeal at their instance.Shorn of details, thecase for the prosecution is as under:Shri Muthalali (P.W.13), Circle Inspector of Crime tookcharge of investigation and after holding inquest upon thedead bodies of Vincent and Davis, sent them for post-mortemexamination.He seized some blood stained earth, a bloodstained knife and an arecanut spilt from the place ofoccurrence and sent them for chemical examination.Afterreceipt of the reports of post-mortem and chemicalexamination and completion of investigation he submittedcharge-sheet.To prove its case the prosecution examined 12 witnessesand exhibited certain documents.Of the witnesses examinedAshokan (P.W.1), Mohanan (P.W.2), George (P.W.3), Davis(P.W.4) and Jose (P.W.5) were produced as eye-witnesses butP.W.3 turned hostile.Besides, the prosecution relied uponthe evidence of the doctor who held post-mortem examinationupon the two deceased and the reports of chemicalexamination which indicated presence of blood in thearticles seized by the police from the place of occurrence.Reaching there Vincentshouted that he would not permit him (A1) and his associatesto do the loading and unloading work at Puranattukara andimmediately thereafter Vincent stabbed him on his chest andthen A2, on both sides of his abdomen with a knife.WhenVincent made further attempts to stab, A2 took away theknife from him.At that time Davis chocked the neck of A2.He went on to say that both he and A2 then cried out andhearing their cries the members of their Union rushed to thespot.Thereafter there was a confrontation between themembers of the two rival Unions.A1 specifically denied tohave stabbed Vincent or Davis.A2 also gave a similarstatement; and further stated that after snatching away theknife from Vincent he stabbed him once or twice out of fearof instantaneous death.The appellants however did notadduce any evidence in support of their respective pleas.Afterhaving found that the findings of the trial Court to acquitthe accused were wholly unsustainable and perverse, the HighCourt dealt with and discussed the evidence of the eye-witnesses at length to conclude that both the appellantswere guilty of the murder of the two brothers.This being a statutory appeal we have carefully lookedinto the entire evidence on record to ascertain whether theHigh Court was justified in holding that the findings of thetrial Court as against the appellants were perverse andreversing the same on that score.While A1 sustained onepenetrating wound 1" x 1/2" on the right side of the chestA2 sustained four, of which two were incised and the othertwo were penetrating wounds.The evidence ofP.Ws.This finding ispatently incorrect for P.W.4 in his cross-examinationcategorically stated that when the knife fell down fromVincent's hand, he saw A6 (since acquitted) lifting it.Theabove evidence of P.W.4 stands corroborated by that of P.W.5when he also stated in cross-examination that the knifewhich was brandished be Vincent fell down and A6 took itaway.Now that we have found that, through A1 and A2 cannotbe held liable for the murder of Vincent , a1 is liable forhaving caused the death of Davis by stabbing him with aknife, we have to ascertain what offence A1 committedthereby.The evidence of Dr. K.C. Prakasan (P.W.9) who heldpost-mortem examination on the dead body of Davis.testifiedthat he found one penetrating incised wound in the midlineof chest 5 cm.Since both the appellants are on bail A2 will standdischarged from his bail bond and A1 will surrender to hisbail bond to serve out the remainder of the sentence. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,457,041 | Case diary is available.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 280/2001 registered at Police Station Kotar Distt.Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 325, 323, 294 and 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that as per prosecution story, the deceased Pancha was assaulted by the Loli Dohar with a stick, owing to which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death.The FIR Exhibit P/16 was lodged by the deceased Pancha, wherein he has not stated to have caused any injury by the applicant-accused Mangal Dohar.As per the statements of the witnesses, the applicant-accused Mangal Dohar inflicted injuries ton the wife of the deceased and the daughter-in-law, who sustained simple injuries.Moreover, the counsel further pleads that Smt. Sukhi (PW-1) , the wife of the deceaased, Chhobi Dohar (PW-2), Anil Kumar Singh (PW-3), Butuoa Dohar (PW-4), Laxman Dohar (PW-5) and Kesh Kumari (PW-6), the daughter-in-law of the deceased having turned hostile have not corroborated the prosecution story.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Heard the arguments of both the parties.On perusal of the FIR Exhibit P/16, lodged by the deceased, it is evident that no injury was caused by the applicant-accused to the deceased, however, he inflicted injuries to Sukhi (PW-1) and Kesh Kumari (PW-6), who having turned hostile have not corroborated the prosecution story.Considering the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused and the statements of witnesses, this Court deems it a fit case to grant bail to the applicant, therefore, allowing the application, it is ordered that the applicant/accused be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety bond for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial /committal Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,465,367 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 280/2018, under Sections 376, 504 IPC, section 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012 and 3(2)(5), 3(1)b SC/ST Act, P.S. Chandwak, District- Jaunpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated.Beside this, she has also refused to get herself medically examined.It is further submitted that as per medical, her age is 16 years and after giving benefit of two years either way, she is a major girl, who on her own joined the company of the applicant.She appears to be a consenting party.It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.12.2018 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.Learned AGA as well as Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the girl was minor on the date of incident and vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on this ground but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicantRavi Rajbhar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,467,973 | The petitioner No. 2 is a Director and petitioner No. 3 is a Joint Managing Director of the Company.Being in need of finance to purchase machinery the company entered into and executed a lease agreement with one Sree Ganga Leasing Company ltd.The petitioner No. 2 and 3 had separately given 2 guarantee to the lessor for due performance of the terms and conditions of the lease.At the time of executing the first agreement the company had handed over one current dated cheque and eleven post- dated cheque for Rs. 3,41,284/- each being the quarterly rental for three years.The company had also handed over two post dated cheques of Rs. 33,027/-.1 02.04.2014 C.R.R. 3556 OF 1996 With C.R.R. 3557 OF 1996 Orissa Industries Limited & Ors.Sree Ganga Leasing Company Limited.The revisional application being No. 3556 of 1996 has been filed by Orissa Industries Limited, Ravin Jhunjhunwala and Kashi Pasad Jhunjhunwala against Sree Ganga Leasing Company Limited and the revisional application being No. 3557 has been filed by Orissa Industries limited against Sree Ganga Leasing Company Limited praying for challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act , and 420 / 120B of the Indian Penal Code against them.The facts of the case is the petitioner No. 1 Orissa Industries Limited is a company under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at Mirza Galib Street, Kolkata.The cheques had been dishonoured with remark "not arranged for".The case was transferred to learned chief Judicial Magistrate , 4th Court at Sealdah for trial.Learned Trial court after examining the case was pleased to direct issuance of summons under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also under section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order impugned the petitioners preferred the present revisional application on the ground that impugned order is band in law and barred by limitation.The petitioner contended a post dated cheque should be treated to have been drawn on the dated it is delivered to the payee not to be treated as drawn on the date it bears and thus a prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of cheque presented beyond six months of delivery thereof is liable to be quashed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,473,271 | Allowed md.CRM No. 7110 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31.8.2018 in connection with Jagatballavpur Police Station Case No. 131 of 2018 dated 20/05/2018 under Sections 448/323/325/326/327/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-The matter pertains to an incident during the panchayat elections.The State produces the case diary and says that the petitioners attempted to snatch the ballot boxes.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,954,751 | A resume of this complaint is as follows:The applicants are theresidents of Haider Kuli situated within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Lahori Gate.On the night intervening 6/7-8-75, A.S.I. Manphool Singh of P.S. Lahori Gate accompanied by four constablescame to their house.The applicants were awakened and were told that they were being arrested under the defense of India Rules.Quietly they sent a boy to call Ram Parshad who is the Secretary ofthe Mohalla Committee.Ram Parshad Shingal met them when they werebeing taken away by A.S.I. Manphool Singh with him.Ram Parshad enquired from A.S.I. Manphool Singh as to where the applicants were being takento.Hetold him that they had been arrested under defense ofIndia Rules.Ram Parshad then exclaimed that he could not interfere if these persons were being taken away under the defense of India Rules.So, they were brought to P.S. Lahori Gate and were there asked to sit on the floor.There, invectives were used against them which were intolerable.After sometime, A.S.I. Manphool Singh asked them to pay them Rs.6,000/-for their being released.Of these PW-7, 8 and 13 are the complainants.PW-7, Ram Kishore has stated that Radhey Shyam and Om Prakash are hisneighbours andon the nightintervening 6-7.8.1975, when they were sleeping in their houses at about 12.30 a.m.two police officials knocked at the door and when itwas opened he found Manphool Singh, ASI in uniform, bearing his name platestanding there.He informed him that he was required to accompany him to the police station and he was to be taken into custody under defense of India Rules.JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.1978 of the Special Judge in Corruption Case No.55/76, whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 15.5.1978, has held the appellant guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 342 IPC and 384 IPC as also Section 161 IPC and further by his orderdated 18.5.1978 has been pleased to sentence the appellant to undergo R.I. for two years each for offences under Section 161 IPC, Section 384 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 342 IPC.He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and under Section 384 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year on each count.All the substantive sentencesof imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.I am informed that the appellant, Manphool Singh, has died but his legal representative, namely, Mrs. Misri Devi has been brought on record.Counsel for Mrs. Misri Devi, therefore, has argued this appeal.Brief facts of the case as noted by the Special Judge are as follows:-"The case was registered on 17.2.76 on the basis of a complaint Ex.PW7/A dated 11.8.75 addressed to Hon'ble the Home Minister (Sh.The applicants, however, expressed their inability to afford to pay thisbig amount.Ultimately, settlement was made at Rs.800/-.Nevertheless, A.S.I. Manphool Singh threatened them that if this matter was looked out to anybody, then they would not be able to live in the Illaqua.Daya Ram, Constable in plain clothes was sent with them to collect the amount.Somehow or other, they collected the amount of Rs.800/- and handed over the same to Daya Ram, Constable.Radhey Shyam and Om Prakash who were residing on the first floor were also standing their.They also accompanied PW-7, Ram Kishore to the police Station.Whilethey were enroute the police station, one Shanker was sent to call Ram Prashad, who was the Secretary, Mohalla Committee.He asked ASI Manphool Singh, where they were being taken on which the ASI replied that they were being taken away under the defense of IndiaRules.PW-7, Ram Kishore, Om Prakash and Radhey Shyam were takento police station Lahori Gate.At the police stationthe accused person abused and intimidated them saying that they would be confined under the defense of India Rules and nobody would listen to them for two years and if anything was to be done they should do it now.Thereafter, ASI Manphool Singh demanded asum of Rs.6,000/-, stating that otherwise they would be confined under defense of India Rules and the future of their children would be ruined.This witness Along with the others pleaded their inability to pay this amount saying that they were poor men.After an hour or so a settlement of Rs.800/- was arrivedat.This witness further states that they were threatened that, in the event, they gave any information of this incident to anyone, they would be exiled from the illaqa of police station Lahori Gate.Upon this being made clear, Daya Ram, Along with the complainants was sent to the house of PW-7,Ram Kishore, to make payment.Upon a collection undertaken amongst them they were able to come with Rs.700/- butto make up the balance, Rs.100/- was procured from Shyamlal, who was living in the neighborhood.On the following morning, Ram Prashad, the Secretary, Mohalla Committee, met the complainants and advised them to report the excess meted out to them.The complainantsmet Deputy Superintendent of Police and other officials of theillaqaand ultimately gave the application, Ex.PW7/A, which was signed by PW-7, Ram Kishore as also the other two complainants.On the basis of the statements of PW-8, Radhey Shyam to the effect that when they were being taken from the house tothe police station, he had sent his son Shankar Lal to callthe Secretary Mohalla Committee, while PW-13, Om Prakash states that one Harish Chand was sent to call him and not Shankar Lal. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,331,269 | The Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 15.12.2001 found the appellants guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.25,000/- each.The brief facts of the case are that the informant, Hanuman son of Kalu Kewat, resident of Village Bhitkini, P.S. Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, lodged a written report Ex. Ka7 at Police Station Mahuli that on 09.07.1999 the informant, Hanuman and his father were erecting Madai (thatched roofing).At that point of time, the two accused/ appellants namely Raja Ram Kewat and Daya Ram Kewat, who are Pattidars of the informant, came and asked the informant and his father Kalu to remove Madai from the way, the informant replied that he would clear the way with the assistance of other villagers, but accused/ appellant Raja Ram assaulted deceased Kalu Kewat with a piece of brick and accused/ appellant Daya Ram with Mungari at about 1.30 p.m. On account of the said injuries, Kalu Kewat fell down on the ground.The incident was witnessed by Sunita Devi, the wife of informant Hanuman and Banshu Kewat, Satya Narain Yadav and others of the village, who intervened in the matter.Kalu Kewat died within half an hour of the incident due to the said injuries.On the basis of written report of the incident dated 09.07.1999 made by the informant, a Chik FIR Ex. Ka2 was prepared and in crime no.257/1999, case was registered under Section 304 IPC at P.S. Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar against the accused/ appellants and entry to this effect was also made in the General Diary.The investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Dhara Charya Pandey, Station House Officer of P.S. Mahuli.He went at the spot in village Mitkini and completed inquest process of the dead body of Kalu and further prepared documents for postmortem of the dead body.Left lung was ruptured.In internal examination, fracture of frontal bone of skull was found.The membranes of the brain, the brain and pleura were found congested.In the abdomen, pasty material and in the intestine, faecal matter and gas were found.In the opinion of the doctor, the death was on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.The death had taken place one day before postmortem.Criminal Ruling 11, it was held that the evidence of hostile witness can be accepted in part e.g. to fix the place of occurrence and to prove his presence at the place of occurrence.Both PW-1 and PW-2 have testified that Village Kusumi Chaura is just away 10 - 12 Kos (18 - 20 kilometers) from Village Mitkini.Hon'ble Shailendra Kumar Agrawal,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Shailendra Kumar Agrawal, J)1. Heard Shri Harish Chandra Tiwari and Shri S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.This appeal has been preferred by accused/ appellants Raja Ram Kewat and Daya Ram Kewat, who were tried by the Sessions Judge, Basti in Sessions Trial No.299 of 1999 (State Vs.Raja Ram Kewat and another), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Mahuli (Sant Kabir Nagar).He recorded statement of the informant Hanuman and did inspection of the spot and prepared site plan.Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body :-(i) Lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm x bone deep on forehead mid-line underneath bone fractured.(ii) Contusion 4cm x 2cm, 2cm above right ear on right scalp.(iii) Contusion 10cm x 8cm on ant.of the left lower chest underneath ribs 6th to 8th fractured.(iv) Contusion 5cm x 3cm on back of right chest lower part.(v) Abrasion 2.5cm x 1cm on inner aspect of right forearm at mid level.There was fracture of frontal bone of skull and of Lt. 6th to 8th ribs.The rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs but had passed off from the neck.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet Ex. K17 was submitted against the accused/ appellants under Section 304 IPC.Accused/ appellants were formally charged for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such, the prosecution was directed to prove its case.To prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses, out of whom Smt. Sunita, wife of informant Hanuman P.W.1, Hanuman P.W.2, Banshu P.W.5 and Satya Narayan P.W.6 were examined as witnesses of facts.He further proved challan lash, letters to C.M.O., Photo lash specimen of seal Exs.The charge-sheet was proved by P.W.10 constable Vishnu Dutt Mishra which is Ex. Ka. 17 on behalf of last Investigating Officer, S.I. Rajendra Prasad Mishra.Appellants in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the material facts of the prosecution.However, they have admitted that deceased Kalu and their father Tilaku @ Tilak were real brothers.They have also denied the fact of existence of pathway between their house.The accused/ appellant Raja Ram admitted his arrest on 10.07.1999 and also admitted Ex. Ka14, the memo of arrest.However, accused/ appellant Daya Ram claimed that he was arrested after three days of the incident.No defence evidence has been produced by any of the accused.The prosecution has examined PW-1 Smt. Sunita, PW-2 Hanuman, PW-5 Banshu and PW-6 Satya Narayan as witnesses of facts.Now it is to be seen and analyzed, whether PW-1 and PW-2 were present on the spot and whether they had witnessed the whole incident?As PW-1 and PW-2 are son and daughter-in-law of the deceased, hence their evidence is to be analyzed with great care and caution.PW-1 Sunita has stated that in the month of Kartik, she, her husband and her father-in-law were inside the house.Her husband and father-in-law were erecting Tati in Chhappar.Accused persons stopped erection of Tati.Her father-in-law agreed to remove the Tati.But accused Daya Ram holding Mungari and Raja Ram holding piece of brick assaulted her father-in-law, who fell down and died on the spot.He was also beaten on the chest and testicles.She also stated that this incident was seen by her husband and by two other persons of the same village.PW-5 Banshu, resident of Village Mitkini, stated that he had not seen the incident of murder of Kalu, but reached the spot immediately after the murder.It shows that place of occurrence is house of Kalu at Village Mitkini.He has not been challenged on this point from the side of accused.He has also stated in his cross-examination that the police of Chowki reached there.This witness has also stated that this Madai belonged to Hanuman and Kalu.He has also said that Panchayatnama was prepared in his presence.All this shows that the incident took place in this house and motive is also proved by the statement of this witness that the incident took place due to the dispute of Madai.It is true that this witness was declared hostile on the point when he stated that he did not see the incident of beating of Kalu, yet he has supported the prosecution case on many factors such as presence of Hanuman with Kalu, execution of Panchayatnama on the spot by the Investigating OfficerIn the same way PW-6 Satya Narayan, resident of Village Mitkini and neighbour of rival parties, has also not admitted the incident of assault in his presence and was declared hostile, but he has stated that on the day of occurrence Kalu and his son were erecting Chhappar.In Bhagwan Singh Vs.State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 and Satpal Vs.Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294, it has been held that mere fact that a witness is declared hostile by the party calling him and allowed to be cross-examined does not make him unreliable so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether.His evidence is to be considered for what its worth.In Madhukar Damu Patil Vs.State of Maharastra, 1996 Crl.Law Journal, 1962, it was held that the portion of the testimony of hostile witness, which inspires confidence can be relied upon.In Rajaram Vs.They have their agriculture holdings in both the villages and they also owned houses at both places.Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that PW-1 is admitting that till her father-in-law was alive, the farming work was being done at Mitkini and they were living at Kusumi Chaura and both accused persons also have share in the holding of village Kusumi Chaura.It shows that at the time of occurrence these witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were not in Village Mitkini and the incident did not occur there.We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants because PW-1 has stated in the same para that when her father-in-law died, she was on the gate of her house of village Mitkini.Learned trial court specifically asked this witness "llqj ds ejus ds igys fdrus fnu igys ls lkfdu feVfduh esa Fks".This witness clearly stated that she was in Village Mitkini on the day of murder of father-in-law.The witness has also said that "esjs llqj eq>s ys vk;s Fks", meaning thereby that her father-in-law had brought her to Village Mitkini from village Kusumi Chaura after performing the last rituals of the grandfather, who had died three months ago.No suggestion has been given from the side of accused to this witness that this incident did not occur at Village Mitkini, rather at Village Kusumi Chaura or any other place.All the evidence on record reveals that this incident took place at Village Mitkini.The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan Ex. Ka13 showing the house of deceased Kalu and its surroundings situated in village Mitkini, which is the place of incident and the Investigating Officer has not been suggested otherwise in this regard, hence we do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that this incident did not occur at Village Mitkini.In para 9 of her statement PW-1 has stated that her husband and father-in-law were erecting Tati after erection of Chhappar.They started work of erecting Chhappar in morning.She was sitting on the gate of her house and Tati was being erected on the gate between 12.00 p.m. and 1.00 p.m. Incident occurred during this time.This witness has also stated that 15 - 20 villagers were helping them.After the departure of helpers, accused/ appellants came and asked them to remove the Chhappar.Her father-in-law said that he will remove the Chhappar by calling the men.Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that if 15 - 20 villagers were present for helping the deceased and Hanuman erecting the Chhappar, then why these villagers did not rescue the deceased and why were their names not disclosed? This shows that the whole story is false and concocted.We do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants because this witness has clearly stated in paragraph 10 of her cross-examination that these 15 - 20 villagers had already left the place of occurrence after erecting the hut.Evidence indicate that the appellants arrived on the spot after departure of other village folks.PW-2 has also corroborated all these facts.He has stated that at the time of altercation, his father was present in Chhappar and the accused persons left initially due to intervention of these villagers.Assault came after half an hour of this verbal altercation.It is noteworthy that PW-1 and PW-2 are very rustic and illiterate persons, but inspite of lengthy cross-examination they were consistent on most of the facts.We find that both the witnesses are trustworthy.Incident occurred in broad day.No question of false implication arises.It is also important to note that accused Raja Ram in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that "yM+dks us vkil esa >xM+k fd;k Fkk] mlds ckn eSa ugha tkurk".This factum of fight is admitted to both parties.This is also important to note that these witnesses have been suggested on behalf of the appellants that Kalu died due to fall of Chhappar.The statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and this suggestion itself show that Kalu died at the same place as narrated by the prosecution side.Thus it has been established and proved beyond doubt by the prosecution that the whole incident took place before the house of deceased Kalu in village Mitkini, PW1 and PW-2 were present there and they witnessed the whole incident.19. PW-7 conducted postmortem upon the corpse on 10.07.1999 at 4.30 p.m. Dr. S.K. Mal, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Basti in his examination-in-chief has stated that injuries no.3 & 4 could be result of blow of Mungari and injuries no.1, 2 & 5 could have been caused by blow of brick.This has also corroborated the version of PW-1 and PW-2 that Kalu was killed by the blow of Mungari and brick.Doctor has specifically stated in his cross-examination that these injuries no.3 & 4 could not be sustained by falling down.Thus, it is clear that PW-1 and PW-2 have testified in a very trustworthy manner which is supported by medical evidence.Testimonies of these two witnesses are of high quality.Both have narrated the entire episode in great detail and inspite of being subjected to lengthy cross-examination, they have depicted the prosecution story in trustworthy manner.In our opinion, their testimonies are natural, convincing and in accordance with the normal human conduct.The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, that both the witnesses of facts are not reliable as both are partisan, is not acceptable.Of course, both the witnesses are partisan, but there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that witnesses of facts are either lying or economical with truth.Fact of the matter is that it is much more difficult for partisan witnesses to spare real culprits of commission of grave crime like murder and to falsely implicate someone with whom they have very close relations.There is not even a single word of enmity between both the parties.The appellants were not at all on inimical terms with the complainant side.The informant is real nephew of the accused/ appellants.The question arises why they have been falsely implicated.No defence has been given in this regard.No suggestion has been given to the witnesses of fact in this regard.Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the case of Koodakkal Karian alias Alagappan Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 AIR(SC) 1230 and argued that as witnesses are partisan, their testimonies and investigation itself are tainted making the prosecution version doubtful.We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants because though the witnesses are family members, but trustworthy.There were some laches on the part of the Investigating Officer, but it cannot be said that the accused persons have been prejudiced by it and the prosecution version cannot be believed.The evidences of eye-witnesses are natural and trustworthy.We have already carefully examined the factual evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and we believe that there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve or to discard their testimony.As far as question of lack of independent witness is concerned, it is evident that in every case the independent witnesses are not available.It is also not necessary to produce them in every eventuality.When the witnesses of fact are not fully trustworthy then alone courts can seek some corroboration.If the evidence, produced by the prosecution is trustworthy and reliable then this evidence cannot be rejected merely on the ground that independent witnesses, though available, were not produced.Criminal cases are decided on the basis of available evidence and if it is trustworthy then even the testimony of sole witness can be relied to convict the perpetrator of the crime.Had he murdered Kalu, he would have been escaped from his own house.Conduct of accused depends on various factors.This incident took place on 09.07.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. and F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 3.40 p.m. and the distance of police station from the place of occurrence was 8 kilometers.He has also stated that information regarding incident was given to the senior officers concerned through R.T. Set.As per the statement of PW-3 information was given through R.T. Set in brief on the basis of written report when the case was registered.PW-4 Constable Ram Bhajan Singh has stated that he and constable Jai Prakash Pandey received direction through R.T. Set to reach the place of incident at Village Mitkini.When they reached there, Shri Dhara Charya Pandey, Station House Officer Mahuli, Investigating Officer of the case was already present there along with some police personnel.He prepared the inquest report, thereafter dead body of Kalu was sent for postmortem through Constable Jai Prakash Pandey.Inquest report reveals that on the top of Ex. Ka5, crime number, section etc. are mentioned and also on the last page in the bottom, the list of papers sent by the Investigating Officer is also mentioned, hence it cannot be said that FIR was not in existence till 12.07.1999, the day on which the concerned Circle Officer signed on the chik FIR.Failure of the prosecution to clear the doubt regarding date and time of recording the F.I.R. coupled with delay in sending the F.I.R. to Magistrate casts a serious doubt about the correctness of the F.I.R. But where no question was put to the I.O. during his cross-examination that why copy of F.I.R. was not sent to the concerned Magistrate in time, then it shall be presumed that copy of the F.I.R. was sent to the concerned Magistrate in time, as under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, there is presumption that such official act was performed by the concerned police official in accordance with law", and PW-9, the Investigating Officer has not been cross-examined on such point, in that circumstance, the accused/ appellants will not get any benefit.As regards the arguments that the FIR was ante-timed, no satisfactory material has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of this argument.As far as arguments of delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in this case F.I.R. was lodged just after two hours of incident.No question of delay, therefore, arises.Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that statement of the witnesses of fact were not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. even after 17 days from the date of incident, as PW-2 has said.This incident took place on 09.07.1999, at that time the Investigating Officer was PW-9 Dhara Charya Pandey.He has admitted that he did not record the statement of PW-1 Sunita, but he was not cross-examined on the said point as to why statement of Sunita was not recorded.On the perusal of the case diary, it reveals that PW-9 Dhara Charya Pandey recorded the statement of informant Hanuman on the same day i.e. on 09.07.1999 and after 11.07.1999, he was transferred and his successor Rajendra Prasad Mishra was entrusted with the investigation and he recorded the statement of Sunita on 27.07.1999, because when the first Investigating Officer was transferred and it took almost one week to entrust investigation to new Investigator.It is not possible for the police that after taking the charge, the Investigating Officer should have reached immediately for recording the statement.There is sufficient explanation for non-recording the statements.In Baldev Singh VS.In Harveer Singh Vs.Sheeshpal and others, AIR 2016, SC 4958, it was held that it is a well settled law that delay in recording the statement of the witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimony.The court may rely on such testimony if they are cogent and credible and the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court.We do agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Investigating Officer was negligent as he has not shown the house of the accused persons in the site plan.PW-1 has specifically stated in her cross-examination that the house of both the parties are adjacent to each other. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,333,715 | This applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant in connection with crime No.214/2018 registered at Police Station Amdara, District Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g) of IPC and Section 294, 326, 324, 323, 506/34 of IPC and 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesThe learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and it is a case of consent and the prosecutrix is above 18 years of age.Certified copy as per rules.(SANJAY DWIVEDI) V. JUDGE shukla Digitally signed by SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2019.05.23 14:01:03 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,334,728 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.163 of 2013 pending on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.The respondent has been falsely implicated the petitioner's name in his private complaint is abuse of process of law and threatening her husband for not to publish any articles against him.Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking appropriate relief.Though notice was served on the respondent but none appeared on behalf of the respondent in this case.There are totally three accused in C.C.No.163 of 2013, in which the petitioner herein is the third accused.She has none other than the wife of the first accused.The wife of the first accused, she has been falsely implicated as the third accused.The said money was circulated by the third accused.It is also seen that the offences under sections 499 and 500 IPC are extracted hereunder:Defamation — Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.However, the said mistakes squarely applicable to the petitioner and even it is seen from the complaint that there is absolutely no specific averments as against the petitioner to attract the offences under sections 499http://www.judis.nic.in 5 and 500 of IPC as against the petitioner.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.21.03.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order msm To1.The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, msm Crl.O.P.No.8060 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,344,739 | Dr. S.Agarkar (PW-13) had examined Lakhan Singh son of Nathu Singh when he was taken to JA Hospital where Dr. S.Agarkar was posted as CMO.He found two injuries on his person; (i) one contusion at frontal portion of right arm measuring 2-1/2 x 2 cm and (ii) an abrasion on right wrist measuring 1 x cm.Such injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt objection within six hours of the examination.On the occasion of Nav Durga he had organized Durga Bhagwat week w.e.f. 31.3.2006 to 7 th April, 2006 where Pandit Shri Jagdish Prasad Bhargava was Katha Vachak for which he had printed cards, copy of one of which was exhibited as Ex.(Delivered on this 3rd day of June, 2019) Per Justice Vivek Agarwal :2 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 Criminal Appeals No.831/2007 and 852/2007 have been filed by the accused/appellants being aggrieved of judgment dated 29.9.2007 and Criminal Appeal No.178/2010 has been filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No.156/2006, whereby each of the appellants (11 in number) have been convicted under Section 148 of IPC with two years RI, under Section 302/149 of IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, under Section 307/149 of IPC (on three counts) with 7 years of RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count and appellant Harnam Singh has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC, whereas other appellants have been convicted under Section 323/149 of IPC with six months RI and in default of payment of fine each of the appellants has to undergo six months additional RI and appellants Kadma @ Kadam Singh and Ramsevak have further been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act with three years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 27 of the Arms Act with seven years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine they have to undergo three months additional imprisonment.2. Prosecution case in short is that Sughar Singh Gurjar and Narayan Singh Gurjar are having rivalry for last 14-15 years.On 17.11.1992 as per the report lodged by Sughar Singh Crime No.149/92 was registered against Narayan, Lakhan, Uttam, 3 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 Meharban Gurjar under the provisions of Sections 336, 294 and 506-B of IPC.This was the starting point since when counter allegations against each other were made and several cases were lodged against the rival parties.In the fag end of 2004 members of both the parties with the help of friends and relatives assembled at Shitla Mata Mandir and compromised their disputes and took oath not to indulge in any rivalry in future.On 1.4.2006 one Umruddin resident of Rajasthan was threshing wheat at the farm of Mangal Singh with his thresher and tractor when Pappu Gurjar and Niranjan Gurjar asked him to take his thresher to their farm.In the meanwhile, Mangal Singh and his family members namely Bhagat Singh and Manni arrived there and opposed Pappu and Niranjan resulting in oral dispute when Pappu and Niranjan proceeded to their farm.As per prosecution story, after some time Mangal Singh, Bhagatsingh, Navabsingh, Rustamsingh, Sabharam, Ramsevak armed with mouser and 12 bore guns, Manni with Lohangi, Balveer with Baka, Ramniwas and Harnam armed with Lathi came there and fired gunshots at Pappu and Niranjan when Niranjan died of such gunshot injury.It is alleged that Niranjan died of gunshot fired by Mangal Singh.It is also alleged that in such firing Pappu @ Kalicharan and Ballu @ Shivsingh were injured.Pappu sustained gunshot injury allegedly caused by Navabsingh and Rustam, whereas Ballu @ Shivsingh sustained gunshot injury allegedly caused by 4 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 Bhagatsingh and Kadma.It is also alleged that Manni caused injury with Lohangi to Lakhan.Complaint was lodged by Lakhan Singh at police Station, Panihar, immediately after the incident, as a result of which Crime No.32/2006 was registered under the provisions of Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.Shri N.P.Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, opening arguments for appellant Balveer Singh son of Mangal Singh, appellant No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.831/07, submits that as per the FIR (Ex.P/2) there are 11 accused persons and it is a story of old rivalry.There is one death of Niranjan Singh attributed to co- accused and no overt act of appellant Balveer Singh has been shown.It is pointed out that Balveer Singh was admittedly armed with Baka, whereas Ramniwas and Harnam were armed with Lathi and no gunshot injury has been attributed to them, therefore, appellants Balveer Singh, Ramniwas and Harnam have been falsely implicated as accused because they are respectively son of Mangalsingh, Badansingh and Sughar Singh, who are related to the main accused Mangal Singh.It is submitted that Mangal Singh is son of Sughar Singh, Harnam is brother of Mangal Singh with whom complainant party has rivalry.Navab Singh, Maniram and Bhagat Singh are all sons of Sughar Singh and brothers of Mangal Singh, therefore, they have been falsely implicated.It is submitted that there was no Baka injury or Lathi 5 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 injury on the body of the deceased or any of the injured witnesses, therefore, allegation that all the accused persons were present is not made out.It is also submitted that though FIR (Ex.P/2) makes a mention of presence of Narayan, Officer and Majboot but they have not been examined.It is also pointed out that postmortem report is Ex.P/48 and this postmortem was conducted by Dr. V.S.Tomar (PW-15) who has clearly mentioned that when he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer in JA Hospital on 1.4.2006, then at about 11 am Niranjan son of Narayan Singh Gurjar was brought to him for postmortem by Constable Rajendra Singh (who has not been examined by the prosecution) from police Station, Panihar, when he found that deceased sustained five injuries (1) an abrasion on his right wrist measuring 3 x 1 cm transverse; (2) abrasion on right thigh measuring 6 x 4 cm transverse; (3) abrasion on right arm measuring 4 x 2.5 cm transverse; (4) entry wound in the chest on the sternum portion 6.5 cm below having diameter of 0.8 cm with inverted ends; (5) exit wound on the right sub-scapular region measuring 4.5 x 3.5 cm with extended ends and blood was found deposited.He opined that injuries No.1 to 3 were simple in nature and injury No.4 had broken the track of sternum and pierced through heart and passed through right lung reaching to exit wound.It is also pointed out that in para 4 of his cross-examination this doctor has admitted that there was no blackening, charring or tattooing marks and if deceased would 6 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 have been hit from a distance of about 3 steps, then there would have been blackening.It is also pointed out that it has come on record that since deceased had sustained gunshot injury in the center of his chest, therefore, such injury will result in excessive blood loss and person sustaining such gunshot injury will fall down on the spot itself and cannot run for a distance of 30-35 steps.In cross-examination, doctor admitted that such injuries could not have been caused by Lohangi and they were not on any delicate or vital parts of the body.In further cross- examination, he admitted that such injuries could have been caused due to fall and police had not sent alleged weapon of assault for his opinion.The wounds were not bleeding and there were no signs of pre-MLC.It is submitted that Dr. P.L.Gupta (PW-5) had examined Pappu @ Kalicharan when he was posted as CMO at JA Hospital and he found entry wound of firearm on his right elbow and upper 7 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 part of the arm, lacerated type with inverted ends measuring 7 x 4 x 2 cm causing rupture of all the structures inside.There was no blackening or tattooing around the wound.There was no exit wound available.Doctor had referred the patient for x-ray.On the same day, this doctor had examined Ballu son of Lakhan Singh and found one firearm entry wound on left thigh measuring x cm with inverted ends and wound was bleeding.No tattooing or blackening was present.There was no exit wound available and doctor had suggested conduct of x-ray of left thigh.It is also mentioned that patient was fully conscious.In cross-examination, doctor admitted that Pappu had sustained one firearm injury which was not on the vital part.He also opined that if any fracture was not found in the injury of Pappu, then it can be said to be of simple in nature and even Pappu at the time of examination was fully conscious.Doctor opined that injury caused to Pappu @ Kalicharan could have been caused at about 4- 4.30 am.Even injury of Ballu was not on the vital part and if there was no fracture in the injury caused to Ballu, then it was simple in nature and that injury could also have been sustained at about 4- 4.30 am.Doctor admitted that he had not seized any of the clothes from these injured i.e. Pappu and Ballu.This witness admitted that house of Mangalsingh is at serial No.3 in Ex.He also admitted that there is a boundary wall adjacent to the house of Mangalsingh on east and north direction, whereas there was no boundary wall on southwest direction.He admitted that in spot map he has mentioned that gunshot was fired from Jhopari (hut) situated on southwest corner of the farm of Mangalsingh.He also admitted that he had shown farm of Khuman Singh at serial No.9 in which Niranjan had sustained gunshot injury.He also admitted that if at the time of preparation of spot map people present, would have informed him that gunshot injury was sustained in the field of Narayan Singh, which is mentioned at serial No.10 in the spot map, then he would have definitely shown such thing on the spot map.He also admitted that he had seen bore 9 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 (tube-well) of Lakhan Singh, however, this witness mentions that he has not shown such tube well in spot map (Ex.D/6) but it exists on the way adjacent to house of Narayan Singh.He also admits that distance between the field of Narayan Singh and bore of Lakhan Singh is about 1000-1200 ft.In cross-examination, this witness admits that if somebody stands in the field of Narayan Singh, then tube-well of Lakhan Singh is not visible.He also admitted that in the spot map at serial No.3 a hutment has been shown in the field of Mangal Singh which is used to tie domestic animals.According to this witness, Mangal Singh had reached his village on 31.3.2006 at about 8-9 am and was present there on all seven days and had not left village Singhpur at any point of time during this period.Therefore, he was not present at the scene of crime.Shri V.K.Saxena, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that guns have been seized from Mangal Singh vide Ex.P/40, Ramsevak vide Ex.P/41 and Kadma @ Kadam Singh vide Ex.It is submitted that as per eye-witness Pappu @ Kalicharan on 1.4.2006 at about 6.30 am Pappu had visited field of Mangal Singh to have a talk with Umruddin when accused Mangal Singh, Bhagatsingh and Manni reached there and there 11 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 was a verbal dispute between the two rival parties when he returned back to his field.At some distance at the bore/ tube-well of his father, Lakhan Singh was also present.Officer, Narayan and Majboot Singh were working in the close-by fields when about 7 am Mangal Singh, Bhagatsingh, Rustam, Sabharam, Navab, Kadma, Ramsevak, Harnam, Ramniwas, Balveer and Manni came to their farm when Mangalsingh, Bhagatsingh, Rustam, Sabharam were armed with mouser, Navab, Kadma, Ramsevak were armed with 12 bore gun, Harnam and Ramniwas were armed with Lathi, Balveer with Baka and Manni was armed with Lohangi surrounded him i.e. Pappu @ Kalicharan, Niranjan and Ballu.Mangalsingh fired a gunshot at Niranjan which pierced his chest and Niranjan fell down in the field of Khuman after walking for a while.Thereafter, accused ran towards him, Ballu and his father Lakhan, when Navabsingh with 12 bore gun and Rustam with mouser gun fired one gunshot each hitting him on his right hand close to his elbow.Kadma with his 12 bore gun and Bhagat Singh with his mouser gun fired a gunshot on Ballu which hit on his left thigh.In between, Manni caused Lohangi blow at the right hand of Lakhan Singh.At this point of time, all the members of complainant party ran towards their house, when accused party followed them firing gunshots.After some time, they returned to the place where Niranjan was lying and found that Niranjan was dead.It is mentioned that Lakhan Singh and Officer 12 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 visited police Station to lodge report.Pappu (PW-2) in cross-examination admits that Sughar Singh, father of Mangalsingh, are four brothers, namely Daruram @ Uday Singh, Hakim Singh and Badan Singh.Kadam Singh is son of Daruram @ Uday Singh, whereas Sabharam is son of Hakim Singh i.e. all the accused are related to each other.He also admitted that Sughar Singh i.e. father of Mangalsingh has six sons, namely Navabsingh, Mangalsingh, Harnamsingh, Bhagatsingh, Manni @ Maniram and Subedar and except Subedar, all other sons of Sughar Singh are accused in the matter.Balveer Singh son of Mangal Singh is also an accused.This witness has also admitted that all the accused are of same family and Ramsevak is son of Babu Singh and Babu Singh is maternal uncle of Mangalsingh.This eye-witness Pappu @ Kalicharan has also admitted that his father Lakhan Singh has two more brothers, namely Narayan Singh and Uttam singh and all the three brothers are witness in this case.Narayan Singh has four sons out of which three namely Mehtabsingh, Majboot Singh and Rajpal are witness in this case and Niranjan, another son of Narayan Singh, has died in the incident.He also admitted that Officer son of Kaptan Singh is brother-in-law of Niranjan Singh and Officer is resident of village Urva Chak which is at a distance of about 20 kms from their village, namely Gurjar Banwari.This witness has also admitted that he has two more brothers, namely Ballu @ Shivsingh and 13 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 Jeetu @ Jitendra, out of which Ballu is a witness in the case.He also admitted that his uncle Uttam Singh has four sons, namely Officer Singh, Dharmendra, Devendra and Lokendra out of which Officer Singh is a witness in the case.It is further submitted that all the appellants have been falsely implicated with a view to settle personal scores.In fact, main accusation is on Mangal Singh of firing a gunshot on Niranjan who died on the spot.Thereafter, Rustam and Nawab respectively carrying .315 bore gun and 12 bore gun are implicated for firing a gunshot on Pappu.Kadam and Bhagat are accused of firing gunshot on Ballu, whereas Maniram is accused of hitting Lakhan Singh with a Lohangi.It is also submitted that others have been falsely accused.It is further submitted that vide Ex.P/44, recovery of empty cartridges has been made from Khaliyan of Mangal Singh marked as place 7 in the spot map, Ex.P/3, whereas spot of firing has been marked as place 6 from where accused had surrounded complainant party and had hit Niranjan, Pappu, Ballu etc. at places which have been marked as 1, 2, 3 and 4 is the place where Niranjan's dead-body was found.If prosecution story is to be relied on, then firing took place at spot marked as place 6 in the spot map Ex.P/3, and therefore, there was no occasion for empty cartridges to be recovered from Khaliyan of Mangal Singh which is on the west of alleged spot of crime.In this regard, evidence of Lakhan Singh (PW-4) is 14 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 important who has admitted in his examination-in-chief that there is old enmity with Mangal Singh.He has also stated that Rustam had fired a gunshot with his mouser on Pappu, whereas Nawab had fired a gunshot from his 12 bore gun, as a result of which one gunshot hit right hand of Pappu.Similarly, allegation on Bhagat and Kadam is of firing gunshot on Ballu hitting him in his thigh.Maniram had hit Lakhan (PW-4) with a Lohangi.This witness in cross-examination has admitted that he is illiterate but he has faced several criminal cases on him.In para 5, it is admitted that one year prior to the incident accused party had broken gun of his brother Uttam Singh and caused injury to his leg, as a result of which he is not able to move.He has also admitted that this matter was compromised at Dabra Court.This witness has also admitted that on the report of Narayan Singh son of Savailal a case was registered against Niranjan, his father Narayan, Uttam Singh, Majboot and Mehtab under Section 307 of IPC.He also admitted that on 8.8.2004 Mangal Singh had lodged a report at police Station Janakganj against father of Niranjan namely Narayan, Lakhan, Majboot, Kalicharan @ Pappu, Mehtab and Officer, on which Janakganj police had registered a case under Sections 307, 147, 148 of IPC.He also admitted that on 3.9.2004 Jhandel Singh, brother of Kadam, had lodged a report against him, Pappu @ Kalicharan, Majboot, Mehtab, Officer, Narayan etc. at police Station, Panihar, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.This 15 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 witness has also admitted that Niranjan had not visited the scene of crime on the fateful day alongwith him, but had left home prior to him.He also admitted that fields of Nirajan are in close proximity to Mangal Singh.In para 15, he has admitted that at the time of incident he was not available on his bore but was in the field of Khuman Singh.He has denied the fact that no empty cartridges were recovered from the fields of Khuman and Niranjan.In para 34, this witness admits that he had reached police Station between 7.15 and 7.30 am and returned back at 8 O' Clock alongwith police personnel, whereas in the FIR time of reporting incident has been shown as 7.50 am for an incident which took place about 7 am when distance of police Station and the place of incident is about 12 kms as is apparent from the FIR (Ex.P/2).4) has admitted that Niranjan had sustained only one gunshot injury and dacoits had made abduction from his field.P/8 it has been opined that Ballu (PW-3), another injured, has sustained one gunshot injury in his thigh and as per x- ray report (Ex.P/36) there was a metallic density foreign body seen 23 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 in soft tissue of left thigh.Lakhan (PW-4) was examined by Dr. S.Agarkar (PW-13).Lakhan had alleged that he was hit by Lohangi wielded by Maniram.Dr. Agarkar opined that there were two simple injuries on the right forearm in the form of a contusion 2-1/2 x 2 cm and one scratch mark on the right wrist measuring 1 x cm and both the injuries were simple in nature and caused within six hours of MLC.It is apparent from the recovery memo (Ex.P/17) that a Lohangi was seized from Maniram which was on a stick having 8 knots and 7 iron rings were tied with aluminum wire at different places.Similarly, there were no injury on the body of any of the injured persons caused by a Baka or Lathi.It is evident that when incident took place, then deceased and injured persons were in the field of Niranjan.In the spot map (Ex.P/3) empty gun cartridges have been shown in the field of 24 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 Niranjan & Khuman, but as per seizure memo (Ex.P/44) recovery of empty cartridges has been shown from the Khaliyan (field) of Mangal Singh.This document has been proved by the IO Sanjeev Nayan Sharma (PW-12).Now we would like to consider the role of Mangal Singh, Bhagat Singh, Nawab Singh, Rustam, (Ramsevak, Sabharam) and Kadam Singh in the light of the evidence which has come on record.All the prosecution witnesses have singularly alleged that it was Mangal Singh who fired gunshot on Niranjan which caused death of Niranjan.From the postmortem report, Ex.P/48, it is evident that cause of death of Niranjan has been mentioned as due to cardio-respiratory failure due to injury No.4 and 5 and its effect.Injury No.4 is wound of entrance present over upper part of anterior aspect of chest on sternal region and injury No.5 is wound of exit present over right sub-scapular region.Learned counsel for 27 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 the appellants have given various suggestions to prosecution witnesses Pappu @ Kalicharan (PW-2), Ballu @ Shivsingh (PW-3) and Lakhan Singh (PW-4) that if Niranjan would have sustained gunshot injury in his own field, then it was not possible for such a grievously injured person to run for 30-35 steps and fall in the field of Khuman, but a careful perusal of testimony of Dr. V.S.Tomar (PW-15) reveals that some suggestions have been given, but they have not been emphatically proved to show that Niranjan could not have sustained a gunshot injury in chest and after such injury was not in a position to move for 30-35 steps, therefore, when these statements of eye-witness Pappu @ Kalicharan (PW-2) and Ballu @ Shivsingh (PW-3) who are injured themselves and Lakhan Singh (PW-4) are taken into consideration, then guilt of Mangal Singh appears to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.We have already dealt with the testimony of Lakhan and has acquitted Maniram.As per Pappu @ Kalicharan (PW-2), allegation is that Rustam was armed with .315 bore gun and Nawab with a 12 bore gun and both of them had fired a gunshot on him.Similarly, Ballu has alleged that Kadam Singh was armed with a 12 bore gun and Bhagat with a mouser and both of them had fired a gunshot on him.MLC of Pappu is Ex.P/7 and that of Ballu is Ex.From the MLC, Ex.P/7 and Ex.They have been examined by Dr. P.L.Gupta (PW-5) who opined that Pappu @ Kalicharan had sustained one firearm entry wound on his right arm which was lacerated with inverted ends measuring 29 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 7x4x 2 cm and there was no blackening or tattooing around the wound.There was no other wound but this wound was surrounded by reddish skin.X-ray was advised.P/37 conducted by Dr. Shilpi Gupta (PW9) and she had seen multiple metallic foreign bodies in the tissue of right upper arm.This witness Ballu was also advised x-ray and x-ray report is Ex.P/36 in which Dr. Shilpi Gupta has deposed that there was metallic density foreign body seen in soft tissue of left thigh.Though in cross-examination, it has come that injury sustained by Ballu could have been sustained at about 4-4.30 in the morning but no definite opinion has been recorded by Dr. P.L.Gupta.Dr. Shilpi Gupta (PW-9) has admitted that there was no fracture sustained by Ballu and similarly Pappu had not sustained any fracture in his right arm.Reading this evidence of Dr. Shilpi Gupta and para 5 of Dr. P.L.Gupta (PW-5) in absence of fracture, as per the opinion of Dr. P.L.Gupta injuries were simple, and therefore, for such injuries conviction under Section 302/149 of IPC is not made out.Careful perusal of evidence of Pappu and Ballu, PW-2 and 30 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 PW-3, also reveals that though there is allegation on Rustam and Nawab of causing injury to Pappu and Kadam and Bhagat of causing injury to Ballu, but injury sustained by Pappu as is evident from Ex.P/37, where shots of several metallic pieces were seen and Dr. Gupta (PW-5) opined that around the main wound there was effect of abrasion of skin, was definitely caused by a 12 bore gun, therefore, it appears that Rustam has been falsely implicated inasmuch as both Pappu and Ballu have deposed that Rustam was wielding a .315 bore gun, whereas Nawab was wielding a 12 bore gun and they have admitted in their cross-examination that they are not sure as whose gun shot had actually hit them.Therefore, as far as Pappu is concerned, in the light of single gunshot injury attributable to a 12 bore gun, conviction of Rustam does not appear to be just.As has already been discussed above, it is a case of old rivalry and in such rivalries it is a common practice to falsely implicate all the family members of the rival party and Rustam appears to be victim of such false accusation.Therefore, conviction of Rustam needs to be set aside and is set aside.On the basis of aforesaid hypothesis, conviction of Nawab deserves to be maintained as he was wielding a 12 bore gun and multiple metallic object found in the tissue of right upper arm could have been caused by a 12 bore gun only, else the shot of .315 bore gun would have pierced through.However, Nawab has already died on 30.5.2013 as is noted in the order-sheet dated 19.2.2018 and 31 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10 appeal has already abated against him.Similarly, Ballu has made allegation against Kadam and Bhagat of firing gunshot on him.Admittedly Kadam was wielding a 12 bore gun, whereas Bhagat was wielding a mouser and there are no scattered wounds on the thigh of Ballu and only one opaque shadow has been seen in the x-ray report (Ex.P/36).Such injury could have been caused by a mouser gun and not by a 12 bore gun, else there would have been other injury marks in or around the thigh of Ballu, therefore, it is apparent that since Bhagat was wielding a mouser, assailant of Ballu was Bhagat and not Kadam, therefore, even Kadam deserves to be acquitted and he is acquitted from all the charges under IPC, however, conviction of Kadam under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act with the same sentence as imposed by the trial Court is affirmed as recovery of gun has been made from him.As the injury sustained by Ballu is attributable to Bhagat, he is convicted under Section 307 of IPC with the same sentence as imposed by the trial Court under Section 307/149 of IPC, however, conviction of Bhagat under other sections is set aside.Consequently, all the appeals are disposed of.Conviction of all the appellants under all the charges under IPC is set aside except appellant Mangal Singh and Bhagat Singh.Record of the trial Court be sent back. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,953,468 | Writ Petition No. 47978 of 2006, was filed by theprosecutrix Pooja and one Khushi Ram( co accused of that case) statingtherein that they were major and they had solemnised their marriage on28.8.2006 and they were being harassed by the respondents.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of theaccused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel forthe parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant Babloo involved in Case Crime No. 64 of 2008 underSections 366,376,506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar , District Kotwali Nagar bereleased on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in thelike amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the followingconditions:- | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,348,213 | Heard the learned counsel on either side.He was directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Triplicane, (Chennai) Police Station daily twice at 10.00 A.M and 05.00 P.M until further orders.The petitioner herein filed a counter controverting the said allegation.According to him, he very much appeared before the Station House Officer, Triplicane on the dates mentioned in the petition for cancellation of bail.But, he was not permitted to sign in the attendance register.The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the explanation put forth by the petitioner herein and by the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 in Crl MP No.453 of 2020 cancelled the earlier order granting bail.Challenging the same, this revision petition has been filed.2/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD)No.366 of 2020A.Robinson, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) at the outset questioned the very maintainability of this revision case.Responding to the said challenge, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the order dated 12.09.2016 in Crl.RC No.611 of 2016 wherein a learned Judge of this Court had not only entertained but also allowed the revision petition filed by an accused for setting aside the order cancelling the bail.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner in my view is not correct in projecting the order dated 12.09.2016 in Crl.An earlier case law can be pressed into service as a precedent only if a proposition can be culled out therefrom as its ratio decidendi.In the order relied on by the petitioner's counsel, the issue of maintainability was not raised or gone into.Merely because the criminal revision case was entertained on an earlier occasion against an order cancelling bail, it would not constitute a precedent to be followed.The stand of the petitioner is that he had to appear before the Jurisdictional Magistrate No.2, Dindigul on 14.02.2020 and 17.02.2020 and that on the other dates mentioned in the petition, he had appeared before the police station, but, he was refused permission to sign in the attendance register.The learned Sessions Judge rightly found that the version projected by the petitioner cannot be believed.If the petitioner was refused permission on 13.02.2020 to sign in the register, he could have very well lodged a complaint before the superior officers.Only in the counter filed on 02.03.2020, the petitioner has come out with the “refusal theory”.While the story projected by the petitioner cannot be true, it is quite possible that he had some reason.The fact remains that the petitioner had appeared before the SHO, Triplicane (Chennai) Police Station from 18.02.2020 onwards.The subsequent conduct of the petitioner is a relevant consideration.The issue of cancellation cannot be decided on the basis of the breach alone.This vitiates the impugned order and renders it vulnerable.9.In this view of the matter, exercising my inherent powers, I set aside order dated 03.03.2020 made in Cr.MP No.453 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, on condition that the petitioner will continue to honor the bail condition from 19.06.2020 onwards.It is of course open to the petitioner herein to move the learned Sessions Judge for modification or relaxation.10.This criminal revision case is allowed on these terms.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.(G.R.S, J.) 10.06.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Skm 7/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD)No.366 of 2020 Note : The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to instruct the concerned staff not to number the criminal revision cases filed against the orders pertaining bail (granting or refusing or cancelling).Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.Note : Issue order copy within one day after the same is received by the Court Officers' Section.1.Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk P.S., Dindigul District.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.8/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD)No.366 of 2020 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.Skm Crl RC(MD)No.366 of 2020 and Crl MP(MD)No.3137 of 2020 Date : 10/06/2020 9/9http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,349,743 | In the said wedlock Sitali Murmu gave birth to two child, who are also still alive.However, during the subsistence of the said marriage the petitioner having converted himself to Islam and taking a new name Subid Ali Murmu, married the defacto-complainant Taslima Begum according to Mohammedan Rites and Customs.The police during investigation seized the Ration Card and Election Photo Identity Card of the petitioner's first wife Sitali Murmu.In both the said documents petitioner's name has been recorded as her husband.The police also seized the marriage registration certificate of the petitioner with the defacto-complainant Taslima Begum, which was registered according to Mohammedan Law.Therefore, it is an admitted position that the petitioner during the subsistence of his marriage with Sitali Murmu which was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Customs and during her lifetime changed his religion and converted to Islam and then married the defacto-complainant Taslima Begum under Mohammedan Rites and Customs.1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:In this application under Section 482 of the Code the petitioner has moved for quashing of a charge-sheet under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,351,879 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2017, on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem City, Salem.When they repeatedly asked for return of the amount, the petitioner abused them and threatened with dire consequences and also sent a legal notice to the 2nd respondent and the entire averments in the notice was denied by the 2nd respondent.Hence, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the 1st respondent police and a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime 2 of 2017 under Sections 294(b), 420 and 506(i) IPC.Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition stating that the allegations against him in the complaint are all false and he has suffient documents to prove his innocence and seeks to quash the F.I.R.4.Heard Mr.S.Gunalan,learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent police and Mr.S.Dakshinamoorthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 35.It is seen from the First Information Report that there is a specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit all the documents before the 1st respondent/investigation officer.On receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and complete the investigation and to file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.7.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.rm G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 rm1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu.2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, E-8, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.(Crime No.252 of 2018)The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.23243 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.13536 of 2017 03.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,358,573 | DATED : 21 st SEPTEMBER, 2018PER COURT:-The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection withcrime No. 0064 of 2017 registered with Deoni Police Station, DistrictLatur, for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366(A), 376(2)On the basis of complaint lodged by one Ram Kishan Rathoddated 07.04.2017 crime No. 64 of 2017 came to be registered atDeoni Police Station, against four accused persons for having aba879.18 -2-committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 368 (A) r.w.34 of I.P.C. It has been alleged in the complaint that the informantRam Kishan had been to Tamilnadu for doing the work of sugarcanecutting.The accused Suresh Govind Pawar and Arun Rathod, whohappened to be the contractors also accompanied him.Theinformant had been to the State of Tamilnadu for cutting thesugarcane alongwith his wife, two daughters and two sons.It hasbeen further alleged in the complaint that the said accused SureshPawar had developed relations with minor daughter of informant viz.The said accused Suresh is already married havingtwo children.During the course of investigation of the aforesaidcrime, it was also revealed that said accused Suresh has committedrape on victim and accordingly offences punishable under Section376(2) (n) of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(a), 4, 5(1), 6 and 8 ofProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 came to beadded.During the course of investigation, when the victim wasproduced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class forrecording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she hasspecifically alleged in her statement that the police Inspector of Deonipolice station i.e. present applicant had caused miscarriage by givingtablets to her, without her consent.In consequence thereof on22.11.2017, the present applicant came to be added as an accused aba879.18 -3-for having committed offences under Section 313 and 201 of I.P.C.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant isworking as Police Inspector and he has unblemished service recordof more than 20 years.Learned counsel submits that during this period from15.5.2018 till 26.7.2018, the applicant has co-operated with theinvestigating agency and investigation is practically over almost in allsense and the formality of filing of charge sheet is only remained.The applicant came to be suspended following the departmentalenquiry initiated against him and as such, there is no possibility oftampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner.Learned counselsubmits that allegations have been made that this applicant hasgiven certain tablets to the victim and those tablets also came to berecovered during the course of investigation.Learned A.P.P. has strongly resisted the application on the aba879.18 -4-ground that the applicant, who is a responsible police officer, insteadof protecting the victim of crime of rape, had given certain tablets tothe victim for causing miscarriage without her consent.LearnedA.P.P. submits that the applicant mislead the Sessions Court andobtained ad-interim anticipatory bail order in his favour.Learned A.P.P. submits that theregular investigation officer, who was investigating crime No. 64 of2017, was on leave for two days and during the said period of twodays when the charge of investigation of the aforesaid crime wastaken by the present applicant formally, the applicant had given falsepromises to the complainant offering him employment in hisagricultural field and had given those tablets to the victim for causingmiscarriage.Even there is one independent witness on this point,who has supported the allegations made by the victim. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,364,363 | This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.27 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.5373 of 2020The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w.34 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence she 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 M/s.I.Abrar Md Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,369,549 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.81 of 2019, under Section 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Hafizganj, District-Bareilly is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was registered by one Shamshul Hasan(father of the victim) against as many as nine named accused persons.The girl understands the far-reaching repercussions of this relationship and even after knowing all the facts, she has consistently established physical relations with the applicant.She appears to be consenting party.The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2019, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,953,782 | The appellant-husband has been convicted by the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 15.3.2001, of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, (for short "IPC") on the allegations that he subjected his wife Deepa to cruelty and on 4.3.2000 at 10 am killed her by pouring kerosene and set her ablaze.The appellant was charged and tried along with his parents, married sister and brother of the offender under Sections 302, 109 read with 302, 498-A read with 34 IPC.Briefly stated, the prosecution case unfolded from the evidence led by the prosecution, is that deceased Deepa and the appellant-accused (for short, "the accused" only) got married on 7.8.1999 at Buldhana.After marriage, for a month they stayed with his parents and brother at their native place.Thereafter, they shifted to Kendra Vihar, Kharghar, New Bombay.After staying there for some time, they shifted to Mhatre Chawl Belpada, Taluka Panvel, where the alleged occurrence took place.It is alleged that during their stay at native place, the other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty so as to coerce her parents to fulfil their demand of money.Even when they shifted to Khargar and then to Belpada she was subjected to cruelty by her husband for fulfilment of their demand of money from her parents.It is alleged that on 4.3.2000 at 10 am once again the accused insisted that the deceased should bring money from her parents and when she refused the accused allegedly closed the door from inside and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.She raised a hue and cry, when, according to the prosecution, the neighbours rushed to their house and doused the fire.Thereafter, she was removed to MGM Hospital.She had sustained 97 percent burns.He was on duty when deceased Deepa was admitted in the hospital."Yesterday, the date 4.3.2000 at 10.00 am my husband told me that I should bring money from my parental house, parents.JUDGMENT D.B. Bhosale, J.After she succumbed to the injuries, the offence under Section 302 was added.The investigation was set in motion and in the course of investigation the statements of several witnesses were recorded, panchanamas were drawn and on completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against all the five accused and they were accordingly tried by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Raigad.The defence propounded by the accused was of total denial.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, mainly consisting of Heerabai Mhatre (pw 2), owner of the house where the alleged incident occurred and to whom an oral dying declaration was made by the deceased; Nilkanth Tathe (PW 3), father of the deceased, who also speaks about the illtreatment meted out to the deceased; Dr Prem Sinha (PW 4) and Dr. Radha Jain (PW 5), who treated Deepa while in the hospital; Nittila Shetty (PW 6), Special Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying declarations of deceased Deepa (Exhibits 45 and 47); PSI Rathod (PW 7), who recorded the statement of the deceased (Exh- 52A).The prosecution also examined Dr Shinde (PW 9), who examined the accused and also performed autopsy on the dead body of deceased Deepa.API Eknath Patil (PW 11) conducted the investigation in the alleged offence.To prove the allegations of illtreatment, besides the oral evidence, some letters are produced on record by the prosecution.The conviction under Section 302 IPC in the instant case is based on the evidence in the nature of dying declarations recorded by PSI and SEM and their testimonies in support thereof.Insofar as the oral dying declaration made to Heerabai Mhatre is concerned, the trial Court did not find her evidence worthy of credence.It is against this backdrop, Mr Chitnis, learned senior counsel, at the outset, submitted that he has instructions to press this appeal only against the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of IPC.In other words, he made it clear that he is not challenging the order of conviction of the accused under Section 498-A of IPC and in view thereof while making submissions he concentrated on the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the dying declarations only.He fairly stated that there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the order of conviction under Section 498-A against the accused.A perusal of the impugned Judgment and the evidence placed on record also shows that the conviction under Section 498-A IPC is proper and does not deserve interference.He also took us through the evidence of PSI Rathod (PW 7), who recorded the first dying declaration (Exh-52A); Shetty (PW 6), who recorded the two dying declarations (Exhs-45 and 44); and the evidence of Dr. Prem Sinha (PW 4) and Radha Jain (PW 5) in particular and submitted that the dying declarations, being inconsistent and suffer from several infirmities, deserve to be discarded.Mr Chitnis submitted that insofar as the dying declarations (Exhs.-45 and 47) recorded by Shetty (PW 6) are concerned, they cannot be looked into at all since at the relevant time he was not having authority to record the dying declaration inasmuch as he was no more Special Executive Magistrate.Our attention was also drawn to Exhibit-44, the dying declaration recorded by Shetty (PW 6) on 5.3.2000 at 7.55 pm to contend that this witness is pliable witness in the hands of police.He had no reason and occasion to go and record the second dying declaration (Exh-44).Moreover, there is no record to show that Shetty was sent by the police for recording the second dying declaration (Exh-44).The dying declarations recorded by Shetty (PW 6) were also challenged on the ground that the 'scribe', who wrote down Exhibits 47 and 44, was not examined.In support of this contention, he took us through the medical papers to show that her general condition was very poor, her blood pressure and pulse was not recordable and she was given painkillers.Our attention was also drawn to the inconsistencies in the dying declarations and submitted that they make the dying declarations doubtful.When she was admitted in the hospital, her general condition was very poor, pulse and blood pressure was not recordable and there were bilateral crepts in the chest.The patient was in semi-conscious condition due to neurogenic and hypovolumic shock.She was given painkiller along with antibiotics.Even in the evening of 4.3.2000, her general condition was very poor and her pulse was not palpable.On 5.3.2000, though her general condition was still poor, Dr. Sinha has stated that she was conscious and oriented since 9 am onwards.In the cross-examination, he has fairly admitted that on 5.3.2000 at 9 am he did not examine her.In view of this admission in the cross, it was vehemently contended that there was no basis for Dr. Sinha to state that from 9 am onwards she was conscious and oriented.we are unable to accept this submission simply because the medical papers on record clearly show the endorsement that she was conscious and oriented from 9 am onwards and Dr. Sinha appears to have stated so on the basis thereof.At 4 pm it appears that Dr. Sinha (PW 4) talked to deceased Deepa.We perused the medical papers of Deepa, produced by Dr. Sinha, very carefully.They clearly lend assurance to the defence version that she was admitted in the hospital by the accused and the Police Inspector.The medical papers further show that Deepa's general condition was very poor, her pulse and blood pressure was not recordable and that she was also given several injections.The medical papers actually show that on 5.3.2000 at 9 am Deepa was conscious and oriented.Merely because her general condition was very poor does not mean that she was not conscious and oriented and medically fit to give statements to the police and SEM.Even the entry made at 8.30 pm on 6.3.2000 also shows that deceased Deepa was conscious and oriented.Dr. Radha Jain (PW 5), one of the doctors who attended deceased Deepa, corroborates the testimony of Dr. Sinha (PW 4) in all respects and we did not find any discrepancy whatsoever in the evidence of these two doctors.Dr. Radha Jain had given permission and certificate to that effect to PSI Rathod (PW 7) and SEM Shetty (PW 6), allowing them to record the statement of deceased Deepa.She has given detailed account as to when Rathod and Shetty approached her and when she made endorsement to the effect that Deepa was fully conscious and oriented.We find the testimonies of both these witnesses quite clear, categorical and implicitly reliable and corroborated by medical papers on record.An endorsement was made by Dr. Radha Jain on this letter shows that the patient was not physically and mentally fit to give statement.On the basis of this letter it was vehemently contended that as to why similar written permission was not sought either by PSI Rathod or by SEM Shetty on 5.3.2000 before recording the statements of deceased Deepa and/or made any effort to seek a written permission indicating that she was conscious and oriented.Further more, the statements recorded by Rathod (Exh-52A) and by Shetty (Exh-45) clearly show that before recording the statement of the deceased Deepa, an endorsement of Dr. Radha Jain (PW 5) stating that she was mentally fit to give statement, was obtained by them.In view of this, merely because no written permission was sought by the investigating agency before recording the statements/dying declarations of deceased-Deepa, it cannot be said that the deceased was not conscious and oriented, particularly when there is sufficient material on record to show that at the relevant time she was conscious and oriented.Moreover, there is no requirement of law to seek such written permission of the doctor before recording a statement of the patient in a hospital.A simple endorsement/certificate of a doctor indicating mental condition of the patient on the statement itself would be sufficient compliance of law.Shetty (PW 6) went to the hospital at the instance of PSI Nikam (PW 10) on 4.3.2000 and since, according to the doctor, deceased Deepa was not medically fit to give a statement, he did not record her statement.Next day, between 10 and 10.30 am, he again went to the hospital.He was informed that deceased Deepa was mentally fit to give a statement and, therefore, he proceeded to record her statement.He took the help of a neighbouring patient whenever he faced difficulty in understanding the deceased who was giving her statement in Marathi.This witness though claims that he understands Marathi, seems to have had difficulty in taking down her statement in black and white.He, therefore, took an assistance of a visitor who had come to see the neighbouring patient for taking down the statement in writing.Same day evening he was again called by the police at MGM Hospital and requested him to record a further statement of deceased Deepa.That statement is also in the handwriting of the same person, who had written down the first statement (Exh-45).When Shetty (PW 6) was asked in the cross-examination about the handwriting he explained that the same visitor of the neighbouring patient was available in the evening also.It was tried to be contended that though, according to the prosecution, the handwriting on Exhibits 44 and 45 is of one and the same person, in fact it was of different persons.We, ourselves, perused both these documents (Exhs 44 and 45) and found no merit in the submission.A bare look at both these documents clearly shows that they are written by one and the same person.The learned counsel for the parties raised a controversy as to what is "scribe" whether a "recorder" or one who actually writes down at the instance of the recorder, as happened in this case.However, in our opinion, merely because the said third person was not examined, the statement recorded by Shetty cannot be discarded if it is otherwise found to be true and trustworthy and at the same time receives sufficient corroboration from other sources.There are two dying declarations on record, one recorded by Shetty (PW 6) and other by Rathod (PW 7).The submission that the station diary entry made at 12.30 (Exh.67) ought to have been treated as FIR, must be rejected.The authority of Shetty (PW 6) was also challenged on the ground that he was no more a Special Executive Magistrate as on the date on which he recorded the dying declarations (Exhs.-44 and 45).It was recorded at 10.15 am on 5.3.2000 whereas Shetty (PW 6) recorded the statement at 10.30 am.The endorsement of the doctor in the form of certificate obtained on Exhibit-45 was at 10.30 am and on Exhibit 52A at 10.15 am were made before recording of the statements.We do not wish to enter into a question as to how Rathod (PW 7) could record the statement in 15 minutes.Shetty (PW 6) probably required more time because he had to take assistance of others for taking down the statement in black and white and understanding the Marathi of the deceased.It is also clear from the testimonies of Shetty and Rathod that both were present in the Ward when the statements of deceased Deepa were being recorded.We fail to understand if both (PWs 6 & 7) reached the hospital at one and the same time why did they record independent statements of the deceased."On 4.3.2000 at 10 am my husband Shrikrishna, over the aforesaid reason, used to ask me to bring money from my parental house.Similarly, my sister-in-law (husband's sister) was pestering my husband asking me to bring money otherwise drive her out and saying so, my husband closed the door and took the kerosene tin and poured the same on my person and set me on fire by litting a match stick.At that time, I raised shouts loudly.There was also scuffle between me and him and the people from neighbourhood came and doused the fire.I became unconscious.I do not know as to who brought me to the hospital.On refusing to it he bolted the door of the house from inside and poured rockoil (kerosene) from the Can, on the saree wearing on my person and lit the same by match stick and he opened the door and ran away.As he poured kerosene on the saree wearing on my person and lit the same by match stick and the way my saree started burning, I started raising shouts loudly and as a result the people in the neighbourhood came there, till then my body had sustained burns.They put out the fire, in the meantime, I became unconscious." A bare perusal of the statement-Exhibit 52A shows that the alleged incident occurred at 10 am on 4.3.2000 and at the relevant time the sister-in-law (i.e. Sunita original accused No. 5) of the deceased, was pestering the appellant-accused, for asking the deceased Deepa to bring money otherwise drive her (deceased) out and on she saying so the accused closed the door of the house and then poured kerosene and set her ablaze.It further shows that after the accused set deceased Deepa ablaze there was scuffle between him and the deceased.Thereafter, she shouted loudly which seems to have attracted the neighbours.Similarly in Exhibit-45 she does not state that there was a scuffle with the accused.On the contrary, she has categorically stated (in Exhibit-45) that after the accused set her ablaze he opened the door and fled.These inconsistencies will have to be examined in the light of the defence and the testimony of Heerabai Mhatre (PW 2) who was one of the first persons to reach the scene of offence.The defence of the accused was that the deceased attempted to commit suicide and that he tried to douse the fire and in that process he also sustained burns.We examined the testimony of Mhatre (PW 2), a landlady.When she reached the house of the accused the door was already opened by the people.Insofar as the oral dying declaration made by deceased-Deepa to Mhatre (PW 2) is concerned, the learned Judge has disbelieved her testimony.Obviously, because in the examination-in-chief she has stated that she asked the deceased as to how she sustained the burns and in the cross she states that she did not ask anything to the deceased at all.We have carefully gone through the testimony of Mhatre (PW 2).The trial Court has rightly discarded the oral dying declaration made to this witness.The other part of her testimony, in our opinion, can be accepted if that receives corroboration from the other evidence on record.According to this witness, when she reached the scene of offence she found the accused inside the house; he also tried to douse the fire; he asked for money from her (PW 2) since he wanted to make telephone calls to the police and to the family members of the deceased, he informed them about the alleged occurrence and that along with the police he carried Deepa to the hospital.When we cross checked the testimony of Mhatre, we found that part of Mhatre's testimony truthful since it was receiving corroboration from other material on record.Admittedly, the accused sustained burn injuries for which he was treated in the same hospital by Dr. Shinde (PW 9).The injury certificate (Exhibit-59) issued by Dr. Shinde is on record.This certificate clearly supports the testimony of PW 2 to the extent that the accused did not flee as stated by the deceased in her statement Exhibit-45 and that he attempted to douse the fire.Further, it has also come on record that the accused made a telephone call to the police and informed them about the alleged occurrence.It also supports his claim that he took the deceased to the hospital.We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting and relying upon the testimony of Mhatre (PW 2) to hold that the accused did not flee, he made calls to the police and her parents, he tried to douse the fire, he carried the deceased to the hospital, he stayed in the hospital till he was arrested and he signed all the necessary documents to comply with the formalities in the hospital.The medical papers (Exh-37) also clearly support her version to that extent.Both these statements (Exhs.52A and 45) were recorded one after another.There was no time gap between recording of these two statements.Merely because the deceased was conscious and oriented at the time of making the statement either to the police or to the Special Executive Magistrate, after obtaining certificate from the doctor to that effect, does not mean whatever has been stated by the deceased should be accepted as gospel truth.Reliability of such statement/ declaration should be subject to a close scrutiny, particularly when there are more than one dying declarations and they are not consistent with each other in all material particulars.We may also mention that no questions whatsoever were put to the accused regarding the burn injuries suffered by him under Section 313 of Cr P C. All these circumstances put together, in our opinion,create doubt about the veracity of the dying declarations.The conviction under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, cannot be sustained.The trial Court,though has discussed at length regarding the so-called infirmities in recording the dying declarations,overlooked the inconsistencies noticed byus in the dying declarations before holding them true and trustworthy.The appeal, accordingly, stands partly allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,556,591 | The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,572,661 | The facts in brief are that Sh.The accused used to live in Delhi and Ratna post marriage shifted to Delhi and started living with the accused.Post marriage, the accused and his mother started harassing, maltreating Ratna with cruelty for want of dowry.The accused turned out Ratna outside her matrimonial home on a number of occasions and the entire stay of Ratna with the accused was faced with torture and cruelty on Crl.A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 2 of 9 account of demand of dowry.The complainant had given money several times to his daughter to meet the demands of accused persons.On 23.03.1989, he received a telephone call that his daughter Ratna had got burnt and was admitted in hospital and thereafter she succumbed to her injuries.In his testimony, he had stated that before the marriage of his deceased daughter Ratna, both the accused complained about the dowry to be given in the marriage.They had stated that there was no TV, fridge and other articles and demanded more gold and diamond jewellery.This witness had taken loan and arranged for the demands made by the accused.He spent about 1.5 lacs in the marriage.After marriage, the deceased was harassed all the time.She was given beatings and threatened to bring Maruti Car and Rs.50,000/- else she would be killed.He met the accused and expressed his inability to give car and cash, however he gave Rs.5,000/- to accused.Thereafter, she was taken back by the accused.In July, 1988 accused brought Ratna to Delhi.Thereafter, again accused started beating Ratna and taunted her for less dowry and started asking for costly items.A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 5 of 9 deceased and that the deceased was harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry.It has come in his testimony that the accused used to beat, taunt and harass the deceased for bringing less dowry and had demanded car and cash of Rs.50,000/-.It was stated by the witness that he had given a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- a few times to the accused but his behavior towards the deceased did not change and she had faced the constant trauma of harassment and cruelty.P. 534/2003 Page 5 of 9PW6 Mrs.PW6 had stated that after marriage, husband of Ratna i.e. the appellant-herein and his mother used to harass Ratna.When Ratna visited the house of PW6, she told about the harassment meted out to her.She was harassed for money and articles from her maternal home.She was asked to bring money and different articles.PW6 further stated that Ratna had visited her house about 8/10 days prior to the incident.Accused wanted a VCR and she conveyed his demand to her father.Ratna used to tell PW6 that the accused used to beat her in a cruel manner and sometimes used to break her hand and sometimes beating marks used to be there on her back.From the testimony of PW6 also, it has been duly established that the accused used to demand money and other articles from the deceased and used to harass her to meet his demands of dowry articles.P. 534/2003 Page 9 of 9P.S.TEJI, J.The present appeal has been filed by the appellant S.M. Sachdev being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and order on sentence dated 28.02.2003, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.On the other hand, petitioner Meena Kathuria, filed a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquitting the accused for offence committed under Section 304B IPC.Since both appeal and revision petition have been preferred against the same judgment, therefore, both the cases are decided together.Crl. A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 2 of 9On the basis of statement made by the complainant, FIR of the present case was registered and the accused was arrested.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial court.The appellant was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined PW1 Sh.Ved Prakash, PW2 Ascharaj Lal, PW3 Dr.B.Swain, PW4 Kaushal Sachdeva, PW5 Y.D. Malik, PW6 Mrs.Meena Kathuria, PW7 A.D. Malik, PW8 J.L. Kalra, PW10 Dr.Sebastian, PW13 Janak Raj, PW15 Dr. Iqbal Singh Cheema, the then SDM apart from other witnesses.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.After considering the facts, evidence led on behalf of both the sides and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, however he has been acquitted for the offence Crl.A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 3 of 9 punishable under Section 304B IPC.Hence the present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order on sentence.Crl. A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 3 of 99. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the letters allegedly written by the deceased did not implicate the appellant as there is nothing in it against the appellant.In her dying declaration, the deceased did not give any reason for burning herself.The appellant himself tried to put off the fire with blanket and in the process he also sustained burn injuries.In September-October 1988, this witness purchased an almirah, cooler, stereo, etc. for Rs.8,000/- and gave the same to accused.From the testimony of PW7 i.e. father of the deceased, it is apparent that there was demand of dowry by the accused from the Crl.Crl. A. No.143/2003 & Crl.She had specifically stated that the deceased told her that Crl. A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 6 of 9 accused used to harass and beat her mercilessly.There was specific demand of VCR by accused from the deceased.Crl. A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 6 of 9The testimony of the father (PW7) and sister (PW6) of the deceased clearly proves the case of the prosecution that the appellant used to harass the deceased for or in connection of demand of dowry.Various instances have been given by these witnesses from which it has been proved that accused used to demand money, articles, VCR and car from the deceased and used to harass and beat her in connection with the said demands.In view of the totality of evidence discussed above, this Court is of the view that the prosecution had successfully established its case against the appellant that he used to harass and meted the deceased with cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry and his conviction under Section 498A IPC deserves to be upheld.Thereafter, the instant appeal was filed and the sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended.It is apparent from the record that the appellant remained behind the bars for about seven months.It is further apparent from the record that since the day of registration of FIR, the appellant has faced the Crl.A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 7 of 9 protracted trial of about 28 years.So, it would be in the interest of justice to release the appellant on the period already undergone by him.Crl. A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 7 of 9Now coming to the revision petition.It has been alleged by the petitioner that the offence of committing dowry death of the deceased was committed within the walls of the house and it is impossible to bring any direct evidence.There is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the deceased was continuously harassed for want of dowry, not only physically but mentally also.The death of the deceased had taken within seven years of her marriage and there is every reason to raise presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act against the husband of the deceased.There was sufficient evidence to convict the accused-husband under Section 304B of the IPC.The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment of acquittal of the accused under Section 304B IPC.I have gone through the record produced on file in detail.The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not show anything on record that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry by the accused-husband soon before her death.Though there are allegations of harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased for demand of dowry by the Crl.A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 8 of 9 accused-husband, but one of the essential ingredients of causing dowry death i.e. such harassment or cruelty soon before death of the deceased is missing.Crl. A. No.143/2003 & Crl.P. 534/2003 Page 8 of 9There is no merit in the present revision petition and same deserves to be dismissed.As discussed above, both appeal as well as revision petition are disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JULY 18, 2017 dd Crl.A. No.143/2003 & Crl. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,576,635 | Besides, appellant has also been ordered to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rupees five hundred for committing offence under Section 376 of the IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo RI for two months.Concisely put, the background facts emerging from the record of this case are as follows:-On 28th August, 1997, prosecutrix (PW-1), a minor, went to T.B. Hospital, Fatehpuri, Delhi, alongwith her younger sister, for buying some medicine and on the pretext of going for nature's call, went to meet appellant/accused - Dilshad, who was acquainted to her.Appellant took the prosecutrix to Pahar Ganj, then to ISBT, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, and thereafter boarded a bus for Muradabad.Ultimately, they both reached Salempur, i.e. to the house of appellant's sister and stayed there for one day, where appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix.About a decade ago, a minor girl was kidnapped and raped.Appellant was tried for committing this offence and the trial ended in conviction of the appellant, which is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant- Dilshad, son of Chhote Khan, is aggrieved of the trial court judgment/ order of 17th March, 1999, vide which he has been held guilty for committing offence under Sections 363/366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and vide impugned order, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Crl.Appeal No. 215 of 2000 Page 1 two years and to pay a fine of Rupees two hundred and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month for committing offence under Section 363 of the IPC and to a further RI of three years and fine of Rupees five hundred for committing offence under Section 366 of the IPC and in default thereof, to undergo RI for two months.Thereafter, the prosecutrix was first taken to Salone and then to Village Pritampur where she was again raped by the appellant/accused.Missing Report vide DD No. 91- B was entered, wireless message of a missing minor girl was flashed, FIR was registered, investigation was carried out and appellant/accused was apprehended from Police Station Gajrela.Prosecutrix was taken into custody, her statement under Section 164 of the Code for Criminal Procedure was got recorded and Charge- sheet was filed in the court for the offence of kidnapping and rape.The trial court framed charges under Sections 363/366 and 376 of the IPC against appellant/accused- Dilshad, whereas his co- accused- Gajraj, was charged for committing offence under Section Crl.Appeal No. 215 of 2000 Page 2 376 of the IPC and they both were put to trial, as they had pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them under the aforesaid provisions of law.At trial, prosecution had got examined sixteen witnesses in support of its case.Prosecutrix (PW-1) has asserted in her deposition that she was aged less than fifteen years on the day of this incident.Chanderpal Singh (PW-2) is father of the prosecutrix who has stated on oath of his daughter was a minor, Doctor Gopesh (PW-4) has proved Ossification Report (EX.PW-4/A) and opined the age of prosecutrix between 14 to 16 years.Doctor Saroj Sarin (PW-6) is the Principal of the school, who has proved date of birth of the prosecutrix as per school records and Constable Shiv Kant (PW-12) had arrested the appellant/accused- Dilshad and got his medical examination done.ASI Shiv Dutt Sharma (PW-11) and Head Constable Sunil Kumar (PW-14) had carried out investigation of this case.At the stage of recording of statement of appellant/accused, and his co-accused, trial court found that there was no incriminating evidence against co-accused Gajraj and therefore, on 22nd February, 1999, the trial court acquitted co-accused Gajraj by observing as under:-"There is nothing against accused Gajraj which may be put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Hence he is acquitted of the charge vide my separate judgment of the date.Appeal No. 215 of 2000 Page 3P.C., denied the prosecution case set up against him and pleaded that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case.However, appellant/accused had not led any evidence in his defence before the trial court.After the trial, appellant/accused stood convicted and sentenced as noticed above.Both the sides have been heard at length and with their assistance, the evidence on record has been perused.It is asserted on behalf of the appellant that the Prosecutrix PW-1 was a consenting party and was major in age and the trial court has illegally ignored the Bone Age Report of the Prosecutrix which clearly shows that she was aged between fifteen to sixteen years and while giving benefit of two years, the age of the prosecutrix comes to more than seventeen years."On the basis of the evidence of the Headmaster and the original school leaving certificate and the school register which were produced the High Court came to abrupt conclusion that normally for various reasons the guardians to understate the age of their children at the time of admission in the school.There was not material or basis for coming to this conclusion. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,577,141 | The factum that Aruf Mandal, son of Shankar Mandal, aged about five years died a homicidal death remained unchallenged in arguments and is undisputed and has to be accepted in view of the post mortem report proved by Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-3).On external and internal examination, the following injuries were noticed:-The ligature marks were present all around the neck at the level of thyroid cardilage with horizontally placed (more marked it anterior) with 2-3 cm.in number but superimposed each other with radish brown colour with abraded margins without parchment isation on section underneath the ligature marked under cited tissue appeared bruised with multiple haemorrahagic spots (suggestive of strangulation).The total length of the ligature marked was measure 20 cm.Internal Injuries:The brain and meninges were found highly congested with engorged blood vessels.Both cornua of the hyoid bone fractured with collection of blood clots in dark red colour.The muscles of neck were found bruised at the level of ligature mark.The tracheal mucosa found congestedBlood mixed with froth present within the lumen of trachea.Both lungs appeared highly congest, suffused and edematous."Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 3 of 30The cause of death, as opined, was asphyxia caused by forceful and sustained constriction of neck by using ligature material.All injuries were ante mortem in nature and injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death.The said post mortem was conducted on 6 th January, 2008 between 12.15 p.m. to 2.55 p.m. Time since death, as opined, was about 5 days prior to the post mortem.The Post Mortem Report (Ex.PW3/A) records that rigor mortis had passed off and decomposition had set in.Bloody discharge was present on nostrils and mouth and signs of marbling were present.At this stage, it is suffice to notice the main contention raised by the Appellants Counsel is that the impugned judgment wrongly records that the three appellants were the perpetrators, who were involved in kidnapping and murder of Aruf.On the question of kidnapping of Aruf Mandal, his father Shanker Mandal (PW1) has stated that on 2nd January, 2008 at about 3 p.m. Aruf aged about 5 years was playing outside the house but thereafter did not return home.Police came and recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A).At about 6.30 p.m. and 7.40 p.m. PW-1 received two telephone calls demanding Rs.2 lacs for release of Aruf.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 4 of 30 The caller claimed that Aruf was with him and threatened that if his instructions were not followed, Aruf would be killed and thrown in a Nala.PW-1 thereupon informed the police, who tried and located the address from where the phone calls were made.PW-1 accompanied the police officers to Badarpur and went to the STD booth.The lady, and her son operating the STD booth, were questioned.However, no clues were forthcoming and PW-1 returned back at 2.00 A.M. PW-1, thereafter received several phone calls on his mobile number 9873837741 from the kidnappers demanding ransom.The kidnappers required him to board Vaishali Express, reach Kanpur and follow instructions to take a train to another destination.On 5th January, 2008, another phone call was received with further instructions to come to Kanpur with Xeroxed copy of a currency note.On 15th January, 2008 the police and PW-1 again made a search for the culprits and appellant Abdul Mannan was apprehended and confessed his crime.He made a disclosure statement and led them to a room on the third floor of house number 337-338, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.The door lock was broken.On pointing out of the appellant Abdul Mannan, dead body of Aruf was found inside a blue bag.PW-1 identified that the dead body was of his son Aruf.Crime Team was called and the dead body was taken to the hospital.PW-1 has deposed that the appellants Abdul Mannan and Jabir Ali had earlier worked with him and they Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 5 of 30 were introduced by the third appellant Arvind Kumar.Mahender Singh (PW-16), Owner of House number 337-338, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi has stated that on 1st January, 2008 he had rented out the said room to three persons.In his court deposition he named two of them as Abdul Mannan and Arvind but could not name the third person.PW-16 claimed that they had paid advance of Rs.300/- and the rent fixed was Rs.1,200/- per month.On 5th January, 2008 appellant Abdul Manan, who was present in the Court, had come to his house with police officers.Police had broken the lock of the room from where the dead body of a child was found, in a bag.The child was aged about 5 years and identified by his father Shanker Mandal, who was present.PW-16 identified the three appellants in the Court as the persons who had taken the room on rent.PW16/A) recorded by the police on 5th January, 2008 he had not given the names of Arvind and Jabir Ali.He has clarified that the room in question was located on the third floor and not on the Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 6 of 30 second floor and when the possession was handed over to the appellants they had put their own lock.The lock was broken by the police officers.He has accepted that PW-1's house was one Gali (street) away from his house and he knew PW-1 from before.He has denied the suggestion that Jabir Ali had never approached him for taking the room on rent.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 6 of 30The disclosure statement was signed by PW-22 at point B. On the basis of the disclosure statement, dead body of Aruf was recovered from the room on the third floor of house No.337-338, Raghubir Nagar.When the police team reached the said house, the room was found to be locked.Lock was broken to gain entry and inside the room a blue colour bag was found.The appellant Abdul Mannan disclosed that dead body was in that bag.PW-1 identified the body as that of his son Aruf.Crime team was called and photographs Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 7 of 30 were taken.The dead body was shifted to the mortuary.Site plan (Ex.PW22/B) was prepared and the appellant Abdul Mannan was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E. On 7th January, 2008, the appellant Abdul Mannan led the police team to Mitthapur and identified the appellant Arvind.The appellant Arvind was apprehended and interrogated and subsequently was arrested vide memo Ex. PW18/C. Jabir Ali, the third appellant, who was also named by appellant Abdul Mannan, remained untraceable and could be apprehended on 10th January, 2008 from Garhi Main Market, Lajpat Nagar.PW-22 had gone there along with staff and the two appellants.The appellant Jabir Ali was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/A. On personal search of Jabir Ali, one mobile phone Nokia 1600 of black colour was recovered with purchase bill/ receipt of Sharma Communication (Ex.PW14/D).Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 7 of 30He has stated that he was involved in the investigation of the case from 2nd January, 2008 and had also gone to Badarpur where they had spoken to Bishan Wati, owner of the STD booth from where ransom call was made.They also met booth operator Rakesh and had made inquiries about the caller but did not succeed in getting any clues.On 3rd January, 2008, he and HC Ashok had spoken to Jagdish Nagar (PW-2) and Mohd. Ajhar, friends Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 8 of 30 of PW-1 and their statements were recorded.On verification, it was revealed that the telephone SIM number 9873107159 was issued in the name of one Rakesh Kumar, Block No.3, Dakshin Puri Extension.They met Rakesh Kumar at the said address, but he denied having obtained the said number.Somebody had misused his I-card.During investigation, details of ex-employees of PW-1 were obtained and employees were interrogated but on verification nothing incriminating came to light.On 5th January, 2008, complainant informed that he had seen the appellant Abdul Mannan, his ex- employee, in Raghubir Nagar area and Abdul Mannan may have kidnapped his son.PW-18 along with PW-22, HC Ashok Kumar and Constable Shodan Singh went to A-Block, Raghubir Nagar and on pointing out of the PW-1, the appellant Abdul Mannan was overpowered and interrogated.The appellant Abdul Mannan made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW18/B) and led the police team to the room on the third floor of house No.337-338, Raghubir Nagar from where the dead body of Aruf was recovered.Crime team came, inspected the spot and took photographs.On 7th January, 2008, appellant Arvind was apprehended and arrested from Mithapur at the instance of appellant Abdul Mannan.In the cross-examination PW-18 has Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 9 of 30 deposed that House No.A479 belonging to PW-16 was a three storey building.He had not procured or seized the call details of the STD booth.Appellant Abdul Mannan was apprehended at about 4 p.m. but at the time of arrest no public person had joined.Appellant Abdul Mannan was arrested at about 5.30 p.m. and was thoroughly interrogated and made a disclosure statement, which was recorded between 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. Owner of House No.337-338, Raghubir Nagar, Mahender Singh (PW-16) met them when they reached the third floor of the house.There were two rooms on the third floor and both were locked.Lock of the room in question was broken at about 6.00- 6.15 p.m. PW-18 could not depose whether brick/stone/hammer was used for breaking the lock.Message was sent to the crime team before breaking the lock, but they arrived after the lock was broken.Dead body of Aruf was shifted from the room at about 7.30-8.00 p.m. but he did not remember under whose supervision the dead body was shifted.In the same building, where PW-1 resided, he had his industrial unit.The appellant Abdul Mannan was, therefore, aware that PW-1 had a child named Aruf.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 23 of 30 One can understand that he was carrying with him a mobile phone but it is improbable that Jabir Ali would also be carrying the mobile phone purchase receipt (Ex.PW10/A) dated 3rd November, 2007 with him in his pocket or in his wallet.Thus, as per call records (Ex.The possibility that the said SIM card may have been used in any other instrument, therefore, cannot be denied and ruled out.As already noted above, the SIM card could not be recovered by the police.The said inference is not safe and should not be drawn.Moreover, it a case of the prosecution that the ransom calls from SIM card number 9873107159 were made from outside Delhi.There is no evidence or proof that Jabir Ali had gone outside Delhi and was not in Delhi during the period 2nd January, 2008 onwards.Mobile call details Ex.Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor and Mr. Sanjay Lao, Additional Public Prosecutors.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 1 of 30These three appeals by Jabir Ali @ Sonu, Arvind Kumar and Abdul Mannan @ Azad question a common judgment dated 10th April, 2012 convicted them under Section 120-B and Section 302/364-A /363 IPC read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).By order on sentence dated 16th April, 2012, they have been sentenced as under:Section 120-B IPC: Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10, 000/-, in default of which, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC:Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10, 000/-, in default of which, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one year.Section 364-A IPC read with Section 120-B IPC:Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one year.Section 363 read with Section 120-B IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5, 000/-, in Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 2 of 30 default of which, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 2 of 30One bruise of size 3 2 cm present it medial aspect of right arm with greenish in colour.Appellant Arvind Kumar was a known person and on occasions PW-1 used to give him the charge of his factory.The voice of the caller appeared to be as that of Jabir Ali.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 4 of 30Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 5 of 30The Investigating Officer, Inspector Vijay Singh Chandel (PW-22) has deposed that on 4th January, 2008 he took over the investigation of the case and on 5th January, 2008 he was informed that the appellant Abdul Mannan was seen roaming in Block A, Raghubir Nagar.He along with ASI Sri Krishan, HC Ashok Kumar and other staff searched for Abdul Mannan.Complainant i.e. PW-1 was with them and on identification made by PW-1, appellant Abdul Mannan was apprehended and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW18/B) was recorded.They had gone to the house of Rakesh, the registered subscriber of SIM number 9873107159, but on the said date no record was seized.Rakesh on inquiry informed that he was not using the said SIM.PW-18 has further deposed that a police team had been sent to Lucknow in connection with the case and on 4th January, 2008 he along with complainant (PW-1) had gone to the Badarpur area, but no clue was found.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 10 of 30 The crime team reached the spot at about 6.00/6.15 p.m. and inspected the spot till 7.00 p.m.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 8 of 30Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 9 of 30Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 10 of 309. Learned counsel for the appellants have highlighted the discrepancies and differences in the statements of Shankar Mandal (PW-1), ASI Shri Krishan (PW-18) and Inspector Vijay Singh Chandel (PW-22).It is highlighted that the time given by the said witnesses do not tally or match with the arrest memo (Ex.PW1/E) of appellant Abdul Mannan and the time when the dead body of Aruf was received in the mortuary i.e. 5 p.m. as per Ex.There are some variations or differences in time when the appellant Abdul Mannan took the police party and PW-1 to the room on the third floor of house No.337-338, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, when he was apprehended or when the dead body was received in the mortuary.However, this slight variation in time is natural and can be easily explained since the court depositions of PWs-1, 18 and 22 were recorded after one year or more.It is humanly impossible to remember the precise time when a particular fact was discovered or steps were taken.Lapse and failure to precisely recollect the exact time is possible and such or extra photogenic memory should not be expected.PWs-1, 18 and 22 have made identical and similar depositions on core and material aspects relating to the factum that the appellant Abdul Mannan Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 11 of 30 was apprehended on 5th January, 2008, he made a disclosure statement and thereupon the police team which included PWs-18, 22 and the complainant (PW-1) went to the room on the third floor of House No.337-338, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi from where dead body of Aruf was recovered.On these facts, the witnesses are in seriatim, support and corroborate each other.PW-16 the landlord also supports their testimonies.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 11 of 30The contention that the body of the child was received in the mortuary on 5th January, 2008 at 5.00 p.m. does not contradict the Crime Team Report (Ex.PW17/A) or the statement of PWs-1, 18 andPW17/A mentions that the Crime Team reached the spot at 4.30 p.m. and had remained there till 6.30 p.m. Thus, the Crime Team had reached the spot before the dead body was received in the mortuary.The dead body was decomposing.In these circumstances, it Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 12 of 30 is possible and we accept that the dead body was immediately sent to the mortuary, while Crime Team continued with the task of collecting incriminating material.There is variation and difference in the statements of prosecution witnesses as to the time when the dead body was sent to the mortuary, but this does not defeat or negate the prosecution case that the body was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement.Similarly, the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant Abdul Mannan that there is no consistency how and who had located the appellant Abdul Mannan and how the police team had apprehended him.This minor discrepancy again should not be understood in the light of the position that the statements were being recorded after a considerable delayCrl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 12 of 30After the appellant Abdul Mannan was apprehended and pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex PW-18/B, the dead body of Aruf was recovered from the room on third floor of premises of House No.337-338, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.Till the disclosure statement was made by the appellant Abdul Mannan, the complainant PW-1, the police were completely unaware and had no knowledge that the dead body of Aruf was lying in the said room.In Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 13 of 30 fact they did not know whether Aruf was alive or dead or whether he was in Delhi or outside Delhi.A police team was also sent outside Delhi for investigation.Section 27 of the Evidence Act, therefore, has been rightly invoked and referred to by the trial court.Recovery of the dead body of Aruf from a secured place i.e. the room on the third floor, which was locked, is a highly incriminating fact against the appellant Abdul Mannan.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 20 of 30Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 20 of 30In view of the aforesaid position, we have no doubt that the prosecution has been able to satisfactorily prove beyond doubt that the appellant Abdul Mannan had committed the said crime under Sections 363/364-A and 302 IPC.The next question relates to involvement of appellants Arvind and Jabir Ali.As far as the appellant Arvind is concerned, there is hardly any evidence to implicate him.PW-1 has deposed that the appellants Abdul Mannan and Jabir Ali were employed in his factory by the appellant Arvind.This is not a relevant fact directly implicating Arvind in the crime.This only shows that Arvind knew Jabir Ali and Abdul Mannan.PW-1 has not stated that during employment, conduct of the appellants Abdul Mannan and Jabir Ali were suspicious or raised doubts.PW-1 has not deposed or stated that appellant Arvind had ceased to be in his employment or was removed due to any reason.On the other hand, PW-1 has averred that he had faith in Arvind and on occasions used to leave charge of his factory with Arvind.He has deposed that on 2nd January, 2008 at about 2.30 p.m. he had gone to the house of Shankar Mandal (PW-1) but could not meet him.He made a call on his mobile number but the mobile phone was lying in PW-1's house.He has further stated that when he came out, he saw Arvind taking Aruf with him at about 2.00-2.30 p.m. Next Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 21 of 30 day in the morning he came to know that Aruf was missing.Thereupon he informed PW-1 that he had seen Aruf with appellant Arvind.We have grave doubts on the testimony of PW-2 for several reasons.PW-1 and the police officers, including the investigating officer PW-22 statement have not alleged abscondence.It is natural to assume that Arvind was not absconding and was present on or after 2nd January.PW-1 has stated that he had about 7-8 laborers [see cross- examination on 7th October, 2010] working in his factory or 5-6 employees/ karigars [as mentioned in the cross-examination on 7th January, 2009] and they had also searched for Aruf on the date of occurrence itself.Arvind used to stay in the same house where PW-1 was residing.PW-1 has not alleged that Arvind or his belongings were missing.If this was correct, Arvind would have been the first person to be interrogated and questioned.There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime.There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own he liability for the homicide.He should be given benefit of doubt.Jabir Ali was arrested on 10th January, 2008, five days after appellant Abdul Mannan was arrested.As noticed above, PW-22 has deposed that from Jabir Ali, a mobile phone and a receipt (Ex.PW10/A) for purchase of the mobile phone was recovered as recorded in seizure memo Ex.PW14/D. Ex.PW14/A records that appellant Jabir Ali was arrested on 10th January, 2008 at 6 p.m from Ghari Main Market, Lajpat Nagar.It is an accepted position that the mobile phone did not have any SIM card and was not activated at the time when it was seized.The prosecution however claims that the mobile phone, which was marked Ex.P-12 had IMEI No.358654016642482 (it is an accepted position that the first 14 digits are relevant).It is submitted that Shankar Mandal (PW-1) had received ransom calls from telephone number 9873107159 on 3rd January, 2008 at 14.49, 18.10 and 21.18 hours and on 4th January, 2008 at 7.15 hours and on 5 th January, 2008 at 23.32 hours.PW20/A) of telephone number 9873107159 and call details records (Ex.PW20/E) of telephone number 19873837741 (the said number belongs to PW-1, Shankar Mandal).Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 23 of 30Call details (Ex.We Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 24 of 30 notice that the last call made from the said number on 5th January, 2008 was recorded at 23.32 hours i.e. after dead body of Aruf had already been recovered.Possibly the caller did not know that the dead body Aruf had been recovered.As per the prosecution case, the said calls were made from outside Delhi.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 24 of 30PW20/A, the call details of telephone number 9873107159, however tells a different story.It does not tally with the call records (Ex.The appellant Jabir Ali knew Abdul Mannan Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 25 of 30 but that fact itself does not mean that he was involved in the crime in question.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 25 of 30The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the call records (Ex.PW20/A) pertain to local calls or calls made from Delhi and not calls made from the said SIM from outside Delhi.We do not find any justification to accept the said submission, in the absence of cogent and material evidence.The call records of telephone number 9873107159 were asked vide letter (Ex.The said letter required the Nodal Officer or the service provider to provide call details records with effect from 1st October, 2007 till that date.No exception was carved out or stated in the letter.Anuj Bhatia (PW-20), the Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. in his deposition has stated proved Ex.He did not state that these call records pertain to Delhi circle and not calls made from outside Delhi circle.It was for the prosecution to clarify the position and one cannot presume that Ex.PW20/A pertains to call records of Delhi Circle only and not outside Delhi.Even if we accept the said contention of the Addl.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 26 of 30Telephone number 9873107159 has been issued to Rakesh.The said Rakesh has appeared as PW-7 and has stated that he had not got the said SIM card issued and someone had misused his voter I-card.The subscriber form (Ex.PW7/A) mentions the name of the subscriber as Rakesh and not Jabir Ali or Abdul Mannan.Statement of PW-7, therefore, leads to further confusion and doubt.He has stated that two years back the appellant Abdul Mannan had purchased the said SIM card from him by using photocopy of the voter I-card of Rakesh.Abdul Mannan had claimed that Rakesh was his brother.Thus, as per the prosecution version and even if we accept the deposition of PW-8, SIM card number 9873107159 was purchased/procured by appellant Abdul Mannan and not Jabir Ali.The said SIM card was not recovered from appellant Jabir Ali.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 27 of 30Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 27 of 30The call details Ex.It is an accepted position that during this time no ransom call was made to PW-1 on his mobile phone.Ex. PW20/A, the call details do not show that mobile instrument bearing IMEI number 35865401664248 was used with SIM card number 9873107159 thereafter or 2nd January, 2008 onwards.Police did not verify or pointed out the person to whom the said calls were made and whether the said person had spoken to Jabir Ali.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 28 of 30Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 28 of 30PW20/A shows that SIM card number 9873107159 was put under surveillance and call forwarding facility was adopted to intercept/hear the conversations.It cannot be assumed that Jabir Ali had made the said conversations.Shankar Mandal (PW-Jabir Ali had worked with PW-1 for about a week and it is difficult to believe that he could have recognized his voice on telephone.PW-1 has not stated or given any distinct characteristic, words or phrases used by Jabir Ali which helped him to identify the voice.In Ex.PW1/A, the first report made by PW-1, he has not stated that the caller's voice resembled the voice of Jabir Ali.It will be improper and incorrect to implicate and hold that Jabir Ali had made the telephone calls on the basis of this testimony of PW-1, Shankar Mandal.We have already upheld conviction of Abdul Mannan.PW-8 obviously had committed an error and had wrongly and incorrectly issued SIM card on the basis of the identity proof of a third person.However, this doubt does not affect our findings on involvement of the appellant Abdul Mannan for the reasons recorded above.Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 29 of 30In view of the aforesaid discussion, conviction and sentence of appellant Abdul Mannan under Section 120-B IPC is set aside.His (Abdul Mannan's) conviction u/s 363,364A and 302 IPC are sustained and sentences maintained.Arvind and Jabir Ali will comply with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. and furnish personal bonds of Rs.10, 000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.The appeals are disposed of.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE May 22nd, 2013 NA Crl.A. Nos. 1162/2012, 1189/2012 & 451/2013 Page 30 of 30 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,577,306 | leading to the filing of these Criminal Appeals, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case, briefly narrated, are as follows:P.W.1 – Sankar, is the son of the deceased, Chokalingam.One Somasundaram, the brother of the deceased is running a hotel opposite to Tamilmani Theatre in Aruppukottai, wherein P.W.1 and the deceased were working.It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.05.2013 during night hours when P.W.1 and the deceased were working as usual in the hotel, i.e., the 3/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 2018 deceased was making parotta and P.W.1 was supplying food items, at about 22.45 hours, A2 came to the hotel and ordered for parcel of dhosa.On account of some delay in giving the parcel, A2 started quarrel by abusing both P.W.1 and the deceased.Feeling insulted as the customers, who are also siting inside the hotel and taking food, were looking at both, the deceased asked A2 to be patient.As A2 did not show any patience and again quarrelling with the deceased, P.W.1 and others present therein brought A2 out of the hotel by holding his hand.Feeling insulted, A2 went out and at about 23.00 hours, A2 again come back to the hotel with his brother A1, each carrying a knife.Again both A1 and A2 abused the deceased with filthy languages and A1 stabbed the deceased on his left upper abdomen with the knife saying that 'let you die with this'.Resultantly, the deceased fell down.Thereafter, when P.W.1, P.W.7 – Suresh, a waiter and others rushed to rescue the deceased, A2 cut Suresh on his head with the knife and A1 and A2 criminally intimated the crowd by showing the knives and thereafter, A1 and A2 fled away from the scene of occurrence.Then the deceased Chockalingam and P.W.2 – Suresh were taken to the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, in the auto of P.W.8 – Alagu Kannan, where Chockalingam was declared dead and P.W.2 – Suresh was admitted as inpatient.2.3.Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the Aruppukottai Town Police Station 4/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 2018 and lodged Ex.P.1 – complaint to P.W.12 – Ramachandran, the Sub-Inspector of Police on 24.05.2013 at about 00.15 hours.Based on the complaint, P.W.12 has registered a case in Crime No.279 of 2013 under Sections 294(b), 302, 307 and 506(2) I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P.W.12 despatched the original F.I.R. and original complaint to the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate and copy of the same to P.W.13 – Balachandar, Inspector of Police and the higher officials.P.W.13 after receiving the copy of the F.I.R., at about 1.00 hours on 24.05.2013, he proceeded to the scene of crime and in the presence of P.W.5 – G.Sankar and one Jothibasu, prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch marked as Exs.3 and 16 respectively.He recovered M.O.6 – bloodstained cement floor pieces and M.O.7 – sample floor pieces in the presence of those witnesses under Ex.P.4 - Seizure Mahazar.At about 07.00 hours, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.17 – inquest report and he sent the dead body for postmortem with requisition.P.W.11 – Dr.Chitra Devi, was the doctor attached to Government Hospital, Aruppukottai and she conducted postmortem on 24.05.2013 at 12.15 hours and she found the following external injury:“External stab incision wound measuring 2.75cm x 0.5cm, found 1cm below left costal margin in left hypochondrium.” 5/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 2018 The postmortem report is marked as Ex.She opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage.P.W.13 examined P.W.1 – Sankar, Nagaraj, Panneerselvam, P.W.2 – Suresh, Nagarajan, P.W.7 – Marimuthu, P.W.3 – Sankar, Jothibasu and P.W.12 – Ramachandran and recorded their statements.He arrested both the accused on 25.05.2013 at about 05.30 hours in Old Bus Stand, Aruppukottai and recorded the confession voluntarily given by A1 at about 05.45 hours in the presence of Chellakaliammal, V.A.O. and P.W.9 – Boomirajan, Village Assistant and recorded the confession voluntarily given by A2 at about 07.20 hours in the presence of the said witnesses.The admissible portions of their confession statements are marked as Exs.P.9 and P.10 and pursuant to the same the accused took them to Malaiyarasan Kovil, where he recovered M.Os.1 and 2 and sent the seized articles under form 95 to the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate and sent the accused for judicial custody.Further, he examined P.W.6 – Vairamuthu, Scientific Assistant, P.W.10 – Dr.Jeyasimman and P.W.11 – Dr.Chitra Devi and recorded their statements.The Committal Court issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, furnished them copies of documents under Section 207 CrPC and having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, had committed the same to the Principal District Court.The appellants/ accused were issued with summons and on their appearance, charges under Sections 294(b), 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and 506(2) IPC have been framed.2.8.The prosecution, in order to sustain its case, examined PWs.1 to 13, marked Exs.The appellants/accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him and he denied it as false and the case has been foisted against them along with another case in C.C.No.163 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai in order to detain them as Goondas.The appellants/accused did not examine any witness, but marked one document as Ex.2.9.The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, had found the appellants/accused guilty of the offences and sentenced them as stated above, vide impugned judgment dated 7/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 2018 25.01.2018 and challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeals are filed.When P.W.1 deposed that he identified A1 and A2 at Police Station on 24.05.2013 at 01.00 hours, but at that time he was actually in the hospital.There was contradiction with regard to the place of attack as to whether the deceased was attacked inside the shop or outside the shop.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that P.W.1 – Sankar, the defacto complainant, who is also also an eyewitness and the son of the deceased clearly spoke about the murder of his father.7.The prosecution in order to substantiate that Chockalingam, father of P.W.1 – C.Sankar, was done to death in an incident that took place at 23.00 on 23.05.2013, has relied on the evidence of postmortem doctor Dr.Chitra Devi examined as P.W.11 and also the contents of the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.However, the defence has miserably failed to establish its version that even before the occurrence, the deceased was admitted at Selvam Hospital for his ailment and on account of such ailment, the deceased died in Selvam Hospital and the injury was caused after his death.Hence the trial Court was perfectly correct in recording the finding that the deceased died out of homicidal violence.8.In order to substantiate that the accused/appellants inflicted injury on the deceased and P.W.2 at the time of occurrence i.e. at 23.00 hours on 23.05.2013, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and P.W.4 as eyewitnesses and also relied upon other circumstances.According to P.W.1, during night hours on 23.05.2007, when his father was making parotta and he was supplying food items, at about 22.45 hours, A2 ordered for a parcel of dhosa and on account of some delay in making such parcel, A2 started quarrelling, abusing in filthy language and feeling insulted, his father asked A2 to be patient and since A2 continue to quarrel, they sent him out by holding his hands and feeling insulted, A2 went out and at about 23.00 hours, A2 came back to the hotel along with his 11/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 2018 brother – A1, each holding a knife and on their arrival, A1 abused his father in filthy language and stabbed him on his left upper abdomen with knife, as a result his father fell down to earth and when he and other waiters, Nagaraj and P.W.2 – Suresh, rushed to rescue his father, A2 cut P.W.2 on his head with the knife he had and when they were taken to Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, his father was declared dead.A careful consideration of his evidence in his cross-examination would show that nothing contrary has been elicited.Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 has got to be accepted by the Court since it inspires the confidence of the Court.9.P.W.4 – P.Valliyin Selvan, a customer present in Somasundaram Hotel at the time of occurrence deposed that on 23.05.2013, at about 22.30 hours, he went to Somasundaram Hotel to get food parcel and ordered for parotta, at that time A2 came to the hotel and asked dhosa parcel and when the deceased refused, A2 started quarrelling with the deceased by scolding him in filthy language, in turn the deceased also scolded A2 in filthy language, asking him to go out of the hotel and the persons present in the hotel pushed A2 out of the hotel and when he asked the deceased about such refusal, the deceased replied that it is an usual practice for him to cause such troubles and within 10 minutes, 12/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 2018 A1 and A2 visited the hotel with knives and asked to come out and in response thereto, the deceased came out and A1 stabbed on the left abdomen of the deceased with the knife and on hearing the noise, the employees of the hotel came out and A2 hit on the head of P.W.2 with the knife.Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve his evidence.Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborates each other.Thereafter, the deceased and P.W.2 were taken to hospital, where deceased Chockalingam was declared dead.12.P.W.2 – Suresh, who is said to have sustained a cut injury caused by A2, though has turned hostile and deposed that he sustained a head injury on account of his accidental fall down on earth while he was rushing, P.W.10 – Dr.Jeyasimman, Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, who has given treatment to P.W.2 – Suresh, deposed that on 23.05.2013, at about 23.55 hours, P.W.2 came to the hospital on his own by an auto rickshaw and he told that he was hit by an unknown person with a knife on his forehead at about 22.30 hours at Communist Hotel, situate opposite to Tamilmani Theatre and that he found on him a laceration measuring 5 x 1 x 0.5 cm over the center of frontal scalp and he certified that the injury is simple and the AR copy is Ex.A perusal of Ex.P13 would clearly indicate the place of occurrence and also the time.14/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 201813.Apart from this, the accused/appellants have given confessional statements and the same were recorded in the presence of P.W.9, pursuant to which, the weapons of crime were recovered.P.W.9 – K.Boomirajan, Village Assistant, Aruppukottai, witnessed the confession of the accused and consequent recovery deposed that on 25.05.2013 at about 05.30 hours, he went to Aruppukottai Town Police Station on the instruction of his officer and the police took him to the Old Bus Stand in Aruppukottai, where the Inspector of Police made an enquiry on A1 and A2 and they voluntarily gave confession statements and pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statements they went to Malayarasan Kovil, where A1 took M.O.1 knife under a rock situate on the southern side of the temple and A2 took M.O.2 – knife under a bush situate on the eastern side of the temple and P.W.13 recovered the knives under seizure mahazars Exs.However, he has been declared as hostile only on his evidence as to the absence of his Village Administrative Officer.16.In the result, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed confirming the judgment dated 25.01.2018, made in S.C.No.178 of 2013 by the Additional 16/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)Nos.73 and 74 of 2018 District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,578,823 | !For Petitioner... M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate^For Respondent... MR.K.S. DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438:ORDER The Court Made the following order :-An important question, "In the State of Tamil Nadu, whether an offencepunishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is bailable or non-bailable under the First Schedule to The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?" hasarisen for consideration in this Criminal Original Petition.Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent - police in CrimeNo.593 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has come up with thisCriminal Original Petition, seeking Anticipatory Bail.According to thepetitioner, the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code isnon-bailable and, therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is maintainable.During the course of hearing, a doubt arose as to whether the saidoffence is non-bailable despite the passing of The Indian Penal Code and TheCode of Criminal Procedure [Tamil Nadu Amendment] Act, 2006, by the Tamil NaduAssembly.This doubt, therefore, needs a detailed debate.Prior to the introduction of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)Act, 2005 (Central Act 25 of 2005), undoubtedly, an offence punishable underSection 353 of the Indian Penal Code was bailable as per the First Schedule tothe Code of Criminal Procedure.As per the Central Act 25 of 2005, the FirstSchedule was amended, by which the offence punishable under Section 353 of theIndian Penal Code was classified as non-bailable.Similarly, by the sameAmendment, the entries relating to Sections 274, 324, 332 and 333 of IPC werealso amended and the said offences were also classified as non-bailableoffences.Asper Section 1 of the Said Act, it shall come into force on such date as theCentral Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette appoint.Accordingly, the Central Government issued Notification under S.O.No.923(E),dated 21.06.2006, thereby appointing 23.06.2006 as the crucial date for bringinginto force the provisions of the Central Act 25 of 2005, except Sections 16, 25,28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b), 42(f)(iii) & (iv) and 44(a).Section 42(f) (vii) relates to the amendment in the First Schedulethereby classifying the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code asnon - bailable.As per the above said Notification, the amendments classifyingthe offences under Sections 274, 332, 333 and 353 have come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006, and thus, these offences are non-bailable.Section 42(f) (iii)relates to the entry relating to offence punishable under Section 324 of theIndian Penal Code.Since it has not been notified, the offence punishable underSection 324 of the Indian Penal Code remains to be bailable.After the introduction of the Central Act 25 of 2005, various AdvocatesAssociations and the general public of the State of Tamil Nadu maderepresentations to the Government of Tamil Nadu that the Amendments, referredto above, may result in hardship to the clients and general public at large.After having considered the above representations, the Government ofTamil Nadu decided to amend certain provisions of the Code of CriminalProcedure.As per Rule 130 of the Tamil NaduLegislative Assembly Rules, the said Bill was also published in the Gazette forgeneral information.Thereafter, the said Bill was passed in the Tamil NaduAssembly as an Act on the same day.By the said Act, the Code of CriminalProcedure, as it stood amended as per the Central Act 25 of 2005, was sought tobe amended by the State. | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,581,117 | pk CRM No. 8320 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.09.15 in connection with Kaliganj P.S. Case No. 283/15 dated 28.07.15 under Sections 341/354/354A/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Hada Sk. @ Khada Sk. & Ors.341/354/354A/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,955,817 | (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 12.11.2009, whereby the petitioner's husband Dinesh Kumar was ordered to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 branding him as a Goonda.The learned Counsel in order to satisfy the Court produced an acknowledgement therefor.Secondly, insofar as the ground case in Crime No.1409/2009, he was arrested actually on 1.11.2009 and sent to Court on 2.11.2009; but, in page No.67 and its Tamil version in page 68 it is shown as if he was sent to the Court on 1.11.2009 itself, and it required a clarification from the sponsoring authority; but it has not been made.Thus the documents were misled, and on that ground the order under challenge becomes vitiated.5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its consideration on the submissions made. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,583,038 | I.A.No.5116/2017, 3rd repeat application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of sole appellant Sachin Yadav after rejection of his earlier application on merits vide order dated 16/2/17 is taken up and considered.By the impugned judgment dated 4/5/16 in S.T.No.76/2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha District Vidisha, the appellant stands convicted for offence punishable u/S. 450 of IPC for 7 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and Section 506 of IPC for 3 years' R.I. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act for 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant is heard.The appellant is found guilty of rape of committing house-trespass and criminal intimidation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that FIR has been lodged with a delay of 11 days therefore the prosecution story cannot be considered to be true as its very inception is doubtful.It is further submitted that there are no external injury found on the body of the prosecutrix.It is also submitted that the story of the prosecution found to be proved is in comprehensible as the place where the rape was committed was a room which was part of a house where in other rooms several other persons belonging to the family of the prosecutrix were sleeping.Be that as it may, the prosecutrix has proved her earlier statement by revealing that rape was committed with her and the finding recorded by the trial Court prima facie appears to be correct in this regard and in regard to the age of the prosecutrix who was found to be below 18 years and thus the absence of injury may not help the petitioner at this stage.In view of above, no case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence in this application which is accordingly dismissed.as per rules.(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE ojha | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,589,181 | The Trial Court conducted the trial for the commission of the offences under Section 376 and 506 IPC by the appellant on the allegations that on 27.09.2007, at about 7.15 P.M., at House No.303, Gali No.5, Khatte Wali Gali, Subhash Camp, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi, the appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix and thereafter threatened to kill her, in the event, she disclosed about the incident to anyone.As per the FIR, on the 7th day of Ramzan in the year 2007, on 27.09.2007, at about 7.15 P.M., the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, had gone to the house of her Nani (maternal grandmother), who used to live in the house in the backside of their house and there, her Nani informing her that she was to go for fetching vegetables and that she - the prosecutrix should watch TV sitting there, went to the first floor of the house with the cup of tea and in short time, the prosecutrix's mamu Chand - the appellant came in.On entering, he is said to have put on the latch from inside and immediately closing the prosecutrix mouth, made her lie on the bed and removing his own pants and underwear, proceeded to untie the nara (cord) and removing her salwar, committed rape on her.After the incident, the appellant is said to have threatened the prosecutrix to kill her if she informed of the incident either to her mother or anyone else.In the FIR, which came to be registered on the statement of the prosecutrix on 31.10.2007, it was also stated that on account of fear she returned back home at about 8 P.M. and on so reaching the house, she narrated the entire incident to her mother.A. 87/2010 Page 7 of 12"Mai Apane nani ke ghar gahi thi bahut din pahli, phir Chand aya, ushane muh dabaya aaur mere satha galat kam kiya.Ushke bad usa nai kaha agar apane mammi- papa sai kaha to jaan se mar doonga."A. 87/2010 Page 8 of 12A.K. CHAWLA, J.By the instant regular appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellant, who is convicted of the offences under Section 376/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI for the offence under Section 376 IPC besides fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI for the offence under Section 376 IPC, assails the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2009 passed by the learned ASJ, District- South.Here itself, it may be noted that though the appellant is also convicted of the offence under Section CRL.A. 87/2010 Page 1 of 12 506 IPC, no separate sentence for the commission of the said offence, has been awarded by the Trial Court.A. 87/2010 Page 1 of 12On CRL.A. 87/2010 Page 2 of 12 this, as per the contents of the FIR, the mother of the prosecutrix is said to have informed of the incident to the Nani of the prosecutrix and on that, Nani having scolded the appellant, assured the mother of the prosecutrix that they would now get the appellant married to the prosecutrix, to which the mother of the prosecutrix consented.In that direction, as per the FIR, three dates for marriage also came to be fixed and on 22.10.2007, when Nani told them that they would not marry the appellant with the prosecutrix, having discussed with the parents, the prosecutrix came to the police station on 31.10.2007 and on her statement, the FIR came to be registered the same day.On the conclusion of the investigations, charge sheet came to be filed for the trial of the offences under Section 376/506 IPC and charges came to be framed to that effect.Prosecution in support of its case, examined PW1 Ms.Shama Parveen - the mother of the prosecutrix; PW2 Feroz Khan - the father of the prosecutrix; PW3 - the prosecutrix; PW4 Dr.Rehan Nabi Khan; PW5 Dr.Shilpa Singhla; PW6 Head Constable Rambir Singh, PW7 Head Contable Hans Ras; PW8 Contable Komal; PW9 Constable Ombir Singh; PW10 Constable Devender; and; PW11 Inspector Sanghmitra and closed PE.Incriminating evidence was put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the statement so recorded, the appellant stated that his mother had told the mother of the prosecutrix to marry her, in case, the allegations were correct and in view of the fact that the allegations were false, the mother of the appellant declined his marriage with the prosecutrix.In his such statement, the appellant also stated that the prosecutrix was the daughter of his paternal aunt and thereby, his niece in relation and that he was CRL.A. 87/2010 Page 3 of 12 falsely implicated at the instance of his Khala (Mausi) Ms.Jahan Ara, with whom, they were not having good relations.No evidence however came to be led by the appellant in his defence.The Trial Court returned the findings of commission of both the offences by the appellant and passed the impugned order on sentence.Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred the appeal in hand.A. 87/2010 Page 2 of 12A. 87/2010 Page 3 of 12It was also contended that the appellant by himself, as per the conclusions drawn by this Court vide its order dated 21.02.2013 on the issue agitated as regards his juvenility, as on the date of the subject incident, was aged about 18 years only and it was improbable that he would have forced himself on the prosecutrix.In her submissions, a concocted story was CRL.A. 87/2010 Page 4 of 12 created to falsely implicate the appellant at the instance of a close relation with whom the appellant and his family members were not having good relations.In his submissions therefore the impugned judgment and the order on sentence did not call for any interference.The observations of the Trial Court in returning findings of conviction appear in para 20 of the impugned judgment, which are as under:In the present case, the victim was a minor as per the deposition of both PW1 and PW2, her parents, though without any other proof.Victim while deposing as PW3 deposed that she was threatened by the accused that in case she disclosed the incident to her parents, she will be killed by him.Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that mother of the victim, following him, had gone to the house of her sister Imrana, where he was having dinner and made allegations of victim having been raped by him.Accused also stated that his mother also followed the mother of the victim at the house of Imrana.A. 87/2010 Page 5 of 12But for the foregoing lackadaisical observations, the impugned judgment of conviction does not reflect any serious advertence to the prosecution case and the evidence that came to be led to prove the charge of commission of rape by the appellant.It is a matter of record CRL.A. 87/2010 Page 6 of 12 that but for the prosecutrix and her parents, no independent witness came to be examined.It is also a matter of record that no scientific evidence of any kind, which could connect or indicate involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence, has come to be led by the prosecution.Though, the prosecution seeks to explain the delay in lodging the complaint after more than a month of the alleged incident on the premise of assurance extended by Nani of the prosecutrix to get the appellant married, failure of the Investigating Officer to seize any of the clothes of either the victim or the assailant and/or the bed-sheet, where the crime is said to have been committed, more so in the absence of any explanation, cannot be ignored lightly in the given facts and circumstances.The only deposition of Doctor PW5, who medically examined the prosecutrix after more than a month of the alleged incident having found the hymen ruptured, during cross, explained that she could not tell, if, the hymen was fresh or old torn, could be of some corroborative value, if, the other evidence on record was found to be trustworthy and believable.It thus follows that in the given case, the Trial Court was required to consider and ponder upon the prosecution's story with which it came to the Court and the evidence it adduced, but that does not surface from the impugned judgment.A. 87/2010 Page 6 of 12FIR came to be registered on the statement of the prosecutrix, who, as per the complaint Ex. PW11/A was of 14 years of age.In the given case, the age of the prosecutrix gets relevant in view of the fact that on inquiry conducted as regards the juvenility of the appellant, he was found to be aged about 18 years only and the prosecution case but for the allegations of rape does not state for any injury having been sustained by the prosecutrix or any of her clothes having been torn, to even reflect any resistance put forth by her against the alleged forceful act committed upon her against her wishes much less any attempt made by her to even run away.Suffice to say, there is also no evidence on record to show that the appellant was of such physique that the prosecutrix by his appearance or other conduct got under any fear to submit to his desire.The substantive depositions of the prosecutrix and her parents, who appeared as PW1 to PW3, when gone into, are found to be contradictory on material aspects besides being improbable.The allegation of alleged threat for which the charge was framed for the offence under Section 506 IPC is only after the alleged commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC inasmuch as her deposition is also to the said effect, as follows:From her such deposition also, it is equally clear that the incident of commission of rape was not under any threat and from the facts and the circumstances, it cannot be deduced that the appellant put the prosecutrix either under any fear and committed the alleged sexual intercourse against her wish.As per the prosecution case and as per the deposition of the prosecutrix PW3, on her return back home, she had narrated the incident to her mother and on that, her mother had gone to the house of her Nani, when Nani assured to get the appellant married to the prosecutrix and on the assurance so given, they had returned back home.During cross, PW2-the mother of the prosecutrix has deposed that it was on the next date of the incident, they went to the house of the mother of the appellant, who happened to be her aunt and she stated for arranging the marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix and on that, they came back, and, after two days thereof, they again went to their house and ultimately after 2-3 days of the mother of the appellant telling that they could do whatever they want, they have gone to the police and lodged the FIR.During her cross, she has also deposed that the house of the appellant was situated in the street behind their house.As per her such deposition, even such promise of marriage after the incident, stood broken within a week or so of the incident, though, as per the complaint and the FIR, the promise or assurance of marriage was given by Nani and not the mother of the appellant.FIR however came to be lodged more than a month of the incident.Delay in lodging the FIR thus remains unexplained.A. 87/2010 Page 9 of 12As for the deposition of PW2-the father of the prosecutrix, in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 7th day of Ramzan in the year 2007, he was informed by his wife and the daughter that his daughter-the prosecutrix had been raped by the appellant.During cross, he has however deposed for having come to know of the incident after about 10 days while admitting that he used to come back to his house daily from his work.His such deposition is highly improbable and difficult to be believed.Not only that, in his examination-in-chief, he did not depose for any talk or promise made by the Nani of the prosecutrix for arranging the marriage of the appellant with the prosecutrix at any point of time.Suffice to say, as per the complaint Ex. PW11/A, on which the FIR Ex.PW6/A was registered, the assurance to that effect was extended by the Nani of the prosecutrix and none else.Contradictions in the depositions of the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW3; unexplained failure to examine Nani-a very material witness, who was present at the spot before and after the incident and was allegedly involved in talks of marriage immediately after the incident; absence of any cogent evidence for appellant having committed an assault of sexual intercourse against the wish of the prosecutrix-a case, with which the prosecution came to the Court; failure to prove the age of the prosecutrix; and, the other mitigating facts and circumstances taken note of earlier, convince the Court to set aside the impugned judgment and the consequent impugned order on sentence, giving a benefit of doubt.A. 87/2010 Page 11 of 12 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,599,427 | He did not fix the drawing power based on the primary stock.The transactions which were not genuinely trade related were allowed by him to the sister firms of co-accused Narendra Prajapati and caused loss of Rs.400 lac to the Bank.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime.The duty of verification of the documents was of other officers and standing counsel of the bank.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant Rajesh Chutani apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.accused Madhav Bairagi.After sanctioning of the CC limit, applicant allowed the borrower to withdraw the whole CC limit.CBI officials without investigating all these facts wrongly implicated the applicant in the crime.So, looking to the enormity of the fraud, he should not be released on anticipatory bail.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that alleged offence was registered in the year 2018 and applicant regularly appeared before the investigation officer during long tenure of investigation. | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,609,356 | It is directed that the applicant-Jaggu shall be released sh on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one e ad solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as Pr enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be a hy competent to take coercive action against the applicant.ad C. as per rules.M of rt (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA) ou JUDGE C h ig VD H Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY Date: 2017.11.20 16:50:31 +05'30'ad This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant- Jaggu, M who has been arrested in connection with Crime of No.77/2017, registered at Police Station-Kudila, District- Tikamgarh(MP) for the offences punishable under rt Sections 326-A/34 of IPC.ou Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the C applicant has not thrown acid on complainant.He has been h falsely implicated in this offence.The statement of ig complainant has been recorded before the Trial Court wherein H she had stated that after the incident Jaggu came on the spot and he helped her in getting medical treatment.Therefore, he may be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.Keeping in view the allegation leveled against the present applicant and also the fact that as per complainant, accused Lokendra and Mahesh had thrown acid on her, without making any observation on merits of the case, prayer is allowed.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,612,941 | In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.10.2018 in connection with Shyampur P. S. Case No.09 of 2018 dated 06.01.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/307/120B/186/353/332/333/224/ 225/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act and Section 9 of W.P.M.P.O.In the matter of : Saheb Munshi....Petitioner.Mr. Sukdeb Chatterjee, Mrs. Manasi Roy....for the Petitioner.Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld.P.P., Ms. Faria Hossain....for the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner and the State.Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.2 Trial court is, however, directed to conduct the trial with utmost expedition and to conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,613,105 | 1 9 C.R.M. 4266 of 2019 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on April 16, 2019 in connection with Madhabdihi Police Station Case No. 20 of 2019 dated 06.02.2019 under Sections 341/344/365/366/368/376/384/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Kaji Badsa @ Kazi Badsha ...Petitioner.341/344/365/366/368/376/384/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,614,918 | (3.1.2017) The applicants have challenged the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in Sessions Trial No. 301/2015, whereby the charges under Sections 148, 450, 326, read with Section 149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of IPC were framed against them.The facts leading to filing of the instant revision application are that on 08.07.2015 at about 7:30 AM complainant Ramswaroop Meena and his wife Guddi Bai were in their house, at that time accused Hemant, Gajraj armed with sword and Shriram armed with lathi entered into the house of the complainant and started abusing them on account of Sarpanch Election.When complainant Ramswaroop objected, then accused Dilip armed with lathi also came there.Accused Gajraj Singh gave a sword blow to Guddi Bai, wife of the complainant, Dilip gave a lathi blow on right hand of Guddi Bai.Shriram gave a lathi blow on the back of Guddi Bai.In the meantime Suraj Bai and Kusum Bai also came there.-( 2 )- CRR.No.582/2016 gave a lathi blow on the right shoulder of Guddi Bai.Hemant gave sword blows on the head of Ramswaroop which led to causing of incise wound and on left hand below elbow.Kusum Bai inflicted blow with lathi which caused injury on the left elbow of Ramswaroop.Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police leading to registration of FIR for commission of offence under Sections 452, 323, 324, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC.The police thereafter investigated the matter and subsequently filed charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 452, 294, 323, 324, 506-B read with Section 34 and Sections 325, 326 of IPC.The trial Court after going through the charge-sheet proceeded to frame the charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 450, 326 read with Section 149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of IPC.The applicants are aggrieved by the order by which the charges have been framed against them under Section 326 of IPC on the ground that there is no material to attract the offence under Section 326 of IPC.In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants took this Court to the MLC, conducted by the doctor in respect of injured Ramswaroop and his wife Guddi Bai and prayed that the order framing charges against the applicants for commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC be set aside.On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that since the injuries have been inflicted on the vital parts of the person of the injured Ramswaroop and Guddi Bai, therefore, the charges were rightly framed under Section 326 of IPC.I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the document available on record.Respondent No. 2 Ramswaroop was examined by the doctor and as per the MLC report, following injuries were found on the person of Ramswaroop:--( 3 )- CRR.No.582/2016 (1) Incise wound of 3-1/2cm x 1cm x deep on below occipital region oblique.As per MLC report, the injuries were referred for X-ray but as per X-ray report no bony injury has been detected on the scull of Ramswaroop, therefore, the said injury seems to be simple in nature.As per MLC report, injured Guddi Bai sustained following injuries:-(1) Incise wound of 5cm x 2cm x deep on left side above malor region.(2) Contusion(blue) with swelling movement painful of 4-1/2cm x 2cm on right arm lower 1/3 medially (3) Multiple contusions of 4 to 6cm x 1 to 1-1/2 cm oblique on left shoulder.Guddi Bai sustained incised wound in the left side of hand but no bony injury was found by her.As per X-ray report, injury No. 3 was said to be grievous in nature due to the fracture of fourth metacarpal bone which is caused by hard and blunt object.A perusal of the MLC report of Ramswaroop and Guddi Bai shows that the injuries have been shown to be on the head of Ramswaroop and face of Guddi Bai by sharp cutting object but as per medical report such injuries have been found to be simple in nature.Therefore, framing of charges under Section 326 of IPC, in my opinion, is improper and trial should be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 325/149 and 324/149 of IPC and likewise under Section 148 and 325 of IPC. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,621,904 | The petitioner shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of petitioner or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at his own expenses.In case the petitioner is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government.The petitioner shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Petitioner has filed this first application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss.294, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act further added section 307 of IPC registered as Crime No.05/2019, by Police Station Endori District Bhind (M.P.).Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Petitioner apprehends arrest in respect of offence of attempt to murder.Originally the offence was registered u/Ss. 294, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act and the petitioner was granted bail by Police Station itself since the offence was not of grave nature but subsequently section 307 was added which brings the petitioner to this court.The allegation against the petitioner is of using of firearm with no injury to anyone.Petitioner has number of cases registered against him constituting criminal antecedent but the one which was registered in the 2 M.Cr.C. No. 32438/19 recent past is minor offence which can be ignored for the purpose of this anticipatory bail.2 M.Cr.C. No. 32438/19This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :-The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The petitioner will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; 3 M.Cr.C. No. 32438/193 M.Cr.C. No. 32438/19On complying with condition No.8 aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFO concerned.For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the petitioner resides is directed to assist the petitioner/accused to comply with condition No.8 by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the petitioner admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file 4 M.Cr.C. No. 32438/19 verification report before the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorised in that behalf disclosing as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.8 or not, and if yes to what extent?4 M.Cr.C. No. 32438/19A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.For the time being this case stands disposed of. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,626,334 | The respondent had filed a criminal complaint case (CC no.871/14) on 24.08.2006 impleading the petitioners as second and third prospective accused, in addition to their daughter Priyanka Agarwal as first prospective accused and one Sanjay Gupta as fourth prospective accused, alleging offences punishable under Sections 415, 420, 506, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).M.C. 4176/2015 Page 1 of 5The petitioners challenged the said summoning order by approaching this court in Crl.M.C. 1356-1357/2013 which was disposed of, by order dated 06.05.2014, permission to withdraw the same having been granted with liberty given to raise all pleas before the trial court.The Metropolitan Magistrate considered the material on record for taking the case further into trial.By order dated 24.11.2014, he found all the ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 417 IPC had not been satisfied.Thus, by order dated 24.11.2014, the petitioners were discharged.The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed the petitioners to be put on trial for the offence for which they had been earlier summoned.It is the afore-said order which was challenged by the petition at hand under Section 482 Cr. PC.He alleged that the petitioners being parents were well aware of such medical condition of the girl and they had themselves represented as to her good health and thereby had introduced him to marry her and consequently he had been cheated.The petitioners deny that their daughter suffers from any such mental ailment, their version being that the allegations are false and concocted, some other reasons (illicit relations with another girl) being the cause for marital discord.M.C. 4176/2015 Page 2 of 5The crucial issue that needs to be addressed in these proceedings, however, is as to whether evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that Priyanka Agarwal suffered from any such mental disorder at, around or before the time of her marriage as is attributed and, more importantly, as to whether there is evidence to show that the petitioners were aware of any such condition.In the considered opinion of this court, the Metropolitan Magistrate had examined the matter from the correct perspective and had taken a proper view by the order dated 24.11.2014 which did not merit being set aside by the revisional court, the view of the latter being based on certain unfounded assumptions.As noted earlier, the respondent (complainant) has offered himself as the solitary witness (CW-1).The petition and the pending application are disposed of in above terms. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,562,942 | SG Allowed CRM 8245 of 2018 In Re.An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In the matter of:Ajit Kumar BiswasThe State of West Bengal Ms Sonali Das ... for the petitioner.Mr Arijit Ganguly Mr Sanjib Kumar Dan ... for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Kolkata Leather Complex Police Station Case No.69 of 2018 dated April 15, 2018 under Sections 420/406/403/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Considering the nature of the incident and the material on record, there may not be any need for the petitioner to be taken into custody.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) ( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) 3 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,636,291 | Dated: July 20, 2016 ...ORAL JUDGMENT :-Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/original accused.I have also heard the learned APP for the respondent State.Revision petitioner is the original complainant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by judgment and order dated 10.9.1998, acquitted all the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and also under section 7(1) (d) of the protection of Civil Rights Act.::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 :::Being aggrieved by the same, original complainant has preferred this Criminal Revision Application against order of acquittal.The learned counsel for the revision applicant submits that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in paragraph no.20 of the judgment, has accepted that all the witnesses have stated utterances of the accused which amount to abuse on the basis of caste.Admittedly, all the accused are belonging to community 'Maratha', whereas all the eye witnesses are belonging to a community "Nav-Boudha".Learned counsel submits that, prosecution has succeeded in proving charge u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and ::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 ::: 4 Cri Revn 400.2003.odt Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against respondents/original accused.Learned counsel submits that, in paragraph no.18 of the judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani has also observed that the witnesses have sustained injuries, however, they have not sustained any grievous injury.Learned counsel submits that, in the backdrop of these observations, the Additional Sessions Judge ought to have convicted all the accused for the charges levelled against them.However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by its impugned judgment and order dated 10.9.1998, acquitted all the accused.Learned counsel submits that, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Special Case No.83/1994 is liable to be quashed and set aside and respondents/original accused are liable to be convicted for the charges levelled and proved against them.::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 :::Learned counsel for respondents/original accused submits that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the utterances of the accused, which amount to abuse on the basis of caste, however, further observed in the same paragraph that, in the evidence of eye witnesses, false-hood might have been mixed to aggravate the offence against the accused.In the same paragraph, learned Additional ::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 ::: 5 Cri Revn 400.2003.odt Sessions Judge has concluded points by observing that as far as actual utterances at the relevant time, the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Learned counsel submits that, there is an element of exaggeration at the time of lodging of the report and incident took place because of an attempt of encroachment alone.Learned counsel submits that, the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani has, thus, rightly given benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused.::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 :::Learned counsel submits that, so far as injuries sustained by witnesses is concerned, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed in paragraph No.18 of the Judgment that, there is an attempt on the part of the prosecution witnesses to convert Gayran land into agricultural land.Learned counsel submits that, if the villagers have right to graze their cattle in common grazing ground, and if any person prevents such activities, aggrieved person has right to exercise private defence.None of the prosecution witnesses have sustained grievous injury.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, has, therefore observed that, even if it is concluded that accused did use force, it appears that they used force within the degree wherein the right of private defence is allowed to be exercised.Learned counsel submits that Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the respondents/accused ::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 ::: 6 Cri Revn 400.2003.odt have not exceeded the right of private defence.Learned counsel submits that, learned Additional Sessions Judge has thus rightly given benefit of doubt to all the accused and accordingly acquitted them.::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 :::I have also heard learned APP for the State.So far as allegations about abuses given to the prosecution witnesses on caste basis are concerned, it appears that, alleged incident had taken place on account of an attempt of encroachment over the Gayran land.It is thus, unlikely on the part of respondents/original accused to make utterances which amount to abuse on the basis of caste.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that there was element of exaggeration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.On the day of incident, at about 10.00 am, all the prosecution witnesses entered into the cattle field and started digging operations so that they could cultivate the said land.Accused are the adjoining land owners.They were grazing their cattle in the said Gayran since many years.Even though accused have not raised a specific private defence, however, the same can be considered while ::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 ::: 7 Cri Revn 400.2003.odt appreciating the prosecution evidence.On the day of incident, if there was an attempt on the part of the prosecution witnesses to convert Gayran land into agricultural land, adjoining land holders have every right to prevent them from converting said Gayran land into agricultural land illegally.Learned Judge of the Trial Court is right in saying that even though the accused used force, they have used said force within the degree wherein right of private defence is allowed to be exercised.None of the prosecution witnesses sustained grievous injuries as such.::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 :::In that way, accused have not exceeded their right to private defence.Criminal Revision Application is hereby dismissed.( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:19 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,956,363 | The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows:The petitioner, an employee of the Western Railway, was at the material time working on the post of Loco Driver at Ratlam.On 17th April, 1968, a goods train 768-Up going towards Bombay left Meghnagar railway station at 0.20 hours and stopped outside the home signal of Anas B Cabin, as the passenger train 55 Dn.coming from the opposite direction was to pass first towards Ratlam.At that time, another goods train 846-Up coming from Ratlam dashed against 768-Up goods train.At the time of the accident, the petitioner was the driver of goods train 846-Up.He was suspended on 18th April, 1968 and was prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.The charges framed against the petitioner were as follows:First: That you, on or about 17th April, 1968, at Meghnagar, allowed train No. 846-UPDieseI Goods Train to leave a block station without permission to approach the break station and thus contravened General Rule 237(A) and (b) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act.Secondly: That on the same day and at Anas did not pay attention and did not obey the signals and thus contravened General Rule 76(a) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 101 of Indian Railways Act.Thirdly: That you, on or about the same day and during the same transaction at Anas, allowed Train No. 846-Up Diesel Goods Train the outer home signal when it was on and without having received a written authority from the Station Master to proceed pass such signal in contravention of General Rule 78 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act.Fourthly: That you, on or about the same day at Anas, allowed Diesel Goods Train No. 846 to pass a starter when it was on, without the permission of Station Master in contravention of General Rule 79 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 101 of Indian Railways Act.Fifthly: That on or about the same day at Anas, you failed to keep a good lookout when the train 846-Up was in motion and thus contravened General Rule 122 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act.Sixthly: That you, on or about the same day and during the course of the same transaction at Anas, caused the death of Rajsingh, Chiman, Bijia, Ambalal, Ditia, Mohammad Usman, Tikamsingh, Perthaji, Kantichandra, Ramkishan, Badri and Sheikh Rasool, by doing a rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide to wit by driving 846-Up Diesel Goods Train rashly and negligently, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section x of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court and he was removed from service.The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction was dismissed but in the revision petition preferred by the petitioner the High Court, by its judgments dated 16th November, 1978, found that the prosecution has failed to prove any charge against the petitioner and the petitioner was, therefore, acquitted of the offences charged with.As the conviction of the petitioner was set aside, he was reinstated by the respondents on 17th February, 1979 but on the same day, he was again suspended and a departmental enquiry was instituted against him for having caused the aforesaid accident by contravening Rules 76(a), 79, 98(a) and (b) and 122 of the Rules.Call for a copy of the judgment in Criminal Revision No. 75 of 1976, decided on 16th November 1978 from Indore Bench.In case it is found that the applicant was acquitted in that revision by the High Court, treat the application addressed to the Chief Justice of India and forwarded by the Principal Private Secretary to the High Court, as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, provide a counsel from the panel to the petitioner, dispense with court-fee and other formalities and list the case in motion before the appropriate Bench for orders.Inform the petitioner thereafter.The petition was admitted and on 12th August, 1983, it was directed that the petition be sent to the Bench at Indore for disposal as the case arose from Ratlam.The case was accordingly heard on 1st December, 1983 and at the request of the counsel for the Railway, the hearing was further adjourned to 3rd December, 1983, on which date, we were informed that on 1st December, 1983, the disciplinary authority had passed an order removing the petitioner from service.A copy of the order was also filed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,637,046 | The National Rural Health Mission Scheme (NRHM) was launched with a view to providing accessible, adequate, affordable, accountable and reliable health care to all persons particularly the vulnerable people residing in remote areas.On 15.12.2011 in Public Interest Litigation Petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court, the Allahabad High Court gave a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an inquiry in the execution and implementation of NRHM Scheme.Allahabad High Court further directed that if prima facie, commission of cognizable offence is found, then a case be registered.In pursuance of these directions, inquiry was conducted and on 23.03.2012, the CBI registered an FIR against the petitioner, the then Chairman of the 2 Purchase Committee and also the Chief Medical Officer and others under Sections 420/467/468/471/477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 14.02.2013, the CBI filed charge-sheet against 12 persons which included the petitioner under Sections 120B an 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.It is inter alia the case of the prosecution that the Purchase Committee which was headed by the petitioner purchased Iron Folic Acid tablets at Rs.26 paise per tablet, which was available in the open market at Rs.6 paise per tablet.This resulted in the loss of Rs.11,07,692/- to the Government.The petitioner surrendered before the trial court on 23.10.2013 and ever since he is in judicial custody.The petitioner filed bail application before the Allahabad High Court.The Allahabad High Court by the impugned order rejected the petitioner's bail application and hence, the petitioner has filed the present special leave petition.We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at some length and learned senior counsel for the CBI.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that several persons who are similarly placed have been released on bail by the High Court.A chart showing the details in that regard is submitted in the Court today.After perusing the same, we find the statement to be correct.Inasmuch as the similarly situated persons have been released on bail, we think that the petitioner shall also be released on bail.It is also necessary to note that the charge sheet is already filed in the case and the petitioner is in jail for about 11 months.In the circumstances, the petitioner Dr. Prem Prakash Verma is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :1.The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;The petitioner shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;The petitioner shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only).Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) will be deposited within a period of four weeks from today.On such deposit being made, the 3 trial court shall invest the said amount in any nationalized bank on usual terms.This Court has considered similar bail matters and keeping in view the reasons given therein, the applicant is also entitled to bail.In the instant case the loss caused on account of the accused involved herein indicates the proportionate liability of approximately Rs. 8 Lacs on the applicant.However, since the applicant is entitled to bail for the same reasons, as indicated in the order quoted hereinabove, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.Let the applicant Dr. Rameshwar Singh, involved in Special Case No.16 of 2014, and F.I.R. No. R.C. DST/2012/A0001/CBI/STF/DLI under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & substantive offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC, and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act Police Station C.B.I. S.T.F. New Delhi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court.In case of default of compliance with any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall stand cancelled automatically.This bail application stands allowed on the aforesaid terms."Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed into service those very grounds and conditions under which he prays for bail.In the instant case the loss caused on account of the accused involved herein indicates the proportionate liability of approximately Rs. 8 Lacs on the applicant.However, since the applicant is entitled to bail for the same reasons, as indicated in the order quoted hereinabove, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.Let the applicant Dr. R.N. Singh, involved in Special Case No.16 of 2014, F.I.R. No. R.C. /DST/2012/A/0001/CBI/STF/DLI dated 23.2.2013, under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & substantive offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and Section 506 (first part) of the IPC, and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I. /S.T.F./ New Delhi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.In case of default of compliance with any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall stand cancelled automatically.This bail application stands allowed on the aforesaid terms Order Date :- 15.5.2015 Sahu | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
19,564,096 | (07.09.2020) On the consent of both the parties, this case is heard finally.This criminal appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.12.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Session Trial No. 50/2010 whereby the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/-.Default stipulation of two year's R.I. has also been imposed by the trial Court.As per prosecution case, on 10.06.2010, on account of previous dispute, the appellant assaulted the complainant/victim with axe on her back and thigh.Thereafter, the victim has been hospitalized at District Hospital Khandwa, subsequently referred to 2 Cr.A. No. 3217/2013 M.Y. Hospital, Indore.The police has lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-8) and on the basis thereof registered the FIR (Ex. P-18).After completing all necessary proceedings, the police has filed the charge sheet before the JMFC Burhanpur for the offence under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC who committed the case to the Court of Session.The trial Court has framed the charge of Section 307 of IPC.The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and wanted trial.The learned trial Court has recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After evaluating the evidences produced by the prosecution, the trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in passing the judgment of conviction whereas no evidence is available on record against the appellant.The learned trial Court overlooked the fact that the material witnesses of case have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile.The trial Court erred in believing the testimony of victim (PW-2) Macchla Bai whereas her statement suffers from material contradictions and omissions.The trial Court has also ignored the fact of previous dispute between the father of appellant and complainant for the reason, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case.The 3 Cr.A. No. 3217/2013 prosecution has produced eye witness namely Ramesh (PW-6), Jitendra (PW-7), Laxmi Narayan (PW- 11) and Dinesh (PW-23) in trial who have not supported the prosecution case.He further submits that witnesses of seizure have also not supported the prosecution's case and thus the recovery of weapon has not been proved.The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even then the trial Court has convicted the appellant and passed the sentence of 8 years arbitrarily, more so, the Court has imposed huge fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- without considering the means of the appellant/accused.With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this appeal.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the arguments made by learned counsel for the appellant submitting that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record.The learned trial Court did not make any error while passing the judgment of conviction against the present appellant.The witnesses of the case are duly stable with their version and there is no reason to disbelieve them.The prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.He submits that in the present case, the victim suffered from severe pain being paralyzed.The act of present appellant was heinous and does not deserve for any mercy.The trial Court has rightly imposed the fine amount being concerned about the survival of victim.With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.Cr.A. No. 3217/2013On perusal of statement of complainant/victim Macchla Bai (PW-10), it appears that she is stable with her earlier version of FIR and police statement that appellant/accused assaulted her on back and thigh with axe.She also accepted previous enmity between the parties.The injuries sustained by the complainant are duly corroborated with the medical report and statement of Dr. Pradeep Bhargav (PW-8).Further, the prosecution has also produced some eye witnesses namely Ramesh (PW-6), Jitendra (PW-7), Kiran (PW-9), 8 Cr.A. No. 3217/2013 Narmada Bai (PW-10) and Laxmi Narayan (PW-11).Out of them Ramesh, Jitendra and Laxminarayan were declared hostile.The weapon was also sent for chemical examination in which human blood was found present, however, blood group has not been identified and the witnesses of seizure have been turned hostile too.Considering the aforesaid, to secure the ends of justice, I am of the view that the fine amount should be reduced up to Rs.Cr.A. No. 3217/2013 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand rupees only) in lieu of Rs.5,00,000/-.Likewise, default stipulation of 2 years R.I. shall also be reduced to 1 year.The whole fine amount shall be given to the complainant/victim as compensation.Looking to the serious debility of Victim- Machhla Bai which caused in aforesaid incident, one more aspect is required to be considered that Section 357-A Cr.P.C.consonance with Madhya Pradesh Crime Victim Compensation Scheme 2015, which provides the arrangement of grant of compensation to the victim.However, the Section 357-A of Cr.P.C.has been incorporated on 31.12.2009 and the Scheme was notified and came into force on 31.03.2015, after the judgment passed by trial Court.passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1726/2012, the High Court of Allahabad has held as under :-"10.Under the Scheme, registration of F.I.R. will give rise to a claim to compensation which, of course, will be determined according to mechanism provided in the Scheme.Thus, even if offence is committed before the date of launch of Scheme, if F.I.R. is lodged and process of criminal justice administration is set in motion subsequent thereto, in appropriate cases victim will be entitled to compensation under the Scheme.Intention of Scheme is to compensate the victim who suffers on account of failure of State to provide protection. "The aforesaid observation has passed by the Allahabad High Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction.Cr.A. No. 3217/2013If such application is filed, it shall be considered and decided by such authority within the stipulated time as specified in Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. and necessary steps shall also be taken for paying her compensation.Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off.(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.09.07 16:54:49 +05'30' | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,956,456 | Through : Mr.A.J. Bhambhani with Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Mr. Victor Ahanthem, Advocates along with respondent in person.By the said judgment, the respondent was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376/511 of IPC.The state contends that the sentence imposed was inadequate, and calls for its enhancement.The facts, as found by the Trial Court, were that on 17.03.2008, the prosecutrix's father handed over the respondent (accused before the Trial Court), at about 3:45 PM.The police recorded the receipt of complaint, and the minor prosecutrix's statement, in her father's presence.She stated that when she was playing in the street, the respondent, a neighbour took her to his room, saying that he would show a movie.He then switched on a television, showing obscene pictures.When the prosecutrix said that the movie was obscene, Crl.He therefore, left the prosecutrix; she went out to the street, weeping.Her father, who was entering the street, inquired as to what was the matter, when she narrated all the events to him.Her father called out the respondent and caught hold of him, and later handed him over to the police.The police, after recording the FIR and statements of some witnesses, also got the prosecutrix medically examined.The doctor who examined her did not depose during the trial.However, the Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) Ex. PW-11/A was proved by PW-11 another doctor.She said that the patient's history, recorded in the document revealed that:"There is no history of bleeding per vagina, pain perineum or insertion of foreign body in vagina.On examination, general physical examination was found to be normal.Pelvic examination, the hymen was found to be intact.Vulval swab was prepared and both the swab and underwear of the patient was sealed and handed over to the Investigating Officer.."The respondent was arrested immediately after the incident, and remained in custody throughout.He too was subjected to medical examination.When charged with committing the offence, he denied guilt, and claimed trial.The Court sentenced the respondent to one year imprisonment and fine, for the latter offence; for the offence of attempted rape, the Court exercised its powers under the proviso to Section 376 (1) and sentenced him to two and a half years' imprisonment.The respondent completed his sentence.The court granted leave on the issue of adequacy of sentence.Therefore, the minimum sentence which could have been awarded in the case was 5 years. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,648,546 | C.No.7019/12 Arvind @ Kallu & Another Vs.State of M.P. & Others residing in the rented house in Bhagat Singh Nagar.She stated that her husband Gajendra Singh on 13/9/11 left the house after informing her to go to overhead water tank but thereafter he did not turn up.During search, his dead-body was found lying behind the school premises.4 M.Cr.Present HON.SHRI JUSTICE B.D.RATHI *** (Misc.Case No.7019/2012) Arvind @ Kallu & Another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh & others Shri Pradeep Katare, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, for respondent No.1/State.O rder (Passed on 27th Day of August, 2014) Per B.D.Rathi, J. -The present petition is directed against an order dated 24/7/12 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.6983/12, taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.(2) The facts in nutshell, just necessary for the decision of this petition are that complainant Gyanmala wd/o Gajendra (since deceased), resident of Bajriya (Kanera), P.S. Ater accompanied with her brother-in-law (Jeth) Ramesh Singh, on 15/9/11 lodged a report at police station Maharajpura, district Gwalior to the effect that she alongwith her family was 2 M.Cr.On the report Marg No.39/11 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered and investigation started.During inquiry into Crime No.308/11 registered for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., statements of the complainant Gyanmala and others witnesses were recorded by the police.In the statements of the witnesses so recorded, the involvement of only accused Omkar @ Chhukha in commission of the offence prima facie was found proved hence, the accused Omkar @ Chhukha was arrested.His memorandum was recorded where he admitted to commit the murder of the deceased.Accordingly, after investigation, charge-sheet against accused Omkar @ Chhukha was filed in the court by the police.Thereafter the matter was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Gwalior.Now, Session Trial No. 97/12 is pending against the accused Omkar @ Chhukha in the court of Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.2 M.Cr.(3) During pendency of the case, complainant Gyanmala moved the court with a private criminal complaint against accused Munna Singh, Arvind Singh (petitioner No.1), Brijendra Singh (petitioner No.2) and Omkar Singh to register a case against these accused under Sections 302, 366, 506 part-II, 452/34 of I.P.C. The private complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.6983/12 against Munna Singh, Arvind Singh and Brijendra Singh on 24/7/12 before that statements of the complainant Gyanmala (PW-1) and of other witnesses Ramesh Singh (PW-2), Shailendra Singh (PW-3), Bhupendra (PW-4), Keshav (PW-5), Babu Singh (PW-6), Suresh Singh (PW-7) were recorded.After analyzing the evidence of the 3 M.Cr.C.No.7019/12 Arvind @ Kallu & Another Vs.State of M.P. & Others witnesses examined under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. (in short the "Code"), the court prima facie found involvement of co-accused Munna Singh, Arvind Singh and Brijendra Singh in commission of offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., hence, the presence of the accused-persons was secured through arrest warrants.Being aggrieved by the order dated 24/7/12, the present petition has been filed.3 M.Cr.(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution after completion of the investigation on the FIR lodged by the complainant Gyanmala only against Omkar @ Chhukha.Therefore, now the petitioners can only be summoned under Section 319 of the Code in proceedings pertaining to FIR and therefore separate complaint on the identical facts against the petitioners does not lie and the cognizance could not be taken on the basis of the complaint which has been submitted after due diligence.(5) On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for 4 M.Cr.C.No.7019/12 Arvind @ Kallu & Another Vs.State of M.P. & Others State/respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that even in cases where charge-sheet has been filed, complaint is tenable for those persons who have not been arraigned as accused in the charge-sheet filed by the police.During the course of investigation, on 18/9/11 handwritten complaint marked as Annexure-R/1 was filed before the Investigating Officer in which names of the present petitioners were disclosed as culprits.The Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that there appeared sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners, as such, cognizance has been taken by him after issuing process against the petitioners.5 M.Cr.Arvind @ Kallu & Another Vs.As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry.10 M.Cr.In view of the above position the word 'evidence' in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial."13 M.Cr.Apart that, when complainant had approached the police authority by filing the documents marked as Annexures-R/1, R/2 during the course of investigation before filing of the charge-sheet against one Omkar, which remained unattended to, there remains no scintilla of doubt that the complainant has proved a prima facie of committing an offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners also but the police has opted to file a charge-sheet only against one of the accused, as discussed above.Accordingly, the Question No.(II) is also answered against the petitioners. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,956,525 | Tulshiram Mali or Khatic (P. W. 16) lives at Presidency Town of Calcutta, 34, Sibtala Street near Tarasundari Park, P. S. Barabazar.On that day, between 10-30 and 11 O'clock of the night, the bridegroom party came in a procession from Howrah Town to Sibtala Lane within the jurisdiction of this Court, The bridegroom himself was in the procession sitting in a coach drawn by four horses.Inside the coach certain ornaments, meant for file bride were kept in a box by his side.Five friends of the family of the bridegroom came as the bridegrooms escorts.Near about 11 P. M. the procession came near Tarasundari Park, accompanied by a Band Party and Gaslight bearers walking in a line.The procession was a licensed one and two constables and a Head--Constable accompanied it from Howrah to Tarasundari Park.Sibtala Street is a narrow lane, according to the prosecution, and the procession as a whole could hardly enter into the said lane.So, the procession dispersed near Tarasundari Park and the coach carrying the bridegroom entered inside the lane.While the coach carrying the bridegroom was approaching the house of Tulsiram Khatik (P. W. 16) the accused Mannalal forcibly tried to get into the coach.He was resisted but he could not be desisted from his attempt at boarding the coach.One Chunilal Gupta (P. W. 20), one of the five escorts coming with the bridegroom party's procession gave a slap to the accused-appellant Mannalal Khatik.The accused-appellant thereupon used abusive language and left the place threatening with dire consequences.Thereafter, Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 21) of the bridegrooms party took their dinner at the bride's father's house, i. e. Tulshiram's house and came out to Kalikrishna Tagore Street near Tarasundari Park.When they ware talking standing at a spot beyond the eastern periphery of Tarasundari Park the accused Mannalal came out from the southern side of the park and proceeded towards Chunilal, Ramnarayan and Lachmi Prosad.The accused then came close to them and began to abuse them.They attempted to catch hold of the accused, with a view to take him to the bride's father, and gave him a chase for the purpose.The accused, thereupon, entered into a lane called "Haripada Gali" and came out shortly thereafter armed with a dagger in his hand gave a chase to Lachmi Prosad, Ramnarayan and Chunilal, Lachmi Prosad ran eastward over the north footpath of Kalikrishna Tagore Street pursued by the accused Mannalal with a dagger and deceased Gulab, Lalmohon (P. W. 15) and Chunilal Gupta (P. W. 20) also ran east-ward along the southern footpath of Kalikrishna Tagore Street.Lachmi Prosad was chased upto Halwashia lane and as he entered into the lane the accused stood at the mouth of the lane and then turned back.Lachmi Prosad also turned back and followed the accused.Just then Gulab and Lalmohon came near about that place.Gulab tried to cross the road, i.e. Kalikrishna Tagore Street with a view to reach the northern footpath from the southern footpath.The accused with a dagger came in front of Gulab just on the Cast of a temple that stands on the middle of Kalikrishna Tagore Street, and there stabbed Gulab on the chest.From there the accused fan a little further to the east and then turned back and ran westward.Dayaram Khatik (P. W. 10) was one of the bridegroom's party, as also one Sudama Dosad (P. W. 12).Both Dayaram and Sudama were out on Kalikrishna Tagore Street, and when Dayaram was proceeding westward beyond Tarasundari Park.Sudama sat down by the road-side to ease himself.Two other persons were then coming following Dayaram and Sudama.Dayaram heard a noise, turned back and found the accused chasing those two men who were following Dayaram.Gulab was carried from Kalikrishna Tagore Street to a ledge nearby on northern footpath and kept there seated for some time.Gulab's brother Buddhu (P. W. 3) happened to come to that spot.A taxi was called and Gulab was put inside the taxi.While being put inside the taxi.Gulab again named the accused as his assailant to his brother Buddhu (P. W. 3).Gulab was taken to the Medical College where he was declared dead.Buddha stayed away at the hospital and sent Lalmohon (P. W. 15) to Barabazar Thana for lodging information.After having been stabbed at his buttock Dayaram accompanied by Sudama went to Barabazar P. S. From the Thana Dayaram was sent to Marwari Relief Hospital.At the Marwari Relief Hospital Dayaram's wound was bandaged and he came back to the Thana when Sudama allegedly lodged act information about Dayaram having been stabbed at his buttock by the accused.Lalmohon and Buddhu (P. W. 3) brother of deceased Gulab took Gulab to Medical College Hospital after be was allegedly stabbed by the accused-appellant where Gulab was declared dead.From Medical College Hospital Lalmohon was sent to the Police Station Barabazar where he caused a diary to be made.Dayaram (P. W. 10) and Sudama (P. W. 12) (after Dayaram had been hit on his buttock between 11-30 P. M. to 12 of the midnight of 17-5-62 allegedly by the accused-appellant), had gone to the Barabazar Police Station in a rickshaw.They went inside the Police Station and came out with the Police Babu and a Constable.The Police Babu at once despatched Dayaram to Marwari Relief Society's Hospital accompanied by Sudama and a Police Constable.His wound was bandaged there.From the hospital he came back to the Police Station along with Sudama and the Police Constable.Dayaram in his cross-examination said that He did not enter inside the police station but Sudama had gone inside the police station.While Dayaram was waiting outside the police station, on a rickshaw, A. S. I. Amiya Banerjee (P.W. 6) came outside the Police Station whom Dayaram saw from the rickshaw.Dayaram had profuse bleeding injury on his left buttock.He was accompanied by one of his relations." According to Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 36) (question No. 28) it is he who alone saw the accused having had stabbed Gulab.Thereafter came Chunilal and Lalmohan.JUDGMENT Bagchi, J.The accused-appellant Mannalal Khatic stood a trial, charged with two counts of distinct offence, viz. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed murder of Gulab, and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to Dayaram with a sharp-cutting weapon, at tie Third Criminal Sessions of 1963 in me Original Criminal Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. P. Mukherjee and a Special Jury.Of the nine jurors, six found Mannalal Khatic, the accused-appellant guilty on the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering Gulab and seven founds Mannalal Khatic, the accused-appellant guilty for having caused hurt to Dayaram with a sharp-cutting weapon.Lalmohon (P. W. 15) had in the meantime, lodged an information at the Thana about the accused having had stabbed Gulab on has chest resulting in Gulab's death.The Police started investigation on the information received from Lalmohon.The two occurrences, the stabbing of Gulab on the chest and the stabbing of Dayaram at his left buttock by the accused were interconnected.On completition of investigation the accused was charged under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.The defence was a complete denial of file two occurrences as stated by the prosecution.The defence story was that Tulshiram the bride's father, had made arrangements for entertainment of his guests inside Tarasundari Park and the entertainment included supply of alcoholic drinks.When the guests were being thus entertained, there was a drunken brawl inside the Tarasundari Park and in course of that brawl Gulab might have received the injuries which later caused his death.At the drunken brawl inside the park, Gulab and Dayaram had a fight, and Gulab might have injured Dayaram on the buttock with a dagger and Dayaram might have snatched away that dagger and stabbed Gulab on the chest.The further case in defence was that because of his second wile Piyari, Buddhu, the brother of Gulab wanted to do away with Gulab and that Buddhu was responsible for his brother Gulab's death, and that Lalmohon and his associates helped Buddhu in causing Gulab's death.The furthermore case in defence was that the accused Mannalal had been falsely implicated on a bona fide mistaken identity.The name of the accused was called out and the charges being (1) committing murder of one Gulab Khatik on or about 17th day of May, 1962 at or about midnight at Sibtala Street near Tarasundari Park at Calcutta by stabbing him with a knife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and (2) voluntarily causing hurt to one Dayaram Khatik on or about 17th day of May, 1962 at or about midnight at Sibtala.near Tarasundari Park at Calcutta by means of a knife or a dagger under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, were read over and explained to the accused by the Clerk of the State and his plea was taken.The accused pleaded not guilty to both the charges and claimed to be tried on each of the charges.A Special Jury was duly empanelled and the jurors selected their Foreman.The Jury was duly sworn in.The State was represented by the learned Advocate Mr. Ajoy Kumar Basu and the accused was represented by the learned Advocate Mr. Bejoy Bhose.On 10th Jury, 1963, Mr. Bhose appearing for the accused, submitted for amendment of the charges, and prayed for separate trial on the two charges.The learned Judge directed the charges to be amended as follows :--(1) Committing murder of one Gulab Khatik on or about the 17th day of May, 1962 at or about midnight at Kalikrishna Tagore Street at Calcutta by stabbing him with a knife or dagger under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and (2) Voluntarily causing hurt to one Dayaram Khatik on or about the 17th day of May, 1962 at or about the midnight at or about Kalikrishna Tagore Street, Calcutta, by means of a knife or a dagger under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The charges were read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded 'not guilty' to each of the charges and claimed to be tried.The learned Counsel for the State then commenced chief examination of the witnesses followed by cross-examination by Mr. Bhose for the accused.The accused pleads 'not guilty' on each charge and claims to be tried."Then the trial opened.At the commencement of the trial on the 10th day of July, 1963 Mr. Bhose, the learned Counsel appearing, for the accused before the Court of Sessions prayed for amendment of the charges and also for separate trial on the two charges.The first in the series of alleged incidents, as deposed to by P. W. 5 Jawaharlal Khatik will appear from questions Nos. 17 to 30 as appearing in the record of the deposition of the said witness.The bridegroom party reached Tarasundari Park at about 11 P. M. At that time other members of the bridegroom party went to Tarasundari Park and witnesses Jawaharlal Khatik (P. W. 5) and four others, that means, Lachmi Prosad Shaw (P. W. 18).They came in a rickshaw.P. W. 6 Amiya Banerjee filled up the injury report form and sent Dayaram to Marwari Relief Society's Hospital nearby.Dayaram returned from the Hospital an hour after, that means, between 1-25 to 1-30 A. M. Amiya Banerjee made a General Diary entry.When the injury report was made by the P. W. 6 Amiya Banerjee within 2 to 3 minutes after 12-30 A. M. the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence allegedly by the accused in respect of Dayaram had been heard by Amiya Banerjee, Officer then in charge of the Police Station Barabazar.But he did not record the information under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure m any Book prescribed by law to be maintained at the police station.Sudama (P. W. 12) said (question Nos. 15 and 16) that he went to the Barabazar Police Station and that coming to Barabazar Police Station he saw a Babu and told him "one man had been struck with a knife".The Babu who saw the injured told him to go to the Hospital".Sudama went to the Hospital with the injured.A Constable went with them to whom the Babu had given a paper having written something.From Sudama, the A. S. I. Banerjee (P. W, 6) first heard about the commission of a cognizable offence but did not hear who the assailant was.He then came out of the Thana room saw the the injury on Dayaram's person and then made an injury report and despatched Dayaram to the Hospital with a Constable.So, the aforesaid information given by Sudama to A. S. I. Banerjee was the information under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly known as F. I. R. relating to the commission of a cognizable offence but in that information Sudama, as his evidence shows, did not disclose who was the assailant of Darayam and where, how, and under what circumstances Dayaram was stabbed with a knife.It was the duty of the Officer who received the information from Sudama (P. W. 12) to record it under Section 154 Cr. P. C. in the prescribed form filling up the details of the columns of the prescribed form as well as filling up space set apart for recording the statement of the informant under the prescribed columns in the form for recording such information under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.After filling up the form under Section 154 Cr. P. C. upon hearing from Sudama and seeing the injury of Dayaram the A. S. I. (P. W. 6) was to have prepared the injury report while sending Dayaram to the Hospital.The failure of the A. S. I. to record the information in the prescribed form immediately when he had received the information from Sudama amounts to suppression of the F. I. R. It is not known what version either Dayadam or Sudama had given to the A. S. I. Banerjee (P. W. 6) just on reaching the Thana at about 12-30 A. M. of 17/18th May, 1962 following which within 2/3 minutes past 12-30 A. M. the injury report was made by the A. S. I. Banerjee (P. W. 6).The A. S. I. Banerjee had no business to keep the information within his sleeves so soon as he had received it from Sudama.The learned Judge in his charge to the Jury did not place this very broad tact pointedly before the Jury and did not tell the Jury that in regard to the information relating to the alleged offence connected with the occurrence in respect of Dayaram, the Police Officer suppressed such information.According to Sudama he stated to the Police Officer (question No. 16) "One man has been struck with a knife" and nothing more.But, in his examination in chief Dayaram (P. W. 10) said (immediately he was allegedly struck by the accused-appellant (question No. 38) in chief-examination) addressing Sudama "Manna has struck me with a knife and he has run away".Sudama (P.W. 12), therefore, heard from Dayaram immediately after the alleged occurrence that Dayaram had been struck with a knife by Manna, the accused-appellant But question No. 16 in chief-examination of Sudama would clearly show that he did not say before the A. S. I. Banerjee (P. W. 6) that Manna had struck him with a knife.What A. S. I. Banerjee had heard from Sudama on his reaching the Thana at 12-30 A. M. of 17/18th May, 1962 would not appear from his examination-in-chief.This lapse by way of non-direction, and misdirection in the learned Judge's charge to the Jury on such material points of fact and law led the Jury to come to a wrong conclusion on the charge under Section 384 I.P.C. against the accused.The learned Judge was to have analysed the evidence of Dayaram, Sudama and Amiya Banerjee and was to have placed their evidence before the Jury to consider if there had been suppression of F. I. R. by the police in regard to the alleged incident relating to the injury allegedly received by Dayaram from the accused-appellant in the circumstances Dayaram and Sudama had deposed before the Court of Sessions.The learned Judge should have then cautioned the Jury saving that if Jury considered that there was suppression of the First Information Report that would reflect much upon the truth of the prosecution case in regard to the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. against the accused appellant, nonetheless on the truth of the prosecution story alleged to be connected with the incidents relating to the murder of Gulab allegedly committed by the accused-appellant Manna.In his charge to the Jury, the learned Judge at page 10 of the charge (brief copy) stated.At 1 O'clock of 17/18th May, 1902 Lalmohon came to the Police Station and made a statement before him.The witness recorded the statement as he was then on duty.The witness informed about the murder of Gulab by Mannalal Khatik to the Officer-in-charge and the Assistant Commissioner and entered a case against the accused-appellant Mannalal Khatik.At 1-20 A.M. accompanied by the Sub-Inspector Talukdar, that means, P.W. 38 and O. C. Satyendra Nath Chatterjee (not examined as a prosecution witness) witness went out of the thana for investigation accompanied by Lalmohon Khatik.Question No. 5 and question No. 6 in the deposition of p.w. 37, P. C. Banerjee would show that at 1 O'clock of 18-7-62 he had recorded what he had heard from Lalmohon.At 1-20 A.M. the police party headed by the witness went out for investigation.The . party came back to the Thana at half-past 6 in the morning.On 17/18th May 1982 the General Diary Entry No. 2029 was made at 1 A.M. upon the information given by a person reaching the thana at 1 O'clock of the night.The entries were not proved but only the date and hour against the entries were made defence exhibits.."When I arrived my mother-in-law came to perform the Parchan when this man came there and wanted to get on the carriage." He did not tell in his chief-examination about the Test Identification Parade.On 26-5-62 Mannalal Khatik, the accused-appellant was produced from police custody.On police prayer he was placed in police custody till 29-5-62 the accused filed a petition before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate stating that the police officers were showing him to several sons while he was in police custody.The Magistrate fixed holding of T. I. Parade inside his Court room at Bankshall Street on 6-6-62 at 2-30 p. m. He ordered the I. O. to arrange and to bring up witnesses.On 6-6-62 T. I. Parade held.On 11-6-62 the Magistrate fixed 22-6-62 for T. I. Parade of the accused Mannalal Khatik at 3 p. m. in the Court room I. O. was directed to arrange and bring up witnesses.On 22-6-62 T. I. Parade was held in regard to other witness.P. W. 30 Sri S. K. Ghosh Presidency Magistrate held the two T. I. Parades--one on 6-6-62 and the other on 22-6-62 inside his Court room in Bankshall Street Presidency Magistrates' Court.The identifying witnesses were Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) and Jawaharlal (P. W. 5) on the first day.The suspect was mixed up with ten others, of similar dress and similar social status.On 22nd June, 1962 the Magistrate held the second T. I. Parade in his Court-room in regard to the suspect Mannalal Khatik, accused-appellant.Ramnarayan (P. W. 21) was the identifying witness.The Magistrate said that the accused had been produced on 22nd June from Jail custody.The accused stated to the Magistrate that the identifying witnesses knew him from before and that the I. O. showed him to them off and on at the P. S. The accused complained in the same rein to the Magistrate again after the T. I. Parade was over.The Magistrate stated (question No. 33) "He did not open his mouth before that Generally, when there were such cases, I would not hold the T. I. Parade, I would refer the matter to the A. C. P. M. That is a different Matter.The learned Judge at page 29 of the charge (brief copy) said "next we come to T. L Parade.One was attended by Jawaharlal and Lachmi Prosad; the other was attended by Ramnarayan.The three witnesses identified the accused before the Magistrate.But we find that before the officer had even prayed for a T. I. Parade the accused himself filed a petition before the Magistrate complaining that he is being shown to witnesses for his identification at a future T. I. Parade.Not only that.After the first T. I. Parade was held, he made the same complaint to the Magistrate.It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that no complaint was made to the Magistrate before the parade.It loses all its importance m view of that application dated 26th--3 days before the I. O. had made the petition for T. I. Parade if you put credence to the allegation made therein.So, there was that complaint by the accused before and after the parade.So far as witness Ramnarayan is concerned, he was declared hostile and he identified the accused before the Magistrate as the person who had created "hulla' near Tarasundari Park.What this Tiulla' means it will be for you to consider.Whether it relates to the 'Halla' in front of Tulshi's house or whether it relates to the 'Halla' after the incident when these persons--Ramnarayan, Lachmi and another man were talking in front of Tarasundari Park and the accused came and abused them, we do not know.But what is stated is this that is the man who created "halla" in front of Tarasundari Park."Then the learned Judge in his charge to the Jury at pages 30 and 31 explained the law-relating to T. I. Parade and the value of T. I. Parade and the evidence of witnesses given in Court after identifying the suspect in the T. I. Parade.You may consider that according to evidence the place where the incident took place, the incident in front of Tulsi's house was very well lighted.The evidence is that the place where this occurrence of murder took place was also well-lighted.You will consider whether in the light that was available it was possible for the witnesses who subsequently identified him to have noted the face and features of the accused in such a way as to leave an impression in their minds with reference to which it might have been possible as claimed by them, to identify him in the parades.But, remember at the same time, the complaints regarding the accused having been shown to the witnesses prior to the parade.Keep that in your mind.That is so far as the evidence regarding the allegation under section 302 is concerned.Jawaharlal (P. W. 5) is no witness to any occurrence relating to the alleged stabbing of Gulab on his chest allegedly by the accused.In reply to question No. 23 Ramnarayan (P. W. 21) while narrating the incident that had allegedly happened at the door of Tulshi's house allegedly between 10-30 and 11 O'clock of the night of the 17th May, 1962, said pointing to the accused "That man attempted 2/3 times to get on to the carriage." He did not depose on anything about the incident relating to the accused allegedly having had stabbed Gulab.Mahadeo was no witness either to the accused appellant having had stabbed either Dayaram or Gulab.He was not produced at T. I. Parade for identification of the accused-appellant though he came to Court.Lachmi Prosad Shaw (P. W. 26) (question Nos. 9 to 16 and 29) claims to have had seen these incidents, first at or about the door of Tulshi's house at 34, Sibtala Lane when the accused had allegedly attempted, to get into the carriage of the bridegroom resisted by Chunilal, the other out-side the Tarasundari Park to the east when he and the witnesses Chunilal and Ramnarayan were standing talking amongst themselves when the accused came with a knife and threatened them with dire consequences and ran away.The witness said that "when the accused turned back from that corner I also followed him from behind.When I had come to the mouth of that lane, I saw a man was trying to cross the road and there is a small temple in front of the large temple.When that man came near the temple, tie smaller one, this Manna came in front of that man.This accused said "Tum Sala Barati Hai".That man said "No, I am brother of Buddhu".Upon that the accused stabbed him, holding the knife in his right hand, on his right chest."The order No. 5 dated 26-5-62 would show that the accused had complained by a petition to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate that he was being shown by the I. O. in the Police lock-up to persons who were to be witnesses in the future T. I. Parade.The Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate was to have held an enquiry then and there and was to have determined whether the allegation had any semblance or possible semblance of truth but he took no action on such petition.On 29-5-62, the Magistrate Sri S. K. Ghosh saw the ordersheet but he took no notice of the allegations contained in that petition.The petition was all along with the record and the ordersheets are clear (vide order No. 5 dated 26-5-62) at page 2 of the ordersheet.The Magistrate on seeing the order No. 5 dated 26-5-62 should have at once brought the allegations made in the petition filed by the accused-appellant on 26-5-62 before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate for determination as to whether there was any reasonable probability in the allegations made in the petition by the accused-appellant and should not have held the T. I. Parades on two occasions.On 6-6-62 after the first T. I. Parade had held, the accused-appellant made a verbal complaint to the Magistrate that he was being shown before the T. I. Parade in the police custody by the I. O. to possible witnesses (to several persons).In his charge to the Jury this material fact was not placed by the learned Judge before the Jury.The accused was somewhere inside the court-house on 6-6-62, before the T. I. Parade was actually held." The learned Judge in his charge to the Jury should have clearly told that Ramnarayan and Jawaharlal were no witnesses to the alleged occurrence of dae accused-appellant having had stabbed Gulab on his chest.While discussing the evidence of the identification of the accused at the T. I. Parades, the learned Judge should have further told in his charge to the Jury that if the Jury considered that the circumstances surrounding the T. I. Parade of Lachmi Prosad held on 6-6-62 as pointed out above, gave rise to a reasonable doubt as to the genuineness and propriety of the T. I. Parade held on 6-6-82 m which Lachmi Prosad had allegedly identified the accused-appellant as having had stabbed Gulab on his chest who had allegedly made a dying declaration to Lachmi Prosad immediately after Gulab having had been stabbed allegedly by the accused-appellant, the Jury should not accept the evidence of Lachmi Prosad in regard to the accused having had so stabbed Galab on his chest with a knife and Gulab having had made a dying declaration to Lachmi Prosad mentioning the accused as Gulab's assailant.The accused was charged under Section 302 for having had caused the death of Gulab and be was thereafter charged for having had caused hurt to Dayaram punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. These two distinct offences were joined together and the accused was tried on a charge for two counts of such offences at one and me same trial.Lachmi Prosad gave evidence before the Sessions Court.The T. I. Parade held on 6-6-62 before the Magistrate, as we have already found, was not a genuine and a legal T. I. Parade.The learned Judge in his charge at page 26 (brief copy) said "At the same time you have the evidence of Lalmohon and Lachmi Prosad who claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, and not only that you have the further evidence of Premangshu and Jawaharlal who came to the place or occurrence then and there and who were told of the occurrence and of the assailant by Lalmohon then and there.And Lalmohon is a man who was known to the accused from before and there is no evidence that personally there was any motive for his having falsely implicated this man.At 1-30 to 1-45 to 2 a. m. of 18-5-62 when this Lachmi Prosad came towards the Tarasundari Park, he met Ramnarayan and Jawaharlal.To them he narrated what had happened.P. W. 15 Lalmohon was asked 44 questions in chief-examination.In question 13 Lalmohon found Chunilal (P. W. 20) and Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) immediately after he had reached the spot where Gulab was stabbed.The learned Judge's charge to the Jury at page 26 runs as follows: "Premangshu and Jawaharlal who came to the place of occurrence then and there." Jawaharlal P. W. 5) (questions Nos. 30 to 31) came out from the house of Tulsi at 1 O'clock and went to Tarasundari Park.There Chunilal (P. W. 20) and Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) told him that a man Mannalal who was creating that row then stabbed Gulab brother of Buddhu.But, the learned Judge in his charge to the July stated at page 26 of the charge that at the place of occurrence Lalmohon (P. W. 15) told Jawaharlal that he had seen the accused-appellant stabbing Gulab and that Gulab made a dying declaration implicating the accused-appellant.Lalmohon nowhere said in his chief-examination that he met Jawaharlal (P. W. 5) at the site where Gulab was stabbed and told him anything about the occurrence.This direction in the learned Judge's charge to the Jury was against the evidence of Jawaharlal and Lalmohon.Jawaharlal did not go to the alleged place of occurrence where the accused-appellant had allegedly stabbed Gulab and to Jawaharlal at the place of occurrence Lalmohon made no statement, Premangshu (P. W. 4) (question No. 7) heard from Lalmohon (P. W. 15) whom he did not know from before that Manua had stabbed.(Question No. 9)....''Do you find any of the persons then when the injured here in Court now?" ''Yes, one person standing in front of me (identifying P. W. 26 Lachmi Prosad).Lalmohon (P. W. 15) (question No. 13) stated "He (meaning the accused) chased us a little and there turned back.I ran upto Tarasundari Park and I again went back to the place.When I had reached there I found that there was one person who later transpired to be Chunilal and another person whose name I came to know later as Lachmi Prosad.We three of us took Gulab to the porch of the Marble House in front of a medicine shop (question No. 14).When you came to Gulab did Gulab tell you anything?" Gulab said Manna has stabbed."Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) is the only eye-witness who had allegedly seen the accused-appellant stabbing Gulab.Lalmohon did not see who had stabbed Gulab.(Evident from question No. 14 asked to Lalmohon is chief-examination).Lalmohon claimed (question No. 14) that Gulab told him that Manna had stabbed.Question No. 15 asked to this witness (P. W. 15) Lalmohon in chief-examination shows that the prosecuting counsel had put into the mouth of the witness that the witness had seen Manna stabbing Gulab and then the witness ran towards Ganesh Talkies and then towards the Tarasundari Park.The witness started the answer saying "yes", then he narrated his flight.Lachmi Prosad (P. W 26) (questions Nos. 29. 30 and 31) saw Gulab being stabbed 10/12 paces ahead of Lachmi Prosad.Gulab then fell down.At that time Chunilal and another man Lalmohan were seen coming from the other side of the road towards Lachmi Prosad, i.e. from the southern side, that means, from the direction of the southern footpath of Kalikrishna Tagore Street.(Question No. 33) When Chunilal and Lalmohon came near Gulab, Lachmi Prosad also came near Gulab.The entire evidence in chief-examination of Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) would not show that there came any person named Premangshu (P. W. 4) or any person named Jawaharlal (P. W. 5) when Gulab was stabbed and was taken by Lalmohon, Lachmi Prosad and Chunilal to the ledge of Marble house on the northern footpath of Kalikrishna Tagore Street shown in the plan (Ext. 1).According to Lachmi Prosad one man came when Gulab was taken to the ledge and that man was Buddhu (P. W. 3), brother of Gulab.Question No. 42 put to Lachmi Prosad would show that Buddhu (P. W. 3), brother of Gulab had come there and to Buddhu Gulab said that Manna had stabbed him.Neither Lalmohon nor Lachmi Prosad said that they had told Premangshu (P. W. 4) and Jawaharlal (P. W. 5) that Manna had stabbed Gulab when they had come to the place of occurrence.In Court Premangshu (P. W. 4) identified Lachmi Prosad as having had told him that Manna had stabbed Gulab although he stated in Court that Lalmohon told him that Manna had stabbed Gulab.Buddhu (P. W. 3) is the brother of the deceased Gulab.In cross-examination Buddhu (P. W, 3) laid that Lalmohon and Gulab told him that Manna, the accused-appellant had stabbed Gulab.Thereafter what happened?)--said that when Lachmi Prosad brought a taxi and Buddhu and Gulab got into the taxi and Buddhu asked Gulab what has happened.At that time Gulab was breathing a little.He said Manna has stabbed him.Lalmohon did never say that he told Buddhu that Gulab told Lalmohon that Manna had Stabbed Gulab.Premangshu said in the witness-box that Lalmohon told him that Manna had stabbed Gulab.But, while in the witness-box he identified Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) meaning thereby that it was Lachmi Prosad who told him that Gulab had been stabbed by Manna.In his charge to the Jury, the learned Judge did not point out all that we have analysed as appearing in the evidence of Lalmohon, Premangshu and Jawaharlal.Gulab's viscera contained alcohol.Jawaharlal (P. W. 5) came out of Tulshi's house at 34 Sibtala Lane at 1 O" clock of the night and went close to Tarasundari Park where he met Chunilal and (P. W. 26) Lachmi Prosad (Question No. 31-P. W. 5).Sudama (P. W. 12) was sitting inside Tarasundari Park witnessing a magic show there (question No. 11-P.W. 12).Sudama was inside the park.Dayaram (P. W. 10) came out from Tulshi's house and met Sudama who was witnessing magic show inside Tarasundari Park.It was then 11-30 O'clock of the night (questions Nos. 20, 21, 22 of P. W. 10 Dayaram).P. W. 15 Lalmohon (questions nos. 7 to 12) and Gulab were inside Tarasundari Park between 11 to 11-30 O'clock of the night witnessing magic show.This fact that between 11 to 11-30 O'clock of the night of 17-5-62 Dayaram and Gulab and Lalmohon and Sudama were inside Tarasundari Park and were witnessing a magic show there and that inside the viscera of Gulab alcohol was found at the post-mortem examination had not been pointed out in his charge to the Jury by the learned Judge for consideration of the reasonable probability in the defence case that when Dayaram and Gulab were inside Tarasundari Park witnessing the magic show there was a drunken brawl following which there was stabbing incident which might have had caused the injuries to Dayaram arid Gulab being mutually involved in such incident.Non-direction of this material point of fact in the learned Judge's charge to the Jury amounting to misdirection prejudiced the accused-appellant and misled the Jury to come to their verdict causing miscarriage of justice.The conduct of Lalmohon (P. W. 15) and Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) as well as that of Chunilal (P. W. 20) (question No. 43 of P. W. 26 Lachmi Prosad) is highly unnatural.He and Chunilal came away to Tarasundari Park from the place where Gulab had been stabbed by the accused appellant.They did not make any attempt to apprehend the accused-appellant who, according to P. W. 16 Tulsiram, lived closed to Tulshi's house at 34, Sibtala Lane.Lachmi Prosad (P. W. 26) did not inform Tulshi about such a ghastly incident at any time.Considering the state of evidence we have reviewed, we do not think, that ends of justice would be met if we order re-trial of the accused for two distinct offences at two separate trials after a lapse of four years from the date of occurrence as alleged.We accordingly allow this appeal.P. C. having been given by the order admitting the appeal at preliminary hearing. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,665,886 | (i) On 16.06.2004 at 05.00 a.m., P.W.1-Jeyaraman, the defactocomplainant was proceeding along Madurai Road.P.W.2 Murugesan and P.W.3Selvaraj were coming behind him.At that time, the accused waylaid P.W.1, whoworn a gold chain, by brandishing knife and robbed the gold chain (M.O.1) atthe knife point and ran away from the place of occurrence.When P.W.1shouted, P.Ws.2 and 3 came there.All of them chased the accused and he wasbrought to the police station, where he produced M.O.1-gold chain and M.O.2knife.P.2and Ex.P.4 rough sketch in the presence of witnesses P.W.7-Vedamuthu andP.W.8-Jesu.Then P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P.1 to one Subbiah, Head Constable.(ii) P.W.9 received the complaint Ex.P.1 registered in Crime No.184 of2004 by the Head Constable by name Subbiah, who is dead, for the offencesunder Sections 392 and 506(ii) IPC and prepared Ex.P.3-F.I.R. P.W.9 thenproceeded with the investigation and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.Thereafter, he came back to the Samayanallur Police Station andarrested the accused.After examining the witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 8 and 3other witnesses, he laid the charge sheet against the accused for theoffences punishable under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC.(iii).The learned trial Judge, after following the procedures, framednecessary charges against the accused.Since the accused denied the same intoto and pleaded not guilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 9 wereexamined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked, besides marking M.Os.1 and 2 on theside of the prosecution.On completion of the examination of the witnesseson the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of theprosecution witnesses and he denied the same as false.On behalf of thedefence, neither the witness was examined nor document was marked.4. Heard both sides.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for theappellant would raise the points stating that no identification parade hasbeen conducted, since the defacto complainant P.W.1 was not aware of theaccused previously.The second limb of the argument is that there is acontradiction in the deposition of P.W.1 and complaint Ex.P.1 and printedF.I.R. Ex.P.3 as well as arrest of the accused by P.W.9 and hence, he prayedfor setting aside the conviction and sentence.Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)would submit that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant.P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses.P.Ws.4 and 5, who were on para- duty, caught red handed theaccused, from whom material object M.O.1-Gold chain belonging to P.W.1 wasrecovered.Hence, there is no necessity for conducting identificationparade.She would further submit that First Information Report is not anencyclopedia.Hence, non-mentioning details in F.I.R. is not fatal to thecase of the prosecution.The arrest has been correctly deposed by P.W.9-Kalifullah, Inspector of Police.Contending that the Trial Court hasconsidered the same in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion,she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on perusalof the typed-set of papers, it is seen that as per the evidence of P.W.1,Jeyaraman, the defacto complainant, on 16.06.2004 at 05.00 a.m., when P.W.1was proceeding to attend the nature's call, followed by P.W.2-Murugesan andP.W.3-Selvaraj, the accused waylaid him at the knife point and made a lifethreat and took away M.O.1-Gold Chain and immediately, P.W.1 made a hue andcry.Even though P.W.1 was not personally aware of theaccused, there is no necessity for conducting identification parade.That hasbeen seized from the accused as soon as he was caught red handedly.Insofar as the contention that there is a contradiction between theoral evidence of P.W.1 and also the complaint Ex.P.1 and printed F.I.R.Ex.The arrest of theaccused has been spoken to by them.Therefore, I am of the view that theargument of the appellant's counsel that there is a contradiction between theoral evidence of P.W.1 and contents in the complaint as well as F.I.R. isfatal to the case of the prosecution does not merit acceptance.Coming to the contention that when the accused has been caught redhanded and he was produced before the police station, P.W.9-Kalifullah,Inspector of Police arrested the accused only after visiting the place ofoccurrence and preparing observation mahazar and rough sketch, which willfatal to the case of the prosecution, I am of the view that the aboveargument does not hold good, because as per the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5,they handed over the accused along with material objects to one HeadConstable by name Karuppiah.P.W.9 took up the matter for investigation andwent to the place of occurrence and after preparing observation mahazar andsketch, he came back to Samayanallur Police Station and arrested the accused.Thus, the arrest made by P.W.9 does not affect the case of the prosecution.However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit thatsince the appellant was in custody for 4 + years, he wants some leniency insentence.The trial Court sentenced him to undergo 7 years RI, to pay a fineof Rs.1,000/-, in default in payment, to undergo 3 months RI for the offenceunder Section 392 r/w 397 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo 2 years RIfor the offence under section 506(ii) IPC.As such, the sentence imposedis also, hereby, confirmed.In fine, The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.2.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Judgment made inCriminal Appeal (MD)No.330 of 2007Dated: | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,779,490 | In the early hours of December 9, 2011 a big tragedy took place as the wintry morning was rend asunder by the helpless cries of patients trapped inside a premium hospital namely AMRI Hospitals Ltd situated at 15, Panchanantala Road.In the midst of the night, a fire suddenly broke out in the basement of the Annexe-I building, a G+5 storied structure.As the basement area remained ablaze, toxic smoke began to accumulate inside the building.This contributed to poor visibility and induced suffocation amongst those present on the premises, thus greatly restricting the movements of those trapped inside.Additionally, rescuers were prevented from having direct access to the hospital premises as the security staff stood guard at the main gates.The incident was initially dealt with in a casual manner by the ill trained and poorly equipped staff of the hospital.Once the situation reached an aggravated stage, the Fire Brigade and the Police were informed.As news of the fire spread, locals began to assemble and assist the fire brigade and police in the ongoing rescue operation.The Fire Brigade personnel used sky ladders and broke several glass windows in the building in the course of the rescue.While some patients were brought out alive, dozens of dead bodies were also recovered.As per reports, 92 patients admitted in the Annexe-I building succumbed to death on the night of the fire.The patients who were successfully rescued were shifted to other hospitals.Following the incident, an official filed a formal complaint on behalf of the Fire Brigade.Subsequent to the General Diary Entry No 765 of Lake Police Station dated 09.12.11, a case vide Lake PS Case No 293 dated 09.12.11 u/s 304/308/285/34 I.P.C. and 11C/11J/11L of West Bengal Fire Services Act was registered.The control of the investigation of the case was taken up by a Special Investigation Team of Detective Department, Lalbazar, Kolkata.The dead bodies recovered were subjected to inquest followed by post mortem examination.The autopsy surgeon opined in his report that the cause of death was asphyxia followed by suffocation.In the course of the investigation, a number of witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded.The surviving patients and the relatives of deceased patients narrated the incidents of the unfortunate night in their statements.The patients who managed to escape provided detailed accounts about how the smoke circulating in the building had caused irritation in their eyes.They also related how the lack of support from the AMRI staff and overall absence of an evacuation team worsened the situation.Several patients were infirm and/or bed-ridden and thereby compelled to inhale noxious smoke in their feeble condition.Even those who were mobile had to overcome various hurdles in order to escape the smoke.Kolkata Police and the Fire Brigade worked tirelessly to rescue those trapped inside the building.Local youths assisted them during the continuance of the rescue operation.The patients who survived mentioned that most doctors, nurses and other staffs had fled the premises and they did not receive assistance from the AMRI staff, albeit a few, during this predicament.Both patients and their relatives unanimously condemned the absence of an evacuation system.The lackadaisical attitude of the hospital authorities towards fire safety and the reluctance of the staff to help the patients in the time of need, paints a negative image of what is claimed to be an elite medical institution.Investigation revealed that the fire had broken out in the intervening night of December 8, 2012 and December 9, 2012 in the basement of the Annexe-I building of AMRI Hospital.The fire was detected by some members of the staff of Frank Ross Pharmaceuticals and the mechanical store housed in the building, at about 3.25 am, after noticing smoke emanating from the surrounding areas.From the statements of these individuals, it is evident that the inferno had been observed on some inflammable materials stocked in the Frank Ross Pharmaceuticals store.Items including but not limited to cotton, gauge, rubber and plywood present in the area aggravated the fire resulting in the emission of dark fumes.These persons promptly informed the security staff about the fire.However, despite fervent efforts by the security personnel (under the supervision of the Night Administration) to control the situation by utilising the available fire extinguishers, they were unable to douse the flames.It is noteworthy that both the security personnel and the Night Administrator were ill equipped and untrained with reference to fire safety.The investigation also revealed that a similar incident of fire had taken place on October 9, 2011 in the AMRI Diabetic Centre located at 38/1 Gariahat Road.During that incident, a security guard namely Haradhan Chakraborty had informed the Fire Brigade upon detecting the fire.For this prudent act, he was punished with temporary suspension for violation of Code Brown.Code Brown was the policy measure adopted by the AMRI management with regard to fire safety, wherein the staff had to endeavour to fight the fire by utilising the hospital's resources and contact the Fire Brigade and Police only upon failure to contain the fire.i) The fire broke out in the upper basement area of the hospital.AMRI management including the petitioner had illegally converted the basement area into a pharmacy and office spaces containing combustible materials.The petitioner in this case was the Managing Director of AMRI Hospitals Ltd which was owning the hospital.He was also a member of the Managing Committee which was in overall charge of the affairs of the hospital.The petition is directed against judgment and order dated 19th March, 2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in S.C. 26(11)/2013 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the instant case and framing charges under Sections 304 Part II, 308 read with Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 11C read with Sections 11J, 11L of the West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services Act.The petitioner along with fifteen other accused persons were prosecuted on the allegations of commission of offences punishable under Sections 304 Part II/308 read with Section 36 of I.P.C. and under Section 11C read with Sections 11J and 11L of West Bengal Fire Services Act on the allegations reflected in the charge-sheet is as follows:-An Incident Report Register seized by the investigating officers reflects that there were 12 distinct incidents of fire in AMRI prior to the incident in question.Various official agencies including but not limited to the ROC, KMC, Directorate of Electricity, CESC, Fire Brigade, FSL and CFSL were contacted during the investigation to gain insight into the dynamics of the case.Construction of the building was completed in 2005, with the Completion Plan being sanctioned in 2006 with a fine being imposed for the deviations from the sanctioned plan.In the sanctioned plan, the upper basement was earmarked as the car parking space and hence it was not under the central air conditioning system of the hospital.Investigation indicated that the electrical shaft originated from the basement and circumvented the floors, reaching up to the top of the building.Investigation also brought to light that the basement had been converted to an area housing storerooms, a mechanical workshop, a pharmacy, the HR office, the security and CCTV office and a store for bio medicals.The stores in the basement area stocked various combustible materials.Additionally, the offices in the basement were constructed using plywood.The wooden walls and ceilings alongside vinyl floors of these offices acted as fuel to the fire.The F.I.R. indicated that the movement of the toxic smoke (which was the sole cause of death as per post mortem reports) to the wards was facilitated by the absence of fire stops in the electrical shafts.From the NOC of the West Bengal Fire and Essential Services seized during investigation, it is evident that the upper basement had been converted into office spaces in violation of repeated directives given by the Fire Brigade authorities on the point of fire safety, specifically the instructions pertaining to clearing the basement, alongside other suggested rectifications.In response, the representatives of AMRI Hospitals Ltd provided assurances of compliance by means of letters and affidavits several times.The FSL report indicated that the basement area stocked huge amounts of combustible materials of the nature of wood, plywood, PVC and cotton which caused the accumulation of black, powdery charcoal like substance on the building premises and the bodies of deceased patients.This version was corroborated by the statements of various witnesses.Non installation of fire stops continued in spite of directives recommending the same provided by the Fire Brigade in various NOCs.It has been argued that the deliberate violation of the KMC sanctioned building plan, disregard for direction of the Fire Brigade and submission of affidavits by AMRI officials when there was no intention to follow through, could only have been done at the clear and express instruction of the owners and/or directors who were the final decision makers in the management of the hospital.The seized documents exposed that the Board of Directors was aware of the upkeep measures suggested by the Fire Brigade and the directors also engaged in discussions about fire safety issues in the course of various board meetings.In spite of this, no directions were issued by the Board regarding the installation of fire stops which is one of the basic safety norms to be observed for curbing the effect of fires.This demonstrates that the owners and/or directors did not attribute much importance to observance of fire safety precautions.In 2007, the AMRI management contemplated acquiring NABH accreditation and the services of the Institute of Applied Quality Management were engaged to ensure that the hospital was in compliance with the directives and guidelines of NABH in all respects including but not limited to fire safety matters.It has been noted that the enthusiasm about compliance with NABH standards began to falter in the post accreditation period during which the services of the compliance consultant and incumbent fire officer were terminated.In 2009, a part time fire officer was appointed, however the officer reported only twice a week for limited hours.Fire training and evacuation sessions, mandated under NABH guidelines were irregular and generally suffered from poor attendance.In 2011, to achieve reaccreditation from NABH, a professional was employed.In September 2011, however, the NABH did not provide accreditation to AMRI due to two non- compliance with respect to fire safety and evacuation.In order to salvage the situation, AMRI submitted an evacuation plan but did not sufficiently train the staff about the execution of the plan.The AMRI management neither employed a full time fire officer nor had a trained evacuation team in the hospital premises.The non-compliance in the aforementioned respects resulted in compromise with the safety of patients.Numerous documents and computer resources were seized by the investigating officers and some of the seized items were sent to CFSL and FSL, Kolkata for examination purposes.The minutes of various board meetings which had been taking place since 2004, vide CFSL report dated January 25, 2012 show that the minutes of all the Management Committee meetings in AMRI were sent to Board Members and further used as agenda for board meetings.This is indicative of awareness on the part of the directors about the internal management of the hospital.Mere absence of some directors from some meetings does not absolve them from their responsibilities since the minutes of such meetings were also forwarded to board members through email.The FSL report indicated that the fire started either from the illegally installed stand-alone ACs in the upper basement or from an external object.It is further indicated that the fire spread unnoticed for a considerable period of time due to the presence of cotton or similarly combustible items in the vicinity.Investigation has revealed that the hospital store and the Frank Ross pharmacy in the upper basement both contained huge quantities of cotton, gauze and blankets.Owing to the location of the record room of the hospital within the confines of the basement area, rims of paper were also stored in the same area.From the pattern of decisions taken in board meetings, it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that such decisions regarding the determination of the location of stores or maintenance of storage were outside the scope of authority of junior employees and were taken in board meetings and/or Managing Committee meetings attended by directors and senior officials.Witness statements illustrate that all board members were actively involved in the day-to-day decision making of the hospital.The board members communicated with each other and the staff by means of mails, personal meetings and verbal orders.The board of directors comprised of promoter groups, Srachi and Emami represented by the families of S.K. Todi, R.S. Agrawal, R.S. Goenka and doctors namely Dr. Mani Kumar Chhetri, Dr. Pranab Dasgupta and Dr. S. Tibriwal.It has also been pointed out that AMRI Hospitals Ltd had an ongoing agreement with the State Health Department.Under this agreement, as a Public Partnership Project, AMRI Hospitals Ltd was required to pay rent, provide free treatment to some sections of patients and include some Government nominees in the Board of Directors.With the passage of time however the presence of the Government nominated members in the Board was rendered redundant as they were made to be present in meetings only as a nominal member, with no real involvement in any decision making.The diminishing share of the Government in the share capital of AMRI and the lack of governmental guidelines regarding day-to-day management were noted as possible reasons for this restricted role of the nominees.Investigation further revealed that in spite of the West Bengal Fire Safety Act mandating the presence of a fire officer in the hospital throughout the day (24 hours), no full time officer was appointed.This decision is indicative of efforts by the owners/directors/senior officers towards minimising expenditure at the expense of safety of the patients.The decision to designate Preeta Banerjee as the person in-charge of overall administration and Sajid Hussain as the sole in-charge of the hospital buildings (accommodating not less than 300 patients at any point of time) has been brought into question.As per the statements of witnesses, both individuals lacked familiarity with fire safety norms and the hospital's evacuation plan submitted in pursuance of NABH accreditation.It has been mentioned that decisions regarding recruitment of qualified and suitable personnel and providing proper mandate to them were in the realm of the directors.The suspension of employee, namely, Haradhan Chakraborty for informing the Fire Brigade on October 9, 2011 by Preeta Banerjee due to non-adherence to the established Code Brown is an instance of the wrong messages that the directors were allowing to be conveyed to the employees.Despite accused person No. 09, Sanjib Pal (then Manager, Maintenance) submitting an undertaking by about AMRI taking effective measures to evacuate the basement within 90 days from the date of receiving NOC and informing the directors about such issues, no efforts were made to rectify the lapses.Investigation into the finances of AMRI Hospitals Ltd revealed that AMRI had an annual turnover worth several crores, much in excess of the amount required to undertake fire safety measures which could have prevented the loss of lives.The facts unravelled during investigation point towards the responsibility of the Board of Directors namely Shrawan Kumar Todi, Ravi Todi, Radheyshyam Goenka, Prashant Goenka, Manish Goenka, Dayanand Agarwal, Radheyshyam Agarwal, Dr. Mani Kumar Chhetri, Dr. Pranab Dasgupta, Rahul Todi, Preeti Surekha, Aditya Bardhan Agarwal in the administration and management of the AMRI Hospitals.As per the evidence collected by the investigators, both external authorities and internal officials had on several occasions alerted the AMRI management about the risk of fire in the hospital premises.Despite this, the accused persons (Board Members) along with Preeta Banerjee, Dr. S. Upadhaya, Sanjib Pal, and Sajjid Hussain had ignored all the suggestions and guidelines set forth, in favour of a cost cutting policy thereby compromising on the fire safety preparedness in the hospital.All the illegal omissions and conscious acts on the part of all the accused persons together ultimately culminated in the occurrence of a devastating fire which claimed the lives of 92 patients. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,957,811 | Prosecution case was that Parwati was married to Ramesh of village Dhiglepur.On the date of incident i.e. on 12th of May, 1984, she had a wordy duel with her Jethani (wife of husband's elder brother), her father was also not keeping well.Her husband had also asked her to visit her father at Ujjain if she desired; it was in this stage of mind she came to 'Mav-Padana' railway station from village Dinglepurto go to Ujjain and purchased a ticket for Ujjain.While she was standing quite unmindful and depressed at the platform the accused Mushtaque approached her and before she had narrated her woes to an old man sitting on the platform, it was through him that she had purchased a ticket for Ujjain.The train was yet to arrive when accused Mushtaque approached her addressing her as is 'Dharam Bahan' introducing himself as an acquaintance of her husband and his elder brothers.He entreated of her not to go to Ujjain and promised to take her back to Danglepur.It was around 1.00 p.m. They started for Dinglepur, walking on the railway track, they reached a bifurcation.The accused instead of proceeding towards Dinglepur, took a turn towards the route, going to the forest.The prosecutrix declined, but she was made to go, at the point of knife.As they reached a 'Nalla' the accused gave her lathi blows.She screamed but there was none to hear her screams.The accused fell her down and committed rape on her at the point of knife.The accused forcibly took her ahead.The sun was set by the time they reached a Jamun tree.She was again fell by the accused who forced himself upon her, turning a deaf ear to screams and cries.She was kept under the Jamun tree that night.Next day morning accused Nawab appeared on the scene with Abbas and Shabbir.Around 12, Nawab also committed rape on her and chastised her for her crying and repeated the felony again in the evening.She was beaten up by Nawab.In the night accused Mushtaque and Nawab made her lie beside them under the Jamun tree while the other two Abbass and Shabbir kept a watch.It was around 9.00 p.m. that some villagers including Kailash P.W. 1 (the elder brother of Parwati's husband Ramesh Dhansingh P.W. 2 came there, searching for Parwati, while others managed to escape.Parwati was sent for medical examination.She was examined by lady Asstt.The accused were arrested.her statement).JUDGMENT V.D. Gyani, J.This appeal (Cr.A. 60/ 85) is connected with Cr.A. 82/85 preferred by co-accused Mushtali, who was also jointly tried along with other accused appellants Nawab, Abbas and Shabbir.Both these appeals, therefore, were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.Appellants Mushtaque and Nawab have been found to be guilty of offence punishable Under Section 376 IPC, while appellants Abbas and Shabbir have convicted Under Section 370/34 IPC and all of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Mushtaque in addition to the above sentence, has also been found to be guilty of a charge under Section 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for three years.Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18-1-85 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Shajapur (Camp Shujalpur) in S.T. No. 80/84, the accused have preferred these appeals.Nawab was caught on the spot.They were also medically examined by Dr. Ashok Jain P.W. 5 and Dr. Sisodiya P.W. 9 as per their reports Exs.P.5 and P.6 and P.I 1, accused Mushaque, Shabbir and Nawab were found to be capable of having-sexual intercourse.As per medical examination report Ex. P.O, Parwati being a married woman was accustomed to sexual intercourse as such no definite opinion could be given by Dr. Rekha P.W. 8 about rape being committed.On completion of investigation the accused were charged and tried for the above offences.The trial Court found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.Hence this appeal.The arguments of both the learned counsel Shri M. A. Khan as also Shri Pathan, are virtually indentical except for the fact that Shri Pathan has argued for appellant Mustaque, on the point of abduction.Barring this, their arguments have remained the same.The following points have been raised by the learned counsel:(i) Lack of corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix from medical evidence;(ii) The inter se contradictions and omissions obtaining in the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses which render from evidence unreliable;(iii) The belated nature of the F.I.R. which was lodged two days after the first incident.Apart from these common points, Shri Khan raised the question of identity of the case and Shri Pathan urged that the trial Court wrongly rejected the defence version, andThe myth of corroboration now stands exploded, (see AIR 1983 SC 753 : (1983 Cri LJ 1096), Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v: State of Gujarat).What was argued that there is no corroboration from medical evidence.The loss of time between the first act and the medical examination, should not be overlooked.The FIR was lodged at 24.20 hours on 14-5-84 and thereafter the prosecutrix was sent to the lady Asstt.Surgeon for medical examination.Thereafter she was again subjected to forcible intercourse under the Jamun tree, in the evening.Next day, in the forenoon and again in the evening it was Nawab, who committed rape on her.Parwati being a married woman, she was habituated to intercourse and it was for this reason that Dr. Smt. Rakha opined that no opinion as regards commission of rape could be given by her.As far external marks of injury the evidence of Parwati is to the effect that she was compelled to submit at the point of knife.No doubt she has also stated that both the accused Mushtaque and Nawab had beaten her, and one would ordinarily expect some external marks of injury being found.There was a gap of almost 36 hours between the first act of beating and the time of medical examination.After such a long lapse of time, the possibility of finding injury marks depends on the particular part of the body where injury is inflicted, the nature of injury and the time lapsed since infliction of injury.The mere fact that no external marks of injuries were found by itself would not throw the testimony of prosecutrix overboard.As per medical examination report of Parwati Ex. P. 10, two slides were prepared from secretion in vagina and pubic hair were seen along with peticoat, duly sealed.P.W. 10 Ashok Bhardwaj the I.O. has stated in evidence that he had sent these articles for chemical examination and that report Ex. P. 14 was received from the chemical examiner.There is not a single question in her cross-examination directed to this point.These articles -- peticoat, slides of vaginal smear and pubic hair were marked as A, B-1, B-2 and B-3 and presence of human spermatozoa was confirmed on all these articles.In face of external marks of injuries it would not be correct to say that there is no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix.The presence or absence of injury on the body of the rape victim, is relevant to decide whether the act of sexual intercourse was committed with consent or not.It may be noted that this incident had taken place on 12-5-84, after the amendment, aforesaid, came into force.Learned counsel pointed certain infirmities, general speaking, in the prosecution case and more particularly in the evidence of the prosecutrix.Let us first take the delay in lodging the FIR.As a matter of fact, on facts, as established, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging the FIR.The place where-from the victim Parwati was rescued from the clutches of the accused, is about 10 kms.from the Police Station.It was night time when she was rescued and report was lodged at 24.20 hours.It cannot, therefore, be said that there was any delay in lodging the FIR.Coming to certain omissions and contradictions as pointed out by the learned counsel, they are being enumerated and specifically dealt.(a) The prosecutrix in the report Ex. P. 8 did not state that she was to go to Ujjain.(b) There was an omission in the FIR about the representation made by Mushtaque claiming acquintance of her husband and his elder brother;(c) The fact that Mushtaque gave 3.4 lathi blows while taking her on the route towards jungle; and(d) that Mushtaque lifted her peticoat; the fact that she was taken to the Jamun tree where Mushtaque fell her down and despite her screaming, committed rape.While lodging the report or at the time of recording her statement it was not expected of her to state such minor facts as rising of peticoat by the accused or the claim of acquaintance advanced by him.and the FIR Ex. P. 8, it is apparently clear that the prosecutrix did state the fact that the accused came to her and claimed that, he was acquainted with her 'Jeth' (elder brother of her husband).The only omission, if it is an omission at.all, is with regard to her husband Ramesh.But these omissions by itself is not sufficient to discard her testimony.It cannot be and ought not to be overlooked that she was making a report, soon after being rescued from the clutches of the accused.Every detail of the incident is neither necessary nor can it be expected in such a state of mind of any prosecutrix to narrate the same.Similarly, same is the case with an omission as regards appellant Mushtaque approaching her as his 'Dharam Bahan' and touching his feet.She has been cross-examined on this point at length and it must be stated that she has withstood test of cross-examination.None of these omissions, considered either separately or conjointly in such as to render her testimony unreliable.It has come in her cross-examination that her village Dinglepur was about 4.5 miles i.e. 8-10 kms.from the 'Nulla'.It was suggested to her that she was a woman of easy virtues.As far appellant Abbas and Shabbir, the only extenuating circumstance in their favour, is that they have not actually committed the offence but abetted it.The trial Court has imposed the same term of imprisonment of 10 years in respect of these appellants as well.To my mind, considering the role played by them, the ends of justice would be substantially met with, if their sentence is altered to five years instead of ten years as imposed by the trial Court. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,805,077 | Case called out in the revised list.Learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State of U.P. are present but Sri T.M.Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is not present.Heard Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.By means of this 482 Cr.P.C. application, applicants pray for quashing the Complaint Case No.4388 of 2008 Mahendra vs. Babulal and others, under Sections 379, 504 & 506 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kushinagar at Pandrauna.At the time of filing this application, notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and four weeks time was granted to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit in the matter with further direction that till next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.Though Sri T.M.Khan, learned Advocate has put his appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 but no counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the opposite parties. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,810,396 | With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, heard finally.This revision petition has been preferred by the applicant u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4/02/09 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj District Rewa in Cr.A. No. 372/08 arising out of the judgment dated 8/09/08 passed by JMFC, Mauganj in criminal case no. 618/04 whereby applicant has been convicted under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months & fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer further RI for 1 month.It is further submitted that applicant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 1 month & 5 days therefore, the ends of justice would be met if applicant may be sentenced for the period already undergone with the enhanced fine amount.Since applicant is not challenging the conviction recorded u/s 325 of IPC, in these circumstances, there is no need to narrate the facts.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has formal objection.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment alongwith the record.Since learned counsel for the applicant has not challenged the conviction recorded by Courts below u/ s 325 of IPC, same is hereby affirmed.However, the courts below have sentenced the applicant u/s 325 of IPC to undergo RI for 3 months, out of which applicant has already suffered 1 month & 5 days in jail therefore, in my opinion, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by again sending him to the jail.In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if the applicant is sentenced for the period already undergone (RI for 1 month & 5 days) with the enhanced fine amount from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1500/- in default to suffer further RI for 1 month.The revision petition is partly allowed.Let the remaining fine amount of Rs. 1300/- be deposited by applicant before the JMFC, Mauganj within two months from today.Applicant is on bail.His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately alongwith copy of this order for information and necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. Solanki) Judge navin | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,816,847 | Shri Rajiv Upadhay, counsel for the objector.Under these circumstances, either the prosecutrix is a consenting party or she has falsely implicated the applicant in this case.No alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector opposes the application and submits that prosecutrix is a 16 years old girl and the applicant took the prosecutrix with the help of 3-4 persons and she was taken forcibly and thereafter she Devendra Gaud vs State of M.P. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,958,170 | Thereafter, appellant Mahesh Chand Sharma and his vendor Mahesh Chand both went to Tehsildar's Court and made inquiries about case no.293/14 A.T and came to know that the said accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal, Prahlad Singh got their names mutated on the basis of report dated 18.8.1992 said to have been prepared under Section 22 of the Land Record Manual.In the said report, Area Lekhpal reported that accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar, sons of Parsadi are the only heirs of Jagan Prasad and Devi Prasad both sons of Bidha Ram.It was falsely stated that Jagan Prasad had no heir, while the vendor of the appellant Mahesh Chand is the only son of Late Jagan Prasad and is still alive and he is also the legal heir of his real uncle Devi Prasad who had no issues.Deepak Verma, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 9.5.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.Application No.26653 of 2007 wherein and whereby a petition filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, viz., Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar respectively under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') has been allowed and the Criminal case No.1245/IX of 2007 titled State Vs.Panna Lal and Ors.registered against them under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') on the file of Additional Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mathura and the order dated 24.9.2007 whereby and whereunder the Presiding Officer of the Court took cognizance against the accused, respondent nos.2 to 4 herein, have been quashed.Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the said order of quashment is before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08We have accordingly heard Mr. D.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Dash, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1-State.Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are mentioned hereinbelow:The appellant filed a complaint purportedly under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 13.10.2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.Pursuant to the execution of said sale deed in favour of the appellant-Mahesh Chand Sharma, he was handed over possession of the same by the vendor and since then he continues to be in possession thereof.Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08On 23.9.1996 appellant, with an intention to protect the property, started constructing boundary wall, which was objected to by Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein.They contended that the land in question, alleged to have been purchased by the appellant is recorded in their names and they were ready to fight on this issue.It appears that the Area Lekhpal had given totally untrue statement and by showing an alive person Mahesh Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 4 Chand S/o Jagan Prasad, appellant's vendor as dead had got the said names of the accused mutated.According to appellant, they had thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08On the strength of these allegations, an order under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was passed.The said application/complaint of the appellant was allowed and police registered the FIR and started investigation.Even though learned Single Judge has given the details of the family tree of the respondents and Mahesh Chand, vendor of the appellant but to decide the said case, it is not necessary to dwell on it further.Suffice it to say that Mahesh Chand is the only surviving lineage on his side of the family.Therefore, Mahesh Chand being the only person alive, inherited the entire property of Bidha Ram.Being the lawful owner of the above mentioned property, he executed the sale deed on 6.10.1986 as mentioned hereinabove in favour of appellant.As would be revealed from the facts of the case, it was Area Lekhpal who, in furtherance of his evil intentions, gave a false statement with an object to help the accused asserting that the last descendant of Bidha Ram, i.e., Mahesh Chand, vendor of the appellant had Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 5 already died.Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08Accused Respondent Nos.2 to 4 asserted that disputed property was mutated in their names on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 14.07.1974 said to have been executed by late Jagan Prasad, father of Mahesh Chand, ignoring his only son, which is highly ridiculous and certainly an afterthought.The appellant, on coming to know that names of accused have been mutated on the property of which he is the lawful owner, having purchased the same from its previous owner, Mahesh Chand, S/o Jagan Prasad, thereby moved an application before SDM, Mathura, to set aside the mutation order dated 9.10.1992, which application ultimately came to be allowed.Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed in favour of the appellant, accused-respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Agra Division, but it met the fate of dismissal.The matter thus came to an end as far as mutation proceedings were concerned.Looking to the adamant and offensive attitude of the accused, the appellant was constrained to move a Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 6 complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate, Mathura who directed to investigate the matter and register a case against the accused- respondents.The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the said final report of the police, filed a Protest Petition in the Court of A.C.J.M., Mathura on 19.3.2005, who treated it to be a complaint and fixed the case for recording of the statement of the appellant.Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08During the pendency of this Revision, the appellant's protest petition dated 19.3.2005 was dismissed in default by the learned Magistrate.On coming to know about the dismissal of the said protest petition, appellant filed another Criminal Revision No. 526/2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura.The Additional Sessions Judge allowed both the Revisions vide its judgment dated 31.10.2005 and set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 7.6.2005 treating the protest petition to be a complaint as also Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 7 the order of dismissal of the said petition.Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08Pursuant to the directions of the learned Addl.The accused moved the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. as mentioned hereinabove with a prayer for quashing the charge sheet and taking cognizance thereof.The same is accordingly hereby set aside and quashed.As a necessary consequence thereof, learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the Criminal Complaint filed by appellant herein against the accused- respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in accordance with law and on merits at an early date and endeavour would be made by him to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.The appeal stands allowed.[V.S. SIRPURKAR] New Delhi.[DEEPAK VERMA] | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,818,703 | Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.The applicant is apprehending his arrest for offences punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. & Section 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Crime No. 153/2015 registered with Police Station Jahangirabad, Bhopal.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that some of the applicants have filed a writ petition in this Court for quashing the FIR.The Writ Court by a consent order disposed of the writ petition by laying down certain terms and conditions therein.The relevant terms and conditions for the said purposes is that the accused persons shall cooperate in the investigation in the query and they have been not arrested without giving them a clear seven days notice.It was further submitted that the main accused Shriniwas Tiwari, the then Speaker of the M.P. Vidhan Sabha has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.Similarly, other accused persons namely Satyanarayan Sharma and Arun Tiwari have been granted bail by the Supreme Court.Copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court has been produced for perusal.It is submitted that notice for arrest was served on 21st June, 2015 and thereafter also he appeared before the Investigating Agency.He, therefore, prays that the application for anticipatory bail be allowed.The bail application has been vehemently opposed by Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate and shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.After hearing the rival submissions at length and considering the fact that applicant in this petition is beneficiary of order issued by the State Government and the main allegation is against Shriniwas Tiwari who has already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court, this application is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of applicants arrest, in connection with Crime No.153/2015 registered at Police Station Jahagirabad, Bhopal, (M.P.), he be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.The applicant would abide the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. This order shall remain in force only for a period of three months from today or till filing of challan whichever is earlier.C. stands disposed of.C.C. on payment of usual charges. | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits