id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,958,237 | Criminal appeal No. 63 of 1978 has been preferred by the original accused No. 1, Doma, while Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1978, has been preferred by original accused No. 2 Diwan, both of whom in a joint trial, were convicted by the Special Judge, Bhandara for the offences under Section 161 read with Sec 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A compendious sentence against each of them was passed sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.Appellant Doma original accused No. 1 was working as a Patwari with his headquarters at mouza Irali while appellant Diwan original accused No. 2 was working as a Kolwal at mouza Umri at the material time.Maroti (P. W. 3) resident of Umri had agreed to purchase some land from one Kisan Brahmankar and because of the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, he required a permission from the Collector for which he required certain documents from the Patwari.It is alleged by the prosecution that Sitaram and his father Maroti had approached appellant Doma, who was the Patwari, several times for getting these documents from him.Appellant Doma every time used to demand a bribe of Rs. 50/- from them for supply of those documents.On 8th January 1977, it is alleged that the Patwari made a demand of Rs. 50/- stating that the amount should be paid to appellant Diwan, who was the Kotwal, and collect the papers from him.It is then alleged that Sitaram contacted Diwan Kotwal on 9-1-1977 and enquired from him about the documents and learnt that the documents were received by him from the Patwari, but he was told that the documents would be handed over to him only after Rs. 50/- were paid, It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 10-1-1977 when Sitaram happened to come to Bhandara for his work he met appellant Doma where again Doma told him to pay Rs. 50 to Diwan Kotwal and collect the documents from him.On 11.1.1977 Sitaram, on the advice of his relative, thought of approaching Anti Corruption Bureau and report the matter.A wireless message was sent by Thokal the same day at 1.55 p.m. to Deputy Superintendent of Police and Police Inspector A.C. & P.I.B. Nagpur seeking the necessary services from them.As their services were not available and as the matter was urgent Thokal approached Shri Thaore (P. W. 6), Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhandara, along with complainant Sitaram and sought his permission to investigate into this crime.Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Thaore, after being satisfied, granted the necessary permission to P.S.I. Thokal to investigate into the matter and to lay a trap.Thokal then requisitioned the services of two clerks from Education Department namely, Pralhad (P.W. 2) and one Anand-rao and made necessary preparations for the trap after carrying out the demonstration with the use of Phenolphthalein powder.After completing the necessary formalities for laying the trap, the raiding party left Bhandara by State Transport bus and reached village Umri at 8.00 p.m. As it was night time it was decided to lay the trap the next morning.The members of the raiding party slept overnight in the house of Sitaram.It is then alleged that the next morning Sitaram and panch witness Pralhad (P. W. 2) contacted Diwan Kotwal at his house and asked him to come with the necessary papers which were with him.It is then alleged that Diwan Kotwal came with these papers to the house of Sitaram.Sitaram, his father Maruti and panch witness Pralhad were sitting in the verandah, while the other members of the raiding party were inside the house.The Kotwal, it is alleged, handed over those documents to Sitaram, who, in his turn, handed them over to panch Pralhad, who noticed that only one document, namely, map exh.35 was signed by the Patwari while the rest of the documents at Exs.36 to 38 were unsigned.Pralhad brought this fact to the notice of Sitaram and his father Maroti.Upon this they requested the Kotwal to bring the signatures of Patwari Doma on these documents.Alter Sitaram received this chit Ex. 31, he took out the bundle of currency notes stained with phenolphthalein powder and handed over the same to Diwan Kotwal, who accepted them and counted them with both the hands.Immediately thereafter the agreed signal was given and the raiding party appeared in the varandh.The Kotwal in a frightened state threw away those notes on the ground.The usual test with the solution of sodium carbonate was carried out and it was found that the fingers of both the hands of the Kotwal tested one after the other in the fresh solution yielded positive result, a circumstance, which according to the prosecution, confirmed that he had accepted the amount.The chit at Ex. 31 was also attached from Sitaram and after necessary investigation both these appellants came to be prosecuted under the aforesaid offences.Appellant Doma Patwari denied that he agreed to supply the documents on receipt of a bribe of Rs. 50/- which he directed to be paid to appellant Diwan Kotwal.He admitted that he was approached by Maroti for securing those documents.He also admitted that he had prepared the document at Exhs.35 to 38 to be given to Maroti.He had signed only one document namely, the map Ex. 35, but others were not signed as he wanted some information.Those documents were kept on his table and some one took them away.He denied that he handed over those documents to Diwan Kotwal with any instructions.He further stated that his relations with Diwan Kotwal were strained and he has been falsely involved in this case.Appellant Diwan Kotwal also denied that those documents were handed over to him by the Patwari, or that he was instructed that he should hand over the same to Maroti or Sitaram on payment of Rs. 50/-.According to him, these documents at Exs.35 to 38 were already with Sitaram and he never handed over any documents to him that morning at the time of the trap.He stated that he refused to accept any money from Sitaram though he was insisting that it should be accepted and be paid to Doma Patwari.As regards the chit at Ex. 31 he admitted that it is in his own hand and that it was written at the house of sitaram after the trap, but he denied that it was written by him voluntarily under the circumstances, as alleged by the prosecution.He stated that it was got written from him by the P. S. I,The learned Special Judge relying upon the evidence of Sitaram (P. W. 1), Pralhad (P. W. 2) and Maroti (P. W. 3) found that the offences were duly brought home against both the accused and convicted them as aforesaid and hence these appeals.Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for appellant Doma, submitted that except the evidence of Maroti and his son Sitaram, there is no other evidence to show that appellant Doma had made any demand for any amount for supply of documents.The evidence of both these interested witnesses is vague and no specific dates or places are mentioned by both of them whom the alleged demands were made by appellant Doma.It was further submitted that since relations of Doma with Diwan Kotwal were strained, the services of the latter could not be employed by him for receiving the bribe amount.Appellant Doma was residing at village Irali, while Maroti, Sitaram and Diwan Kotwal were residing at Umri and it is submitted that their relations inter se were friendly and an anxiety is evinced during trial by Sitaram and Maroti to exonerate appellant Diwan Kotwal.He, therefore, submitted that the possibility of Maroti and Sitaram, who may have been aggrieved because the documents were not supplied to them early as demanded, trying falsely to implicate him through appellant Diwan Kotwal could not be ruled out.It is also submitted that there is no evidence that appellant Doma had handed over the documents at Ex. 35 to 38 any time to appellant Diwan Kotwal.The chit at Ex. 31, which is said to have been written by appellant Diwan by which appellant Doma is sought to be implicated, is a highly suspicious document and there is reason to believe that it was purposefully got executed from appellant Diwan Kotwal at the instance of the P. S.I. to involve this appellant Doma by hook or by crook.Shri Hardas, the learned Counsel for appellant Diwan Kotwal, submitted that the evidence of complainant Sitaram (P. W. 1) who is principal witness, did not support the prosecution story that appellant Diwan accepted the amount to be paid to appellant Doma.The evidence, on the other hand, shows that he refused to accept any thing, though he was trying to offer and in that attempt the left hand of this appellant Diwan happened to touch the bundle of smeared currency notes, which ultimately fell on the ground.When the evidence of complainant Sitaram, who in fact is in no better position than an accomplice, wholly explodes the prosecution story so far as appellant Diwan is concerned, he submitted that it is not necessary to look for any corroboration to this evidence.The evidence also shows that the chit at Ex. 31 was got executed from appellant Diwan by the P. S. I. Thokal only to supply some missing link.Lastly he submitted that appellant Diwan was not a public servant and that the sanction given by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Thaore (P. W. 6) was illegal.I must say at the outset that the conviction of both the appellants cannot be sustained.What is alleged is that both the appellants in pursuance of their common intention demanded gratification otherwise than a legal remuneration and thus abused their position as public servants, it is not the prosecution case that both the appellants in any joint meeting had made a demand either with Maroti or his son Sitaram.What is alleged is appellant Doma made a demand of Rs. 50/- for supply of the documents separately with Maroti and behind the back of the appellant Diwan Kotwal, directing them that the amount be paid to appellant Diwan who would supply them the documents.If the evidence of either Maroti or Sitaram inspires no faith so far as this alleged agreement with appellant Doma is concerned, the whole basis of the prosecution story must vanish.Appellant Diwan Kotwal was to act as an agent so to say for appellant Doma in this affair.In a way he was only the extended hand of appellant Doma and if the evidence shows that appellant Diwan was an innocent person and he in fact had no reason to accept anything either for himself or for Doma, it constitutes a serious lacuna, in the prosecution story as sought to be made out against both the accused.Corning now to the oral evidence, Sitaram (P, W. 1) deposed that he himself had approached the Patwari for documents, but the patwari demanded Rs. 50/- as a bribe, which he agreed to pay.Further in his examination-in-chief itself he deposed that the next day when he came to Bhandara he happened to meet the Patwari at the bus stand and he had learnt from him that the documents were ready and were with the Kotwal and that only one document was signed and the rest were unsigned, which he would sign after the amount was paid to Kotwal.This part of the evidence of Sitaram appears to be an improvement.This story again itself appears highly improbable.If he had really agreed to supply the " documents on receipt of Rs. 50/- and if necessary instructions were also given to Diwan Kotwal to hand over the documents only after receiving Rs. 50/- there was no necessity for appellant Doma Patwari to sign only one document and not to sign the rest and to give incomplete documents to Diwan Kotwal.In the examination-in-chief he then stated that appellant Diwan produced these documents and when it was discovered that some documents were not signed by appellant Doma he asked him to bring his signatures on the same to which appellant Diwan Kotwal said that he (Sitaram) himself should get signatures of the Patwari for which he would give him a chit.He then said that when he took out the amount from the pocket and wanted to hand over the same to the Kotwal, he refused to accept the same.However, his left hand touched the currency notes as they fell on the ground.In his furfher examination-in-chief he stated that the Kotwal never accepted the amount from him and never counted the same with his both hands.Thereafter a permission was granted to put questions to Sitaram (P. W. 1) in the nature of cross-examination.Even so he adhered to the same statement that appellant Diwan Kotwal never accepted the amount from him.During cross-examination he admitted that in his report at Ex. 28 he had never stated that he had approached Doma Patwari for the documents and that the latter had made a demand of Rs. 50/-from him, or that he had agreed to pay the amount to the patwari through the Kotwal.He also omitted to mention this material fact in his statement under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also.It was my intention to catch Patwari by reporting against him.In further cross-examination Sitaram (P. W. 1) also admitted that in his report at Ex. 25 and in the police statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. he never stated that when he met the Patwari at the S. T. bus stand the previous day he was told that he had signed only one document and that the rest of the documents would be signed after receiving the amount.Again he re-affirmed that the Patwari never agreed to accept the amount from him at the time of the trap.At the time of incident, Diwan Kotwal told me that as Meshram Patwari was demanding Rs. 50/-, I should directly pay the amount to him and get his signatures on the documents which were not signed by him.This admission in fact negatives his earlier version that Diwan Kotwal had agreed to accept the amount as an agent for Doma Patwari.If both the appellants had a pre-concert and such a mode of payment of illegal gratification was acceptable to both the accused and they both had so conveyed to Sitaram, it is strange that Diwan Kotwal should adopt such an attitude when the amount was actually offered to him,Maroti (P. W. 3), the father of Sitaram, no doubt deposed that when he approached appellant Doma, he had made a demand for Rs. 50/- for supply of documents.He further stated that he approached Doma again along with Diwan Kotwal when the latter requested the patwari to accept Rs. 30/- only, but the patwari paid no heed.He had omitted to make any mention about this material fact in his statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Since he omitted to state this very material fact which was calculated to establish a common design or meeting of minds of both the appellants, this must be branded as a deliberate improvement during the trial.According to him, at the time of the trap his son Sitaram handed over the amount to Kotwal and asked him to bring the signatures of the Patwari on the documents for which he scribed a chit and gave it to Sitaram.In his cross-examination he further stated that the Patwari and the Kotwal were not pulling on well as the Patwari troubles the Kotwal.Thus he belies the version of other prosecution witnesses that this chit was written voluntarily.His evidence in fact shows that the chit was actually got written by the P. S. I. after the trap.It would be pertinent to refer to the contents of this chit which are to this effect: "Kindly put signatures on the documents of Maroti Mangru Gadekar.Received remuneration for that." Now this document the chit Ex. 31, which is relied upon as a key stone of the prosecution story in pooh-poohed by the witness, who is no better than an accomplice as a dishonest creation of evidence with some sinister intention.He also further stated in his cross-examination that at the time of the trap this Kotwal was saying to his son that the amount should be paid directly to the Patwari and he should take his signatures on the papers.He also opined that according to him the Kotwal had not committed any offence.Nathu (P. W. 4) examined by the prosecution in fact did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.He came to depose that when he had visited Doma Patwari to pay the land revenue he found the Kotwal present there.He heard the Patwari asking the Kotwal to carry the papers to Maroti or to his son with a direction that Maroti or Sitaram should be told to see him 1981 Cri.L.J./42 V with the papers and the bribe of Rs. 50/-.Thus he came to make out a totally different story and is of no avail for the prosecution.Panch witness Pralhad (P. W. 2) no doubt deposed as per the prosecution version, but being a panch witness he was interested in "the" trap and he was a partisan witness.In the absence of any other evidence it is difficult to accept his version that the papers were handed over by accused No. 2 Diwan to Sitaram at the time of the trap, that the accused No. 2 had accepted the amount and that he executed the chit at Ex. 31 voluntarily.18. P. S. I. Thokal (P.W. 10) in his cross-examination stated that it was only at the time of the seizure of the documents after the trap that he came to know that only one document Ex. 35 was signed, while the rest of the documents were unsigned.In this connection it is pertinent to note that panch witness Pralhad (P. W. 2) had stated that after he and Sitaram came from the house of Diwan Kotwal in the morning before the trap he happened to see the documents and found that one was signed by the Patwari while the rest were not and that he had told this fact to P.S.I. Thokal before the arrival of Diwan Kotwal.He further stated that when he brought this fact to the notice of P. S. I. Thokal, as a possible hurdle in their way, the P. S. I. said that let appellant Diwan Kotwal come with the papers and they would see what should be done about it.The P. S. I. denied that he was so informed by Pralhad and deposed that it was at the time of seizure only that he came to know this fact.It appears that this is a purposeful suppression of the fact in his anxiety to eschew and shun his connection in any manner with Ex. 31 which refers to signing of the documents by Doma Kotwal and which according to Maroli was got scribed at the instance of the P.S.I. from appellant Diwan Kotwal,It may be pointed out that in the oral report Ex. 25 it was stated that on 8-1-1977 Maroti had visited appellant Doma along with one Kawadu of his village in whose presence Doma had repeated the demand for Rs. 50/-.Further Maroti in his evidence stated that he had told his vendor Brahmankar that the Patwari was demanding Rs. 50/- for supply of the documents.The trap was to be operated in the evening on 12-1-1977, but as the raiding party reached in the night, it was postponed to the following day. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,823,716 | This is second bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C on being rejection of first bail application as not pressed, however this application is filed on changed circumstance.The applicant apprehends their arrest for an offence under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506B/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.75/2015 registered at Police Station Bhalumada District Anuppur.Learned counsel for the applicants contends that for the same incident cross cases were registered for the similar offences.The accused in the crime number of cross case has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 15/06/2015 in M.Cr.C. No. 8136/2015, thus considering the aforesaid changed circumstance, and as the offences are similar in present crime number as well as in Crime No.76/2015, however, prayer is made to enlarge present applicants also on bail.They are directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial.In the event of arrest, applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/-each with a separate surety of like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the applicants during currency of bail.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 452 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. |
195,943,064 | ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.16780 of 2008 Prayer in Crl.... Petitioners in Crl.1.State Rep. By its Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore.[Crime No.53 of 2008]Amit Mehta [2nd respondent has been impleaded as per order dated 22.07.2013]... Respondents in Crl.O.P. No.18532 of 2008Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18532 of 2008:- Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Crime No.53 of 2008 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore, the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.18534 of 20081.State Rep. By its Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore.2.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City,Coimbatore.3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.Amit Mehta [4th respondent has been impleaded as per order dated 22.07.2013]... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.18534 of 2008Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18534 of 2008:- Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondent to consolidate all the complaints that have already been received and those which may be received against the petitioner in respect of non-payment of monies for supplies effected to it in Crime No.53 of 2008 on the file of the 1st respondent.For Petitioner(s):R.Karthikeyan for petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16780 of 2008 and petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.18532 and 18534 of 2008For Respondent(s):Mr.M.Maharaja, APP for 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.16780 and 18532 of 2008 and respondents 1 to 3 in Crl.O.P.No.18534 of 2008:No Appearance for 2nd respondent in Crl.The brief facts of the case would be as follows:- The de facto complainant is the Proprietor of a company known as M/s.Max Chem Pharma.The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16780 of 2008, who is A16, and the petitioners 2 & 3 in Crl.O.P.Nos.18532 and and 18534 are the Directors of yet another company known as M/s.Pioneer Poultry Feeds and Poultry Products Private Limited, Trichy Road, Pongalur, Coimbatore.It is alleged that the accused company approached the de facto complainant company for purchasing feeds and chemicals for their birds on dates.Accordingly, de facto complainant company supplied the goods on various dates.O.P.No.16780 of 2008:- Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Crime No.53 of 2008 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore, the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.O.P. No.18532 of 2008O.P.Nos.16780 and 18532 of 2008 and 4th respondent in Crl.O.P.No.18534 of 2008 COMMON ORDER Since common issues are involved in these original petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order.Seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.53 of 2008 on the file of the 1st respondent police, the petitioners, who are accused in the said case have come up with these original petitions.Amit Mehta , who is the 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.16780 and 4th respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.18532 and 18534 of 2008, is the de facto complaint in the said case.Towards the said transactions, the accused company have also issued cheques on various dates.But, later on, the accused company closed the bank account.In the said transaction, a sum of Rs.20,28,500/- was due from the accused company.The accused company, more particularly, the accused, who are Directors of the accused company have failed to repay the said amount.This, according to the de facto complainant company amounts to offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.On this complaint, the present case has been registered.Seeking to quash this FIR, the petitioners, who are accused in the case in Crime No.53 of 2008 on the file of City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, are before this court with the original petitions in Crl.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.18534 of 2008 have come up seeking to consolidate all the complaints that have already been received and those which may be received against the petitioner in respect of non-payment of money for supplies effected to it in Crime No.53 of 2008 on the file of the 1st respondent.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the records carefully.Though notice has been served on the de facto complainant - Mr.Amit Mehta, he has not made appearance either in person or through a counsel though all these petitions have been listed together all through and thus, it shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter further.Therefore, I proceed to dispose of these original petitions on considering the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and on perusing the records.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even if all the allegations found in the FIR are taken on the face of it that they were true, even then, no offence as enumerated in the FIR would be made out.Therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed, the learned senior counsel contended.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, stoutly opposed these original petitions.According to him, the allegations in the FIR would certainly make out offences as stated in the FIR.He would, however, submit that though this case has been pending from the year 2008, because of an order of interim stay granted by this court, no further progress could be made in the matter of investigation.I have considered the above submissions carefully. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,594,420 | Out of the total fine of `2,00,000/-, if recovered, a sum of `1 Crl.The prosecution version can be extracted from the impugned judgment as under:"The case of the prosecution is that on 25.4.2006 Smt. Atri Devi had come to the police station alongwith her daughter and lodged DD no.27A stating that her husband Sant Ram had committed rape with her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix N on which she got recorded the statement of the prosecutrix.In her statement to the police the prosecutrix has stated that the behaviour of her father towards her was not good in the absence of her mother and he never kept her like his own daughter and used to kept her as his wife.She has told the police that after 3-4 days of Diwali in the year 2005, in the morning hours when her mother had gone outside to ease herself, the accused committed rape upon her and when she tried to raise an alarm he gagged her mouth.She further stated that at that time his father was also having a knife in his hand and threatened her that she will kill her as well as her mother in case she disclose to anyone.According to the complainant/prosecutrix due to fear she did not disclose the fact of rape upon her to anybody even after the lapse of one and half months.After 8-10 days of Holi her mother inquired from her regarding the enlargement of abdomen but the prosecutrix again did not tell anything to her mother due to fear after which she was got medically examined by her mother and the doctors told her that the prosecutrix was pregnant for about 5 months.It is only thereafter that the prosecutrix disclosed the whole of the incident to her mother.A. 877/2010 Page 2 of 19On the basis of the said complaint of the prosecutrix N the present FIR was registered and the prosecutrix was medically examined."...PW1 has deposed that after Diwali, she was in periods and in the morning hours her father committed rape upon her when her mother went outside after crossing the railway track to ease herself.She has testified that when she tried to raise alarm her father gagged her mouth and at that time her father was also having a knife in his hand and committed rape upon her.She has further stated that her father threatened her that in case she disclosed this fact of rape to her mother then he will kill her mother.According to the witness, due to fear she did not disclose anything to anybody even after the lapse of one and half month.She has deposed that after one and half months, one day her father came to the house in Crl.A. 877/2010 Page 4 of 19 drunken condition and started beating her as well as her mother and wounded the head of her mother and thereafter in the morning she alongwith her mother went to the house of her Nana at Meerut without informing her father.She has also deposed that her mother collected her Chacha and her dadi and informed them about the problem asking them to resolve the problem on which they suggested to them to go to some unknown place.It was then that they all including three brothers, mother and her father came to Bijwasan where they remained for about a month and from Bijwasan they shifted to Trilokpuri.According to PW1, near the festival of Rakhi she gave birth to a male baby.She has testified that when the doctor informed them that the issue was of 5 months old then they reported the matter to the police when her statement was recorded which statement is Ex.PW1/A. The witness has also identified the thumb impression of her mother on the said statement.She has deposed that it was only thereafter that her daughter told her of being raped by her father the accused Sant Ram forcibly against her wishes near the festival of Diwali in the year 2006, but she did not tell her the exact date of the incident.According to the witness, her daughter also told her that the accused had threatened to kill her if she disclose this fact of rape to her or anyone, due to which reason, her daughter did not disclose this fact to her..."As stated hereinabove, the factum of the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix came to light when there was an enlargement of abdomen of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix underwent an ultrasound on 21.03.2006 which disclosed that the prosecutrix was carrying a pregnancy of 20 weeks.The blood sample of the prosecutrix 'N', the male child 'S' and the appellant were collected in DNA Unit, FSL Rohini.The blood samples were isolated for the purpose of DNA fingerprint profile.It may be noted that the prosecutrix, her mother and other siblings were dependent on the appellant for their shelter as also for their bread and butter.Keeping in view the economic and social background the prosecutrix did not have the choice to resist the appellant's act and thereafter she wanted to hide the same not only from her mother but also from her maternal grandmother.In this regard it will be appropriate to refer to PW-1's testimony.She deposed that her mother called her dadi and chacha for resolution of the problem.G. P. MITTAL, J.The appellant (Sant Ram) impugns judgment dated 03.04.2010 and order on sentence dated 24.04.2010 in Sessions Case No.1026/2009 whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 and Section 506 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.A fine of `2 lakh for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC was also imposed on the appellant.In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to further undergo SI for a period of two years for the offence under Section 376 IPC and SI for a period of one week for the offence under Section 506 IPC.A. 877/2010 Page 1 of 19 lakh was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix and another sum of ` 1 lakh was ordered to be paid to the child under Section 357 Cr.P.C.A. 877/2010 Page 1 of 19It was directed that the appellant shall not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years.The appellant was accused of and convicted for raping his own daughter who, according to the prosecution, was 16/17 years of age.On the pointing of Smt. Atri Devi the accused was arrested and medically examined.Thereafter on 30.7.2006 the prosecutrix delivered a male child at SGM Hospital and since the prosecutrix was not intending to keep the baby with her, the custody of the male child was handed over to Child Welfare Committee.In order to get the DNA comparison, the blood samples of the baby, accused and prosecutrix were collected by the doctors at SGM Hospital and their DNA sample were also drawn in the FSL Rohini.During the course of investigations the bone x-ray examination of the prosecutrix was also got conducted and after completion of the investigations the charge sheet was filed in the court."On appellant's pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.PW1, the prosecutrix 'N' and PW6 Smt. Arti Devi her mother are the material witnesses; rest of the witnesses have provided various links in the case.They lose significance in view of the prosecution case and the defence taken by the appellant to which we shall advert to a little later.In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant, who as stated above, is father of the prosecutrix, denied that he committed rape on the prosecutrix.With regard to matching of DNA profile of the appellant, the prosecutrix and the male child born to the prosecutrix, the appellant took the plea that the DNA test had not been properly conducted and the genotype similarity in result may have come because he was admittedly father of prosecutrix.When the appellant was given an opportunity to explain the reason for his false implication, he stated that his wife (PW6) and her daughter (PW-1) had implicated him falsely for money.They Crl.A. 877/2010 Page 3 of 19 had taken possession of his assets including his plot of land at C-157, Shiv Vihar, Karala, Delhi.He stated that he was victim of a conspiracy.A. 877/2010 Page 3 of 19In order to decide the instant appeal, the following questions needs to be answered: (i) whether there was sexual intercourse between the appellant and the prosecutrix; (ii) whether the age of the prosecutrix was less than 16 years and thus she was incapable of giving any consent; and (iii) if she was not less than 16 years, whether she had given consent to sexual intercourse so as to take it out of the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC.There was a long delay in lodging the FIR.The appellant challenges the credibility of the two star witnesses of the prosecution.These factors have also to be considered to find out if the prosecutrix was really raped by her own father.RE: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE:As stated earlier, PW1, the prosecutrix 'N' and PW6, her own mother are the material witnesses on this aspect.The witness has further deposed her mother left her there and went Shamli where her mother lived about two months and came back after two months.A. 877/2010 Page 4 of 19According to PW1, there was an occasion of marriage of her Buas daughter on account of which her father came at Meerut at her Nanas house and took them to Bhajanpura where the marriage was going to take place.I was there that her mother raised question about the enlargement of her abdomen on which she informed her mother about the rape committed by her father.She has deposed that her ultrasound was got conducted and doctors stated that she is already pregnant and a 5 months issue is in her abdomen and delivery is the only alternative.She has deposed that her medical examination was got conducted by the police at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and her undergarments also might have been taken by the doctor and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate which statement is Ex.PW1/B. The witness is unable to tell her age at the time of incident and has deposed that he had not attended any school.She has further deposed that the DNA test of the male child was also conducted.A. 877/2010 Page 5 of 19The witness PW1 was subjected to a lengthy cross- examination wherein she has denied the various suggestions put by the counsel for the accused particularly on the aspect of being a consenting party to the act which she has specifically denied and nothing much has come out from the cross- examination of the prosecutrix.PW6 Smt. Atri Devi is the mother of the prosecutrix N and wife of the accused Sant Ram.She has corroborated the testimony of PW1 to the extent that in the year 2006 in the summer season she noticed some enlargement of abdomen of her daughter and made inquiries from her daughter who did not tell her anything about it.She thereafter took her daughter to a private clinic at Bhajanpura where her daughter was medically examined and doctor told her that her daughter is having pregnancy of about 5-6 months.On 03.01.2007 after recording appellant's 'No Objection Certificate', for taking his blood sample for carrying out DNA test, the application was allowed and the jail authorities were directed to produce the appellant in the FSL for the purpose of taking his sample.A perusal of the identification form (Ex.PW-12/C collectively) reveals that the blood samples of the prosecutrix 'N', her baby child Suraj and appellant Sant Ram were obtained on 22.01.2007 by Dr. A.K. Srivastava.He further proved his report Exs.PW-12/A and PW-12/B. He concluded that the DNA profiling (STR Crl.A. 877/2010 Page 7 of 19 analysis) performed on the exhibits provide is sufficient to conclude that the Exhibits 1 and 2 are the biological parents of the Exhibit 3 (i.e. Baby male Child Suraj)."A. 877/2010 Page 7 of 19The sample got putrefied and in order to avoid any delay in examination of the sample after its drawl, the appellant was produced before Dr. A.K. Srivastava, Senior Scientific Officer for this purpose.A. 877/2010 Page 8 of 19 because he was father of the prosecutrix.Here again, she gave her age as 16 years although it was after one year and four months of registration of the case.No authentic evidence either in the shape of the school first attended or any certificate from the panchayat or municipality was produced.The prosecution, therefore, being aware of its obligation to prove the prosecutrix's age obtained medical opinion with regard to her age.A. 877/2010 Page 10 of 19 to be less than 18 years and as per X-ray examination, the bone age was found to be between 16-17 years.Consequently, on the date of alleged rape, that is, in November, 2005, the prosecutrix was about 17 years of age.The learned Trial Court considered the ossification test and in spite of lack of any reliable oral or documentary evidence with regard to her age held that the prosecutrix at the time of the incident was between 15 to 16 years and was, thus, incapable of giving the consent.This finding reached by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) cannot be sustained as the oral evidence produced by the prosecution with regard to the age was merely a rough estimate and, in the circumstances, the ossification test was the only evidence which ought to have been considered to return a finding on the prosecutrix's age.Since she was less than 18 years on 14.07.2006; she was, therefore, about 17 years on the date of the commission of the offence.A. 877/2010 Page 10 of 19RE: CONSENT:Taking into consideration the relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant, consent to sexual intercourse is the most crucial question to be determined in the instant case.It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the factum of the sexual intercourse was not disclosed by the prosecutrix to her mother either immediately after the incident or even thereafter till prosecutrix's abdomen was found to be exceptionally large raising suspicion in her mother's mind.It is urged that as per the prosecutrix she (PW-1) along with her mother (PW-6) had gone to her Crl.It is urged that the prosecutrix and her mother wanted to grab the appellant's property and thus the act of consensual sex was converted into rape by the prosecutrix in collusion with her mother.A. 877/2010 Page 11 of 19We have already extracted PW1's (prosecutrix's) and PW6's testimonies earlier.The tanner of the cross- examination, while suggestion was being put to PW-1 (the prosecutrix) that she had physical relations with the appellant at her will, implies appellant's plea of informed consent to the sexual act by the prosecutrix.A. 877/2010 Page 12 of 19It has to be borne in mind that on the date of incident the prosecutrix was aged 16-17 years.She testified that the act of sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant by keeping her at knife point and under the threat that if the fact is disclosed to any person she (the prosecutrix) and her mother will be killed.There is strong possibility that the appellant was armed with a knife while the prosecutrix was made a prey to the act. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,946,755 | The evidence of P.W.4 does not indicate any demand of dowry from Sabitri.P.W.5 who is the brother of Sabitri stated that both accused used to assault his sister.Mr. Mallick, therefore, contended that having regard to prosecution evidence, Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant under Section 498A/306 I.P.C. and there appears no ground whatsoever to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence.We have considered the submission of Mrs. Goswami and Mr. Mallick.It is needless to mention that Sabitri died by hanging on 18.05.1985 and it was proved by P.W.16 (Dr. S. Roy) who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sabitri on 19.05.1985 and she found the ligature mark high up in the neck and she opined that the death of Sabitri was due to asphyxia resulting from ante mortem hanging and the cross-examination by the defence was declined.First point on which Mrs. Goswami relied, was regarding the delay of lodging F.I.R. As per submission it was nothing but a false allegation and there was no explanation on behalf of the prosecution.In the F.I.R. (Ext.1) lodged by Subas Chandra Mallick who is the brother of Sabitri, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that the incident took place on 18.05.1985 at 12 noon and Ext.1 was lodged on 19.05.1985 and he came to know that the enquiry was not started and he contacted with the S.P., Midnapur and thereafter the case was started.Moreover, P.W.14 who was the initial I.O. of this case stated in his evidence that on the basis of the information by one Narayan Palmal the G.D. was lodged being No.641 dated 18.05.1985 (Ext.2) and the U.D. case No.17 dated 18.05.1985 was started.Therefore, there was no delay for lodging the F.I.R. and the proper explanation was given from the part of the prosecution and as such the possibility of concoctions and embellishment and the improvement do not arise.The next point that awaits consideration is whether the appellants were guilty of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal code and abatement of the suicide.If the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is established, the Court may draw presumption that the appellants abetted the suicide committed by the deceased and the appellants are guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. In the present case, the deceased committed suicide about 14 years after her marriage.As such the presumption as per provision of Section 113A of the I.P.C. is not applicable.It is to be considered whether the prosecution has been able to prove "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the witnesses to prove the alleged cruelty.P.W.1 who is the brother of Sabitri has stated that due to non-payment of dowry as well as not giving gold ornaments at the time of 'Annaprasan' of her youngest son she was tortured both physically and mentally.In the evidence of P.W.1, there is no evidence who demanded the dowry from Sabitri and who demanded the gold ornaments from Sabitri.P.W.12 who is the father of Sabitri did not state in his evidence about the demand of dowry.But P.W.12 stated that the accused demanded the gold ornaments from Sabitri for 'Annaprasan' of her youngest child and he (P.W.12) expressed his inability to satisfy the demand.The said demand of gold ornaments as per evidence of P.W.12 cannot be said as dowry demand as it had come about 12/14 years after the marriage of Sabitri.P.W.8 who was the cook of the house of accused stated that the accused used to quarrel with Sabitri due to latches of domestic affairs and for non-payment of dowry from her father.The above evidence of P.W.8 does not indicate the offence of cruelty as per provisions of Section 498A of the I.P.C.P.W.4 who is the neighbour the accused stated that he heard the 'golmal' from the house and he saw the assault on one or two occasions.P.C. was recorded about 3 to 6 months after from the date of occurrence and their statements are fabricated and false only to involve the accused falsely out of political rivalry.Truthful witness can be believed.In the present fact and circumstances the prosecution was unable to bring the said truthful witnesses to establish the allegation against the accused.Moreover, P.W.3, the mother of Sabitri did not state anything about the demand of dowry as well as the torture upon her, though P.W.3 visited the house of the accused on one or two occasion.If there was any demand of dowry or torture upon Sabitri by the accused, Sabitri must state the same to her mother.Therefore, the charge under Section 498A I.P.C. does not prove against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and suspicion.The next point that awaits consideration is the allegation for charge under Section 306 I.P.C.In case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide.Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of a thing.In the present case, P.W.8 stated that accused Urmila used to tell Sabitri to commit suicide and the accused persons induced Sabitri to commit suicide due to the fact that if Sabitri died accused Narayan would be married again.There is no other evidence from the prosecution witnesses to the effect that Sabitri told them to commit suicide and Narayan would marry again.The said evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused under Section 306 I.P.C. for abetting the commission of offence.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned judgment for conviction and sentence of the appellants is not sustainable and the same is liable to be and is hereby set aside.Resultantly this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.The conviction and sentence of the appellants as passed by the Learned District Judge and Sessions Judge, 4th Court Midnapur are hereby set aside.Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court along with its record in due course.ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.:I agree.(ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.) (TAPAS KUMAR GIRI, J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,948,015 | The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Pawai, District Panna in Criminal Case No.468/09, whereby the charges were framed against the respondent Nos.2 to 7, but no charge of the offence under Section 307 of IPC was framed.The facts of the case, in short are that, the respondent Nos.2 to 7 assaulted the victim/applicant and he sustained 15 injuries in all.Out of them, it was found that the applicant sustained a fracture of nasal bone.After due investigation, the police had filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 323/149, 325/149 and 506-B of IPC.The learned J.M.F.C. has also framed the charges accordingly.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the allegations are made against six persons that they assaulted the victim brutally causing 15 injuries to him.However, looking to the numbers of accused persons, it appears that they did not assault with any force so that only one fracture was caused to the victim on his nasal bone.There was no grave injury found on the head or other parts of the body of the victim and therefore prima facie, it cannot be said that the accused persons were intended to kill the victim.The doctor gave his opinion about the injury of nasal bone that it was grave in nature but it is nowhere suggested that it was fatal injury.Under such circumstances, neither the victim sustained any fatal injury nor the intentions of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 may be presumed that they were intended to kill the victim.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Badri Prasad Patel can be accepted and consequently, it is hereby dismissed.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,955,198 | No.1/State.This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 5.2.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.63/2019 by which the offence under Sections 308/34, 323 (two counts) and 294 of IPC have been framed.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondent No.2/complainant lodged a FIR against the applicants on 6.4.2018, on the allegation that the applicant No.2 was abusing his cousin brother.When the complainant intervened and objected as to why the applicant No.2 is abusing his cousin brother, as a result of which the applicant No.2 challenged that the complainant should not interfere, otherwise he would rape his mother.At that time the complainant went back to his house.At about 7:00 PM the applicants came to the house of the complainant and started abusing him.When it was objected by the complainant, then the applicant No.1 assaulted by means of lathi on his legs.Other cousin brother also tried to intervene, then the applicant No.1 also 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.1936/2019 gave lathi blow on his legs.The applicant No.2 fired two gunshots in the air.The High Court having affirmed that order, the matter was brought up to this Court. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,955,491 | Amudha, female, aged about 46 years, who is confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai is set at liberty forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case proceedings.Amudha, W/o Raju, aged about 46 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.The Detaining Authority namely, the 1st respondent, on the basis of materials, formed a subjective satisfaction that the detenue, who has committed the crime, have already came to adverse notice in one case and her acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, clamped the impugned order of detention and challenging the legality of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.M.P.Nos.390/2019 ad 679 of 2019 respectively and both the applications are pending.In a similar case registered in Central Crime Branch in Cr.No.173/2017 u/s 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 and 12(1)(d) of Passport Act 1967 bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10891/2017.In the present case on hand, the detenu is having adverse case under Sections 406, 420 IPC @ 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and 10 r/w 24 of Emigration Act, 1983 and the ground case for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 and 506 (ii) IPC and as such, the similar case relied on by the Detaining Authority cannot said to be same and therefore, the subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority in that regard is vitiated and hence prays for quashment of the same.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the Detention Order passed by the first respondent in Memo No. 11/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 12.01.2019 is set aside and the detenue namely, Tmt.(M.M.S.J.,) (M.N.K.J.,) 11.06.2019 Index:Yes/No srhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.The Commissioner of Police, The Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Chennai – 600 0093.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women,Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.286 of 2019 | ['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. |
195,959 | JUDGMENT FACTS One Mahadeo and another (accused Nos. 1 and 2) were doing extensive business in silk, yarn and other articles at Rabkavi in the Belgaum district.The partners in this business were the two accused and accused 2's father-in-law, Pattan who is dead.Some time about January 1949 one Gudi, Deputy Superintendent o£ Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, received information that the accused had cheated Government and evaded the payment of income-tax by concealing the huge profits made by them in their business.On 25-1-1949, Gudi obtained the sanction of the District Magistrate to investigate into this matter.He then went to Rabkavi accompanied by Naik, who was an Inspector in the police department.On January 24 and 25 they searched the shops and houses of the accused and seized their account-hooks.They returned to Belgaum on January 26 with these account-books.During the time they were in Rabkavi accused 2 was said to have offered to each o£ them Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 in order that they might hush up the matter.On 2lst February 1949, Gudi issued an order to Naik to examine the account-books of the accused which had been attached and to submit his report.In this report he stated that the accused were earning huge profits, that they had not shown them in their income-tax returns, that they had made false entries in their account-books and that they had not produced many of their account-books before the income-tax authorities.He also stated that the income-tax authorities had deliberately overlooked the huge profits made by the accused and had not correctly assessed them.Before Naik submitted this report, the accused had approached Naik through his friend, Keshavain, and offered to pay him Rs. 30,000 in order that the investigation of the charges against them might be dropped.Naik at first informed the accused through Keshavain that the offer made to him was not proper and that he would not accept any amount.Naik then mentioned the matter to Gudi, who advised him to accept the offer and to trap the accused.In the second week of March the accused again approached Keshavain and asked him to see Naik again.Keshavain met Naik, who told him that he would see what he could do if the accused came to Belgaum along with the moneys.This reply of Naik was conveyed by Keshavain to the accused.On 23rd March the accused and Pattan came to Belgaum.Keshavain then arranged for their meeting with Naik in the evening that day near Mitra Samaj at Belgaum.The accused accordingly met Naik at 7 or 7-30 p.m. near Mitra Samaj.They asked Naik to take Rs. 15,000 which they had brought with-them and to see that their, account-books were returned to them without -any further enquiry.Naik told them that it was not advisable to talk about such things on a public road where many people were moving about, and that the accused should see him in his room in the Police Club at about 10-30 .p.m.The accused then left after informing Naik that they would, see him again at night.Naik then informed Gudi who asked him to give a reported writing.In that report Naik stated that he had been offered a bribe of Rs. 15,000 by the accused and that action should be taken against them according-to law.Gudi took this report of Naik to the District Magistrate, who granted him permission to investigate into the offence.The District Magistrate also arranged for the additional Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, to remain present at the time when money was to be given to Naik.At about 10 p.m. Naik was searched in the "presence of the panchas.He was then left alone in his room at the Police Club.Gudi, the panchas and the Magistrate waited outside.They sat at places from which they could see what was happening inside Naik's room.The accused arrived at 10-30 p.m. and went to Naik's room.Naik asked the accused as to what help they wanted from him.Accused 1 told him that he should save them from the income-tax inquiry and arrange for the return of their account-books to them.Similar requests were made to Naik by accused 2 and accused 2's father-in-law, Pattan.On a sign being made by accused 1 to accused 2, accused 2 then handed over a bundle wrapped in a towel to Naik.Naik untied the knot of this bundle and saw that it contained currency notes.He kept them by his side and asked the accused whether they wanted any further help from him.Accused 2 inquired when the account-books would be returned to them and also stated that after these books had been returned to them, they would be burnt and destroyed in order to ensure that nothing further would happen thereafter.Naik then signalled to Gudi, who was waiting outside.Gudi accompanied by the Panchas and the Magistrate went inside Naik's room.Naik handed over to them the bundle containing currency notes.The accused were then arrested and subsequently put up for trial before the Additional Magistrate, F.C., Belgaum.They were charged with paying an illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000 to Naik in order that he might help them in getting the income-tax inquiry against them dropped and in order that he should see that the account-books attached on January 24th and 25 were returned to them.Accused 2's father-in-law was also prosecuted, but he died during the pendency of these proceedings.Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.They admitted that they had paid Rs. 15,000 to Naik on the evening 23rd March at the Police Club at Belgaum.They, however, denied that this amount had been paid-to Naik as a bribe.Accordingly the amount of Rs. 15,000 was paid by them to Naik in settlement of the Government claim for income-tax due from them.The accused appealed to the Sessions Court at Belgaum.The lower appellate Court found that the amount paid to Naik in order that he might show favour to the accused in the exercise of his official functions and not on account of the income-tax due from the accused.The Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and sentences passed upon the accused. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,959,147 | Perused the record.Heard both the parties on the point of admission.After perusal of statement of witnesses, this appeal is having arguable, hence admitted for final hearing.This is an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence awarded to the appellant.Appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 342 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation, 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.400/- with default stipulation, 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation and 9G/10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.She has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix.Learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.Learned counsel prays to allow the application and further suspend the custodial sentence and released her on bail.He prays for dismissal of the bail application. | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,959,648 | In the northern portion of this hut, the deceased along withhis wife Suman Yadav Gayasamandir, accused No. 1, and his two children of less than 5 years of age was living.His elder son aged about 8 years used to live with his father-in-law in a hutment of.The deceased was a labourer.His wife accused No. 1, used to serve as a labourer in a Steel Supplying Company at Kanjurmarg.Accordingly, the two accused came in contact at their place of work and their relationship grew up into an illegitimate connection.About 8 to 9 months prior to the date of the incident, Accused No. 2, who hails from Nagewadi, Khanapur, District Sangli, came and lived in the southern portion of the tenement of the deceased, on rent.Accused No. 2 was married about six years prior to the incident and 2 to 3 years after the marriage he deserted her.On 18-11-1987 he again married P.W. 7 Rekha and lived at Nagewadi lor a fortnight and thereafter lived in the rented room belonging to the deceased only for a period of one month.During that period P.W. 7, Rekha noticed that the accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 used to have food together in the same thali, used to go out of the hut together, work together and used to return home together.Consequently P.W. 7 Rekha, wife of accused No. 2, suspected that the two accused were having illicit relations though both of them posed that they were brother and sister.Since accused No. 2 ill-treated Rekha P.W. 7 she went to live with her father P.W. 15 Antu Keshav Karande, near Sion Hospital.On 30-1-1988 at about 5.00 p.m. accused No. 1 Suman returned to her house.At about 10.00 p.m. the deceased returned to his house from his place of work.The two accused by hitting with a grinding stone, on the head of the deceased, while he was asleep, committed his murder.They put the dead body of the deceased in a trunk.With a plan to throw away the trunk and destroy the evidence of the offence of murder they in the next morning, i.e. on 31-1-1988 brought the trunk to the door of the room of the accused No. 2 with the assistance of two persons including P.W. 5 Shashikant Kadam.Accused No. 2 took the trunk on his head, but because of the heavy weight he did not dare to take it to a longer distance.Therefore the trunk was kept in the room itself.Since he had no money the brother of the accused No. 1 handed over one golden ring to the accused they sold that ring on the same day for Rs. 1,200/- at the shop of Shital Jewellers in Kurla locality.On 1-2-1988 since the accused No. 1 did not return to their house, the father and mother of the accused No. 1 were crying.At about 7.30 p.m. accused No. 1 came to the house of her father.P.W. 6 Shantabai Suryagandh, P.W. 17 Kesharbai Sathe and some other women folk gathered there.P.W. 6 Shantabai Suryagandh questioned accused No. 1 when accused No. 1 confessed that while she was asleep on 30-1-1988 night the accused No. 2 by hitting a grinding stone on the head of the deceased committed his murder and there after both of them kept the dead body of the deceased in the trunk which was kept in her house.It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 P.S.I., Ramesh Chango Patil, that while he was on station house duty at Bhandup Police Station, at 11.15 p.m. on 1-2-1988, accusedNo.However, they broke open the lock and entered the southern room.They noticed one iron trunk covered with a quilt in the verandah of that room.The room gave a foul smell.They opened the lid of the trunk and it was found to contain a dead body of a male person.The fact of the dead body had disfigured.P.S.I. Patel called panchas.In the presence of panchas the dead body was removed out of the trunk and it was identified as that of the deceased, Yadav Sahaji Gayasamandir, by the accused No. 1 and other persons presenting in the neighbouring houses.The lungi was found in the trunk and the quilt was used to cover the trunk.P.W. 14 categorically stated that he was staying just opposite to the house of the accused and that he could see what is happening in the room of the accused.He stated that the distance between his room and the room of accused No. 1 is about 5 ft.About one month prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the accused No. 2 and his wife.He had sent his wife to her father and mother.Police brought him on the 2nd day and recovered the muddemal articles 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, sari and blouse of accused No. 1 and pant and shirt of accused No. 2 respectively.She states that accused No. 2 and she were married about 5 years back.He deposed to the Court that he had accompanied accused No. 1 to her hut at Ramabai Nagar.After reaching the spot accused No. 1 had pointed out the door of the hut but that door was latched from inside.She has spotted that door in Exhibit 7 plan.Still some reddish colour was feasible.ORDER T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.By the impugned judgment the Additional Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, found both the appellants guilty for offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and each were convicted to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 6 months.They were also convicted of the offence punishable under section 201 read with 511 and 34 I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed.Mrs. Saxena, Counsel who filed appeal on behalf of accused No. 1 has not appeared and argued before us.However, Mrs. Kamath, appointed by the State for accused NO. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 193/92 has appeared and argued the case for both the accused.Since both the appeals arise out of a single judgment of the trial Court, we have heard and disposed of the above two appeals by this common judgment.The charge against the accused was that while both the accused were living in a hut at Ramabai Nagar hutments, Bhandup (West), Bombay 400 078, between the midnight of 30-1-1988 and 01.00 A.M. of 31-1-1988, with the common intention, both of them intentionally and knowingly killed Yadav Sahaji Gayasamandir, the husband of accused No. 1, by means of assaulting him with a heavy grinding stone (pata) and other inhuman physical torture and thereby both of them committed an offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C.It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 visited the house of her father at Kanjurmarg, left her kids there, telling that her husband was missing from the previous day evening and wanted to go in search of him.Both the accused then approached the brother of accused No. 1 seeking monetary help for leaving Bombay.1 came to the police station and reported that her husband was missing since 30-1-1988 evening.He thereafter made a report in the station diary and entered the description of the missing person.Accused No. 1 thereafter went away and within just 20 minutes at about 11.35 p.m. she again came back and toid the police officers present there that some foul smell was corning out of her room.P.W. 2 P.S.I., Ramesh Chango Patil became suspicious of her conduct and along with Police Inspector Jahangirdar followed her with a photographer and petromax.When they reached the northern door of the hut they found that the the said door was closed from inside and southern door was locked from outside.When they asked for key accused No. 1 stated that she is not having the key.He also collected samples of earth mixed in blood.Accused No. 1 was arrested on 2-2-1988 and the offence was registered.The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 12 Police Inspector Humayuddin Jahangirdar.He drew the panchanama of the scene of offence attached the quilt and the grinding stone which had blood stains under panchanama.He noticed that there were patches of blood mixed in the earth and that an attempt was made to do away with it by using the cowdung paste under the guise of cleaning.Thereafter the dead body was sent to Cooper Hospital.On 2-2-1988 itself accused No. 2 was arrested by P.S.I. Gawali and produced before the Magistrate.Panchanama, Exhibit 19, was accordingly drawn by P.S.I. Jahangirdar.All these articles were forwarded to Chemical Analyser for examination.It was found that those clothes were stained with blood group 'B', that of the deceased and of human origin.The Doctor Mr. Mohan Warang, Asst.Police Surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination found the skull fractured in the temporal parietal region of scalp.It showed a depressed guttered box type crack fracture of skull and comminuted gutted fracture in the left temporal parietal region and occipital bone.He also noticed that the left temporal bone was fragmented, lacerated and torn up and brain matter was leaking out of the cavity.After completing the formalities of the investigation a chargesheet came to be filed against both the accused.Before the trial Court both the accused denied the charges.They also denied the illicit relations between them.They claimed that they were not living in the room of the deceased since one month prior to the death of the deceased.The specific case of the accused No. 1 was that during that period she was living at the place of her father in Kanjurmarg; whereas the case of the accused No. 2 is that he had left the room and gone to live to some other place, one month prior to the offence.In all the prosecution examined 17 witnesses.Though she admitted that both together go to the place of work, return together and eat together, she submitted that the other witnesses had not doubted their relationship.Regarding the other circumstances she urged that the prosecution has not established that at the time of the alleged occurrence both the accused were staying in the hut belonging to the deceased.According to her the prosecution has not proved any evidence to show that at the time of occurrence they were staying in the said room.She further challenged the prosecution case that both the accused were seen near the trunk which contained the dead body of the deceased in the verandah of the room.She criticized the evidence of RW.5 Shashikant Rajaram Kadam, who is a milk vendor who deposed that he had seen accused Nos. 1 and 2 near the trunk and tried to lift the trunk by accused No. 2 and also deposed that he could identify the sari which accused No. 1 was wearing on that day and the dress worn by accused No. 2 also.The learned Counsel challenged his evidence that he had come there for vending milk to P.W. 14 who is staying just opposite to the room of the accused.On the basis of this statement of P.W. 14, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the very presence of P.W. 5 on the early morning on that day where he claimed that he had seen the accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be believed.We cannot accept the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant.P.W. 5 deposed that he was a milk vendor.He corroborates the evidence of P.W. 14 Samadhan S. Ambole.He stated that he used to see the two accused going out for work together and used to return home in the evening together.He stated that on 31-1-1988 at about 6.30 a.m.while he was cleaning his teeth he noticed the trunk before the Court near the open door of the room of the accused No. 2 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were standing near the said trunk.He also recognized the grey coloured bush shirt and pant that the accused No. 2 was wearing on that day as also the khaki coloured sari that accused No. 1 was wearing.He also stated that on 2-2-1988 at about 1.30 a.m. the police took out the trunk from out of the room of the accused No. 2 and found the dead body of the husband of the accused No. 1 in the trunk.In the cross examination his evidence could not be shaken in any material particulars.Merely because P.W. 14 says that he was not purchasing milk from P.W. 5 wilt not itself render his evidence unbelievable because both the witnesses P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 are natural witnesses and their presence at that time cannot be questioned.The circumstance that the accused were seen standing near the trunk is a very strong indication to the incriminating circumstance towards the commission of the offence by the accused.According to the evidence of P.W. 2 Ramesh Chango Patil, who was on duty in the Bhandup Police Station at 6 p.m. onwards at about 11.15 p.m. the accused No. 1 Suman came to the police station and reported that her husband was missing.He immediately made entry in the diary as entry No. 44/88 in his own hand writing and he proved this entry before the trial Court.He stated before the Court that he had suspicion about the behaviour of the accused No. 1, followed accused No. 1 with a petromax and went to her residence.He stated that when they reached at the residence at about mid night it was found that the door of the north side of the room was latched from inside.He was emphatic that he did not get bad smell.There after at the instance of accused No. 1 he went near the southern door which was found locked from outside.He asked for the key but accused No. 1 could not bring any key.However, P.W. 2 broken open the door of the room.Even then he did not get the bad smell.After entering the room he got the bad smell.He also found the trunk.This circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court is a very strong circumstance, saddling the liability of the offence of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, particularly statement of accused No. 1 and her behaviour will go to show that she was fully aware as to what had happened to her husband.P.W. 2 in his deposition further stated that within 10 to 15 minutes accused No. 1 could not have gone to her house and come back.Therefore her story that she had gone back to her house and found bad smell coming out of the house cannot be believed.Moreover, according to P.W. 2 there was no smell coming outside the room when they went to the residence of the accused.Another circumstances is that there are only two doors for the room; and one door is closed from outside and the other latched from inside.Therefore without a person entering the room, the outer door could not have been closed.Before coming to the police station she might have entered the room.All these behaviour and statements of the accused No. 1 looks to be artificial and suspicious and thesecircumstances unescapably lead to a very strong inference that the accused has committed the offence.According to her though accused No. 1 was accompanied by her father and mother in an auto rickshaw to the police station for reporting that her husband was missing their statements were not recorded.The prosecution has not stated that the father and mother of accused No. 1 had come to the police station.It may be true that the father and mother of accused No. 1 may had accompanied her to the police station.There is also possibility that she alone had gone to the police station.The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution has not established the actual presence of the accused No. 2 in the house, particularly, when his case was that he left the house a month ago.We do not think that this arguments plausible.As we have already pointed out it is an admitted case that the accused No. 2 was staying in the said room as a tenant of accused No. 1 and in such a case it is for him to prove that he was (sic not) staying in that house at the time of the occurrence.Without adducing any evidence regarding this aspect of the matter the argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted.The burden of proof that he was not staying in the house of accused No. 1 is entirely on the accused No. 2 but he did not discharge that burden.On the other hand P.W. 7 and other witnesses had stated that accused No. 2 was staying in the room of accused No. 1 as a tenant.As observed earlier P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 in their evidence stated that both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were seen on 31-1-1988 early in the morning standing in front of the house near the trunk.This circumstance establish the presence of the accused No. 1 in the house and without the knowledge of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the offence could not have been taken place.Another circumstances is that P.W. 8, Shobha Bhimrao Bankar, another lady who is residing in the adjacent hut stated that both the accused No. 1 and the deceased were staying in the hut and accused No. 2 was also staying in the same hut.She stated that while she was sleeping in the night on 30-1-1988 at about 10 p.m. she heard the deceased calling the name of Suman (Accused No. 1) to awaken her from outside the door and she could realised that the deceased had come at that time.She also saw the deceased entering the house.She stated that next morning at about 7 a.m. accused No. 1 left her house along with her children telling P.W. 8 that she was going to Kanjurmarg and that she would not return in the evening.She did not see the deceased thereafter.The learned Counsel tried to argue relying upon the evidence of P.W. 8 Shobha Bankar that deceased and accused No. 1 loved each other and the deceased and his brother used to quarrel when they lived at Kanjurmarg.But she stated that she did not see the brother of the deceased and his wife visiting the house of the deceased in the month prior to his death.He stated that on 1-2-1988 at about 10 a.m. accused No. 2 came to his hut at Ghatlavillage.He had one yellow colour brief case with him.He kept the brief case in his room and went away telling that he will return after some time.P.W. 9 kept the suit case in a wooden plank used as a rack.Her father and mother lived in Sion.They have lived as husband and wife after the marriage at Ramabai Nagar hutment, Bhandup for about one month.She deposed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to take food together in one thali and often went out of the house together and therefore she suspected that they might be in love.She deposed that accused No. 1 has confessed that accused No. 2 with grinding stone, hitting on his head killed the deceased and accused No. 2 was threatening her with dire consequence if she informs to the police.We find no reason to disbelieve her evidence.Further we have the evidence of Investigating Officer Jahangirdar P.W. 12, whose evidence establish the circumstances incriminating the accused.He corroborates the evidence of P.S.I. Patil who recorded the complaint of the accused about the missing of her husband.He further stated that when he went to the other side of the room the same was also found locked.When he asked for key she stated that she did not have the key and therefore he broke open the door.At that time the panchas were present.He also took accused No. 1 with him and went to the scene of offence.Panchas were again called who acted as panchas at the time of inquest.The house of accused No. 1 consist of two rooms, divided by a curtain.The deceased lived in the northern room and the accused No. 2 lived in the southern room.They noticed the quilt was blood stained, the grinding stone, article No. 7 was placed near the wall and it was also stained with blood onthe reverse side.He also collected the earth sample Exhibit 8 produced before the Court.They were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate and after obtaining remand he interrogated 7 witnesses.The accused volunteered to produce the blood stained clothes in this case and it was taken into custody in the presence of two panchas.The accused No. 2 in the presence of panchas disclosed that he will take them to the room where the clothes of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were kept and he also volunteered to produce those clothes after drawing panchanama Exhibit 19 and went to the place where the clothes were kept as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment.The grinding stone was found to be blood of B group which is the group of the deceased.Muddemal articles 10, 11, 12and 13, the clothes of accused were found to be stained with blood and the chemical analyst showed that it contained B group which is of the deceased.An argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the blood stains found in sari and blouse of accused No. 1 is of menstruated blood and her blood was also found to be of group B and therefore the blood stains found on articles 10 and 11 cannot be taken as incriminating circumstance against her.But the expert evidence belied this argument of the Counsel for the accused.P.W. 16 Dr. Baburao who collected the blood of the accused on 4-2-1988, to a specific question put to him, emphatically answered that the menstruated blood and the ordinary blood could be distinguished.He also added that the chemical analyst can distinguish these two types of blood.In the circumstances and the evidence as discussed above, we find that a strong circumstantial chain has been established by the prosecution against the guilt of the accused.Circumstances such as the motive, behaviour of the accused No. 1 before the police, seeing the accused near the trunk which contained the dead body, recovered from the residence of the accused and blood stain of group "B" found on the clothes of the accused lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and on scanning through the evidence we cannot found that any chain has been broken or any chain became weak to sustain the prosecution case.On appreciation of the evidence discussed above we have no hesitation to hold that the accused and the accused alone must have committed the murder of the deceased.We find no ground to interfere with the findings of the Court below.In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.The convictions ot the appellants Suman Yadav Gayasamandir and Pandurang Khashaba Pawar, for offences punishable under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and 201 read with 511 read with 34 I.P.C. are confirmed.It appears that though appellant Suman Yadav Gayasamandir was granted bail she has not availed of the same.In case she has availed of her bail she shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.Appeals dismissed. | ['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. |
195,966,354 | Clean Max Enviro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., to install and operate solar power plants in the roof at their factory premises at SIPCOT Industrial park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings in S.C.No.60 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram and to quash the same.Suvankar Dey had met with a fatal accident since he failed to hook the safety belt with life line rope on the roof of the plant resulting in an accidental fall.The accident occurred inside the premises of the M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd. The contractor and the sub-contractor for the erection of solar power plants in the factory premises were arrayed as accused for offence under Section 304(ii) IPC r/w.34 of IPC.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent as well as Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the second respondent.4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 20.05.2016, M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd., entered into a power purchase agreement with M/s.The Contractor namely, M/s.Clean Max Enviro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had in turn entered into Sub Contract with M/s.Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore for the work of erecting the solar panels at the premises of M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd. When the Sub-Contractor namely, M/s.Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore were erecting the solar panels, the work was supervised by the officials of the main Contractor namely, M/s.Clean Max Enviro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The deceased was directly employed by the Sub-Contractor namely, M/s.Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore.The petitioner herein, who is the plant head of M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd., had no nexus with the accident since the deceased was neither employed by them nor was the work carried out under their supervision.It is, under these circumstances, that the second respondent had lodged the complaint against the petitioner, Contractor, Sub-Contractor and others which came to be registered in Cr.No.752 of 2016 for offences under Sections 304(ii) r/w.34 of IPC.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no material to implicate the petitioner herein for the offences, since neither the witnesses nor the complaint, discloses that the accident occurred due to the petitioner's mistake.The learned counsel further submitted that if at all an offence could be made out, it can only be against the Contractor and Sub Contractor namely, M/s.Clean Max Enviro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore and that the petitioner is no way connected with the occurrence.6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the occurrence had taken place within the premises of M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd., and that since the work was being carried out on behalf of M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd., the petitioner herein has been properly arrayed as an accused.8.I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.9.It is not in dispute that the work of installing and operating the solar power panels in the roof of the factory premises of M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd., was entrusted under an agreement to M/s.As such, the responsibility for carrying out the installation work was transferred wholly to the Contractor namely, M/s.Clean Max Enviro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that the said Contractor had again entered into a sub contract with M/s.Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore for installing the solar power plants in the factory premises.The deceased was not under the direct employment of M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd. It is seen that the accident had occurred in view of the deceased having failed to hook the safety belt with the life line rope while working on the roof of the plant at the time of accident.The deceased was directly under the supervision of M/s.Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore who were Sub-Contractor to the main Contractor namely, M/s.Clean Max Enviro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. As such, M/s.Asahi India Glass Ltd., had apparently no nexus with either the work of installation of the solar power plants being carried out in their factory premises or the service conditions of the deceased and hence negligence cannot be attributed to the petitioner.10.The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the judgment of this Court in Geetha Ramesh and others Vs.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Udagamandalam reported in 2010 Crl.L.J. 762 submitted that since the entire installation work was handed over to the Contractor, who in turn had sub contracted it, there cannot be any prosecution against the petitioner herein is concerned, who is neither the Contractor nor the Sub Contractor.The relevant portion of the finding of this Court is as follows:18.If the case on hand is considered in the light of the abovesaid decisions, this Court has to necessarily come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC for the death of one of the workers and injuries caused to six of the workers engaged by the contractor (A1) and labour sub-contractor (A2) since the excavation work was not done in the presence of any one of the petitioners or under the supervision of or in accordance with the specific directions issued by the petitioners regarding the dimensions and the manner in which excavation work is to be done.The petitioners have made clear averments that the entire construction work was entrusted to the contractor (A1) and the excavation work for construction of retaining wall was undertaken by the contractor himself engaging the labour sub-contractor.It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are residing in Chennai which is more than 500 Km.away from Udagamandalam.Therefore, it is quite obvious that they could not have directly supervised the work.Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out the fact that there is no legally admissible evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to show that the work was done under their supervision and that there was rashness and negligence on the part of any one of the petitioners which resulted in the accident without there being intervention of negligence of any other person.In this case, it is the case of the prosecution that the contractor (A1) and labour sub-contractor (A2), who were directly supervising the work acted in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident.Under such circumstances, applying the ratio decided in the cases cited supra, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners have made out a clear case for quashing of the charge-sheet filed in Cr.No.109 of 2006 a case registered on the file of G-1, Town West Police Station, Udagamandalam which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam on the file of his Court in C.C.No.100 of 2002 so far as the petitioners are concerned.19.In the result, this petition is allowed and the charge-sheet filed in Cr.Even if the trial is permitted to be proceeded against the petitioner herein, the Court below cannot reach a logical conclusion to implicate the petitioner herein for the negligence or any other act amounting to culpable homicide or as a matter of act amounting to culpable homicide or as a matter of act, for any other penal offence.While that being so, the petitioner herein, who is no way responsible for the accident, need not be made to undergo the ordeal of facing the criminal trial.12.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.Consequently, the proceedings in S.C.No.60 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned, stands quashed.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.14.12.2017SpeakingIndex:YesInternet:1.The Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.The Inspector of Police, C-1, Sriperumpudhur Police Station, Kanchipuram District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.S.RAMESH.J,DP Order made inCrl.O.P.No.23934 of 2017andCrl.M.P.Nos.13861 & 13882 of 201714.12.2017 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,968,221 | Case dairy perused.This is first application filed by the applicant/accused under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who is in custody since 9.4.2018 in connection with Crime No.139/2018 registered at Police Station Hanumana, District Rewa, for the offences under sections 294, 323, 506-B and 302/34 of IPC.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vkv /- | ['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. |
19,597,675 | (21.11.2 012) The appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of amount of fine rigorous imprisonment for two months.The appellants have also been convicted for offences under Section 332/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of amount of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months.Appellants No.1 to 7 have also been convicted for offences under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of amount of fine, rigorous imprisonment for four months.The appellant No.8 has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of the 2 Indian Penal Code and has been awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for four months.The prosecution story is that on 21.09.1991, Devisingh (PW-9) and Babulal (PW-10) had gone to serve warrant to Maharajsingh.He was called by the complainants however, he ran inside the house and after sometime came out with other co-accused persons.Appellant No.8 was armed with sharp edged weapon and rest of the appellants were armed with lathis.The appellants assaulted Devisingh and Babulal, as a result of which Babulal received an incised wound on his head and Devisingh received injuries which were caused by means of hard and blunt object.The police after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet for offences under Sections 148, 332/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants.The trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the appellants for the offences as stated aforesaid.3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants No.1 and 7 have died during pendency of the appeal and therefore, the appeal against them has abated.It is further submitted that he is not challenging the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to commission of offences by the appellants.In view of the aforesaid submission, the only question which arises for consideration 3 is as to what sentence has to be awarded to the appellants to meet ends of justice.The appellants No.2 to 6 and 8 are agriculturists and there is no material on record to suggest that the appellants are habitual offenders.The appellants No.2 to 5 have remained in jail from 29.9.1991 to 3.10.1991 i.e. for 7 days whereas the appellants No.6 and 8 have remained in jail from 8.10.1991 to 29.10.1991 i.e. for 23 days.On due consideration and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of time which has elapsed, I set aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year and two years respectively awarded to the appellants No.2 to 6 and 8 for offences under Sections 148, 332/149, 324/149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and instead award the sentence for a period already undergone by them together with amount of fine of Rs.3,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment passed today.The amount of fine of Rs.3,000/- deposited by the appellants shall be paid to the complainants namely Devisingh and Babulal in equal proportion by way of compensation.With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed.(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC 4 5 | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,977,188 | These proceedings arise out of applications moved for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), in the context of first information report (FIR) no.10/2014 of police station Economic Offences Wing (C&R) of Delhi Police ("EOW", for short) involving offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), all moved in October / November, 2014, applicants being Somnath Bobal (Bail Application no.2371/2014), Hemant Kumar Bobal (Bail Application no.2372/2014), Sangeeta Bobal (Bail Application no.2478/2014), Naresh Kumar (Bail Application no.2479/2014), Vishal Bobal (Bail Application no. 2480/2014), Raja Bobal (Bail Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 6 of 20 Application no.2481/2014), Suman Bobal (Bail Application no.2482/2014), Sachin Taneja (Bail Application no.2484/2014), Yugal Kishore (Bail Application no.2485/2014), Priya Taneja (Bail Application no.2486/2014) and Sarika (Bail Application no.2536/2014), concededly close relatives or associates to each other, each an accused person whose complicity is the subject matter of investigation.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 6 of 20These applications were disposed of by a learned single judge earlier by a common order passed on 16.01.2015, inter alia, on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 16.01.2015 that had been executed by the applicants (collectively described in the MOU as the "first party") on one hand and Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. (described in the MOU as the "second party") on whose behalf the complaint (FIR) was lodged with EOW, on the other, in the wake of opportunity granted by the court by various adjournments to allow amicable resolution of the dispute.The applicants, having been granted the relief of anticipatory bail in the event of they being arrested, were obliged under the MOU to deposit with the Dhanlaxmi Bank (the complainant) the money that had been received by each of them in terms of the transactions which are the subject matter of the dispute conditional, of course, upon the complainant returning their respective properties (jewellery articles) which had been pledged.Later, the complainant also moved (Crl. M.A. 1845/2015, 1832/2015, 1848/2015, 1837/2015, 1839/2015, 1834/2015, 1843/2015, 1852/2015, 1841/2015, 1828/2015 and 1855/2015) praying for cancellation of the bail order granted on 16.01.2015 alleging breach of the terms and conditions of the MOU.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 7 of 20All the above mentioned applications, alongwith some further applications moved in due course of the proceedings that followed, eventually came up for consideration before the court on 27.09.2016 when the following order was passed :-"Some of the aforesaid applications have been filed by the petitioners to seek clarification, while the complainant bank has filed some applications for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 16.01.2015 on the ground that the MOU has not been adhered to by the petitioners.Mr. Mittal, learned senior counsel representing all the petitioners in the aforesaid cases states that the MOU is not workable.This position is also evident from the record since the petitioners are now raking up the issue that the jewellery offered for return is not the same as that allegedly pledged by the petitioners.It is clear to the Court, and is also conceded by the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant bank and the learned APP, that the MOU is not Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 8 of 20 workable.Accordingly, the order dated 16.01.2015 premised on the MOU is recalled.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 8 of 20The petitioners may file additional grounds in support of their respective applications.Further status report be filed by the State before the next date.The order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners shall continue till the next date."When these proceedings were heard further for sometime on 17.04.2017, the submission of the parties with directions issued in their wake were recorded thus :-Heard for some time.The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants (accused persons) submits he would need to seek instructions from his clients as to their readiness and willingness to deposit money in terms of MOU on the basis of which release on anticipatory bail was granted by the earlier order, the cancellation whereof is sought by the State primarily on the ground that the terms were not abided by.It appears that the position taken by the applicants (accused persons) in the proceedings in the wake of such order granting release on anticipatory bail is that the Bank was offering to return jewellery items which are not same as were pledged for the subject transactions.During the course of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant Somnath Bobal (Bail Appl.2371/2014) that the money in terms of the MOU was duly deposited and the jewellery items in question have already been released by the Bank.Though the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State did not refute this, midway the Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 9 of 20 hearing it was sought to be clarified by the counsel for the complainant Bank that what was released is not the subject-matter/case property of the FIR No.10/2014, Police Station EOW, but jewellery pertaining to other transactions.The investigating police officer shall file an up-to-date status report on the next date which shall also indicate the facts pertaining to the charge-sheet already filed against some of the co-accused persons (employees of the complainant Bank).It may be mentioned here that on 26.04.2017, the applicants submitted through counsel that they are not ready or willing to deposit the money in terms of the MOU on the basis of which release on anticipatory bail was granted in their favour by the earlier order.A fresh updated status report was submitted on 24.04.2017, copy whereof was made available to the learned counsel for the applicants.The learned senior counsel arguing for the applicants and learned additional public prosecutor for the respondent / State, as also the counsel appearing for the complainant bank have been heard at length.The record including the case diary produced by the investigating police officer have been perused.It needs to be mentioned at the outset that the complainant bank had filed two complaints around the same time, one leading to registration of FIR 10/2014 of police station EOW to which the Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 10 of 20 present proceedings relate and the other resulting in the FIR no.11/2014 of police station EOW.The police file shows that the complaint dated 03.01.2014 submitted by Mr. C.M. Murlidharan, Dy.This error, upon coming to light, was brought to the notice of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate by an application of the investigating officer endorsed by Deputy Commissioner of Police (EOW) and the assistant public prosecutor for the State and placed before the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order recorded on the said application, directed the above mentioned complaint dated 03.01.2014 to be read as FIR 10/2014 of police station EOW.It may be added here that the subject matter of the other complaint (FIR no.11/2014) is almost identical though it pertains to different set of individuals including one Mr. Vijay Manchanda.The terms of Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 11 of 20 the scheme, as per the documents collected during investigation, included insistence that the gold jewellery to be pledged at the time of taking loan must be of 22 carat purity, the application to be allowed after proper valuation by the bank panel appraiser, sanction of loan being within the joint authority of the Branch Manager and the Branch Operation Manager.The terms, it also needs to be noted, enjoined upon the bank officials to grant the advance on the basis of net weight of the gold ornaments (i.e. excluding the diamond or precious stones etc.) by keeping a margin, advanceable rate per gram for gold loan to be decided by the corporate office of the bank on daily basis.The gold ornaments pledged by the persons taking loan under the scheme were to be kept in a vault to be jointly controlled by the bank and the customer / pawner as well as the appraiser.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 11 of 20He was aided or assisted by various officials of the bank including Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, Branch Manager, Ms. Shivani, Branch Operation Manager, Yogesh Kumar, Branch Operations Manager, Mr. Sumit Goel, Branch Operations Manager, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Teller, Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 12 of 20 Mr. Atul Kumar, Manager (Advances).Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 12 of 20It is alleged by the complainant in the FIR that surprise inspection of the Karol Bagh branch in September 2013 had brought out that loans had been advanced to the applicants and certain other associates of applicant Somnath Bobal against spurious ornaments of lesser net weight or gold content having been pledged in a clandestine manner fraudulently with aid and assistance of the above mentioned officials of the bank and two appraisers Harpreet Singh and Mr. Rakesh Bobal whose services had been availed at the time of the applications being processed.The complainant attributed complicity between the bank officials, the appraisers and the applications setting out facts in the FIR in this context.When these applications came up for hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the investigating agency that Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) had been asked to re-evaluate the jewellery in question and that reports of FSL had been received.The police indicated at the very outset that the angle of larger conspiracy required a probe.On 27.11.2014, an offer was made on behalf of the applicants to clear the outstanding in their loan accounts in suitably acceptable manner.The complainant, through counsel indicated the said offer to be of some interest to it.Against the above backdrop, by order dated 27.11.2014, the learned judge, then in seisin of these matters, granted interim protection to the applications with directions to the State not to take "any further steps" till next date of hearing.On 05.12.2014, the parties were heard further "with a view to finalising the terms towards Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 13 of 20 settling the matter".Eventually, on 16.01.2015, the applicants, on one hand, and the complainant, on the other, informed the learned single Judge hearing these applications that they had entered into the MOU on the said date, it having been placed on record in original (pages 119 to 138 of the paper book of Bail Application no.2371/2014).The learned single Judge allowed the anticipatory bail applications by the order passed on 16.01.2015, it reading as under :-Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 13 of 20"These petitions seeking anticipatory bail were moved by the petitioners separately concerning the same FIR No. 10/2014 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing (C and R) under Sections 409/420/120B IPC.These matters were heard in some detail on a number of dates and various suggestions were given by either side for an overall settlement between the parties.Counsel for the parties, including counsel for the complainant, who have been present throughout, state that their clients have reached an amicable settlement in the matter and have executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 16th January, 2015 setting down all the terms and conditions thereof.The said MOU (in original) has been handed over at Bar to this Court.A copy of the same be placed on the records of the remaining matters.Both, counsel for the petitioners as well as the complainant, approbate the said settlement and also undertake to this Court to remain bound by the terms and conditions of the MOU.Mr. O.P.Saxena, APP for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, it is best if the matter is amicably resolved and, consequently, he has no objection to the Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 14 of 20 terms of the aforesaid MOU being complied with by both the parties, which also requires return of the seized jewellery articles to the Bank.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 14 of 20Keeping in view the fact that the complainant and the petitioners have arrived at a settlement on mutually acceptable terms and also keeping in view the no objection given by APP for the State, to my mind, these are fit cases for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Consequently, and in the event of their arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.Both the counsel state that once the settlement has worked itself out, a fresh petition will be filed for quashing of FIR against the petitioners.The petitions and the applications stand disposed off."As already mentioned, the MOU did not work out.The applicants did not return the money outstanding against their names to the bank and the bank did not return their jewellery items (excluding that of applicant Somnath Bobal), the return of the jewellery also not being possible since the concerned applicants had objections to the identity of the jewellery.Thus, by afore-quoted order dated 27.09.2016, the anticipatory bail order granted on 16.01.2015 in favour of the applicants was recalled and the matter has been heard Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 15 of 20 afresh.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 15 of 20The status report and the police record shows that applicant Somnath Bobal had pledged eleven ornaments with the complainant bank on 27.07.2013 against which he was granted loan of Rs.3,32,920/- upon gold ornaments of the value of Rs.4,94,336/- being pledged by him.The copy of the application (at page 26 of the paper book of Bail application no.2371/2014) indicates that the loan facility had been granted at the rate of Rs.1650/- per gram.It is conceded by the complainant that the said jewellery items were of appropriate purity and that after the loan had been repaid, the said jewellery stood released / returned to applicant Somnath Bobal.The involvement of applicant Somnath Bobal, however, is founded on the allegations that he was the mastermind behind the criminal conspiracy in which he had later joined the other ten applicants each of whom are his close relatives or associates, one of the prime ones being his nephew Hemant Kumar Bobal (applicant in Bail application no.2372/2014).The allegations of criminal conspiracy which the police seek opportunity to investigate arise also from the facts that the applicant Somnath Bobal had received certain monies by transfer from the accounts of other similarly placed borrowers (including the other applicants) from the complainant bank, such amounts received by transfer into his loan accounts being to the extent of Rs.1.26 Crores.Similarly, applicant Hemant Kumar Bobal is shown by the statements of accounts submitted by the complainant bank to have received from other applicants and certain others money more than Rs.2 Crores into his loan accounts.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 16 of 20It appears that the applicant Somnath Bobal has cleared most of the outstanding loans taken by him from the complainant bank with the help of such borrowings (as above) from the others but, as pointed out by the additional public prosecutor, the record indicates that the amounts collected by him by transfers into his loan accounts were almost identical to his outstanding liabilities, such amounts having actually been the proceeds of the loans taken by the respective transferors into their accounts against similar pledging of gold jewellery of suspect quality.The prime allegation against the applicants is that they had pledged jewellery which did not subscribe to the requirement of 22 carat gold and thus loans were taken on the basis of false declarations in a fraudulent manner.The effect of the said report is that the gold content of the ornaments pledged by the applicants was about 15% gross weight of the jewellery pledged with the bank, the value being about 27% of the amount availed as gold loan.A detailed statement in this regard has been submitted in the status report.On the other hand, the applicants have argued that the reports of FSL belie the correctness of evaluation by Mr. Vijay Goel, Government approved valuer.Reference was made to the FSL reports, copies of which were made available to the applicants during the course of these proceedings.The learned senior counsel pointed out that the FSL, having examined the case property by use of Energy Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 20 Dispersive X-ray Spectrometer, has found the jewellery items in question to be containing gold, silver and copper as major constituents.The percentage of the major constituents of the jewellery has been assessed and indicted in the relevant reports.It does appear that in some of the jewellery items gold percentage reaches the extent of over 80%.But, it also needs to be noted that the jewellery items include several with gold content in the range of 50-60%, in some it going as low as 34.60%.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 20It was pointed out during the arguments that the applicant Hemant Kumar Bobal, nephew of applicant Somnath Bobal, who had obtained over Rs.2 Crores from the associates into his loan account has claimed during investigation to have pledged the jewellery which he had purchased during the period 17.04.2012 to 20.03.2013 by various retail invoices from Jainson Trades of Chandni Chowk, copies whereof were submitted (at pages 70-86 of the paper book of Bail Application No.2372/2014).In contrast, it must be noted, his income tax returns for the years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 indicate his income to be less than or near Rs.3 Lakhs only.There is total mismatch between level of income and the value of jewellery shown purchased, every such transaction being in cash.The source of procurement and consequently quality of products purchased is thus wholly suspect.In the considered view of this court, the said order cannot be of Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 18 of 20 any assistance to the applicants.Noticeably, the relief was granted in favour of the said other accused, inter alia, on the basis of MOU, which was the foundation of the grant of release on anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants by order dated 16.01.2015, which has already been "recalled".The case against the applicants stands entirely on different footing.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 18 of 20In the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the allegations against the applicants are unfounded.The FSL reports only confirm that the jewellery pledged by the applicants did not conform to the declarations made as to the requisite purity.These cases do smack of deep rooted conspiracy.The court was informed that the bank officials who were involved are already facing trial on the basis of charge-sheet that was submitted by the investigating agency, investigation against the applicants having not progressed at the desired pace, courtesy these proceedings.Against this backdrop, it is really surprising, rather a cause for concern, that the complainant and the State had agreed by or after the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.01.2015, to return the jewellery in question to the applicants, though on the condition that they would discharge the outstanding loan liability.It does appear that the complainant bank has all along been concerned about its money.But then, it had to be remembered that the jewellery items would be important, rather most crucial, piece of evidence against the persons who are brought to trial.Its own employees, having been found prima facie guilty of breach of trust, are facing trial on the criminal charge.If the jewellery items were to be returned, the case would suffer Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 19 of 20 irreparable damage.Bail appln 2371/2014 & connected matters Page 19 of 20Mercifully, the MOU on which the court had earlier put its seal of approval, with virtually no opposition from the State, did not work out.The jewellery, as case property, is stated to be still available as evidence to the investigating agency.It is clear that the applicants have not allowed the investigation to proceed further.In these circumstances, release on anticipatory bail would thwart the investigation even more.Thus, the bail applications for anticipatory bail are dismissed.This also disposes of all the other pending applications. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,977,589 | It may be mentioned here that Crl.M.C. No.332/2015 & Crl.M.C.664/2014 to this court seeking to assail the said decision which was withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated 12.08.2015, the petitioner having been given liberty "to take appropriate legal remedy".The petitioner thereafter had taken out the second criminal revisional challenge which was repelled by the court of Sessions on 12.04.2018 primarily on the ground that it could not be entertained. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,980,951 | (Satisfaction Court)The Station House Officer, Mettupalayam, Police Station through The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Pondicherry.8531 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 109, 120B, 144, 114, 343, 302, 307, 326, 324 of I.P.C r/w 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/4 Crl.O.P.No.7732 of 2020 the Explosives Substance Act in Crime No.84 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.10.2017 at about 00.05 hrs, on receipt of information over phone from the outpost PS at Government Medical College & Hospital, Kathirkammam, the respondent-police went to hospital and received an oral complaint from injured Rangaraj.The injured has stated that when he and his friends were consuming liquor at Dhanalakshmi Steel Industries, Mettupalayam, they were assaulted by a gang of 13 persons with knives, in which, the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries and three of his friends were died on the spot.Based on the complaint, the respondent-police have registered the case.Hence, this complaint.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not involved in the above alleged offence and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution and he did not commit any offence.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A8 in S.C.No.18 of 2019 and there are totally 13 accused in this case.Out of 98 witnesses, 79 witnesses were examined and only 18 official witnesses are yet to be examined.Due to COVID-19 lockdown, the trial is not in progresshttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 Crl.O.P.No.7732 of 2020 and the petitioner is confined in prison.Further he submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 22.05.2018 and hence, he seeks bail for the petitioner.Totally five persons were attacked by the accused, out of which, three persons were murdered and two persons seriously injured and later survived.The learned Counsel further submitted that when the Court commences functioning, the case would be completed within a short time.Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner had committed serious offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 Crl.O.P.No.7732 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.11.06.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order gbi To1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.(Dismissal order Court)The II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. | ['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,994,104 | Certified copy as per rules.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to Crime No. 577/2016 registered at Police Station - Civil Line District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 366, 370, 376 (d) of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.Applicants are mother-in- law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant.There is allegation against them under Section 498-A of IPC only.No other offence is made out against the applicants.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.Consequently, the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2424/2017 applicants - Smt. Budho Bai and Holuram be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).2 M.Cr.C. No. 2424/2017This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicants during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider their application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,998,383 | (i) The applicant shall be released on the bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in the fortnight commencing from the 15th November 2019 for the period of one year;::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 00:11:05 :::(ii) to (v) in the trial Court, within two weeks of his release;(vii) If there are two consecutive defaults either in attending the Police Station, or breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the applicant's bail.(viii) The applicant shall not enter within the jurisdiction of the Oshiwara Police Station.10 The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 00:11:05 :::and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.12 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 00:11:05 ::: | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,012,531 | Brief facts giving rise to the instant Appeal may be summarized asunder:-Deceased-Archana was married with Omprakash Darak {originalaccused no.1} (since deceased) on 3rd June,1998 at Hingna, Nagpur.After marriage,Archana started residing with her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial house.Archana used to visit her parental home on one or two occasions.At that time, shecomplained to her parents that she was being ill treated at the hands of her husbandand in-laws.At that time, the husband and in-laws ofArchana quarreled and asked the parents of Archana that they should take backArchana with them or else they would kill her.The complainant convinced her husbandand in-laws and left Archana to her matrimonial home.On 12.11.1998 at about 3 to 4o' clock in the morning, the complainant received information to the effect that Archanawas admitted in Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur.Accordingly, thecomplainant along with his wife proceeded to the Hospital.They noticed that Archanahad sustained burn injuries and her condition was critical.On 14.11.1998, Archanainformed the complainant that on 11.11.1998 her husband, his elder brother- Ravindra,his wife-Yashoda and mother-in- law -Janaki, asked her to abort the foetus in herwomb and beat her.At about 7 to 7.30 p.m., her husband, elder brother Ravi, his ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 3wife Yashoda and mother-in-law Janaki caught hold of Archana and her husbandpoured kerosene on her person and after switching off the light of the house andclosing the door, they went outside the house.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::At the relevant time, ASI Bansod (not examined) was attached toHingna Police Station.He registered the offence on the basis of the dying declaration ofArchana, recorded by Special Executive Magistrate-Padmakar Badhe (PW 14).Prior torecording the statement, PW 14 made enquiry with the concerned Doctor whetherArchana was in a fit mental condition to give her statement.On obtaining hisendorsement in that regard, the statement came to be recorded.BhagwansinghRajput, PI (PW 17) then proceeded to the place of incident and recorded the spotpanchnama (Exh.25).He also prepared the inquest panchanama of the dead body(Exh,.29).The prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses.After marriage she went to reside at hermatrimonial home at Hingna.Archana visited her house at the time of Diwali festival.At that time, she complained that the accused were mentally and physically harassingand teasing her and while narrating this she was weeping.On 6.11.1998 PW1-Ramkisan along with his wife PW2-Asha went to the house of Archana at Hingna,however, they were not treated properly by the accused.The atmosphere in the housewas uneasy.According to PW1 they left their daughter and went away to their homeon the next day.On 11.11.1998 at about 12 o' clock in the night he received amessage that Archana is serious and hospitalized in Govt. Medical College andHospital Nagpur.Accordingly, he proceeded along with his wife and neighbours to thehospital.Archana was not in a condition to speak.On 13.11.1998, his daughterinformed him that all the accused had set her on fire.She informed that on 11.11.1998 ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 5the accused persons beat her and did not provide food to her.They poured keroseneon her person and set her ablaze.The accused then closed the the door from outside.Archana informed him that the accused used to say that they did not like the child inher womb and they pressurized her to abort.The testimony of PW2-Asha, mother of Archana, is also on the samelines.According to PW2 for the first Diwali after marriage, her son had broughtArchana at their house at Pahapal.DATED: 14th March, 2019ORAL JUDGMENT:Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and order dated 21 st April,2005 in Sessions Trial No.232/1999 delivered by the learned 1 s Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge, Nagpur, convicting the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'theaccused') for the offence punishable under sections 498A & 306 of the Indian PenalCode.By the said judgment, the accused were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 2each, and payment of fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default, to suffer further RI for onemonth, for offence punishable u/s 498A and R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- indefault, R.I. for one month, for offence punishable u/s. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::The dead body of Archana who died on 15.11.1998 was sent for postmortem.After completion of investigation, PW17 filed the charge-sheet.The learnedtrial Judge after framing the charge, recording the evidence and hearing both sides andrecorded the conviction of the appellant as aforesaid.I have heard Shri M.J.Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor forthe respondent-State, and with his assistance I have gone through the entire record.The learned counsel for the appellants though represented by Advocates, remainedabsent.Learned APP vehemently supported the impugned judgment and contendedthat based on the dying declaration and the testimony of parents of Archana, thelearned Judge has rightly convicted the accused.The ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 4defence of the accused was of total denial.The husband of the deceased Archana,namely, original accused no.1-Omprakash Raghunath Darak expired during hependnecy of the trial.The prosecution heavily relied upon the testimony of PW1-Ramkisan Lahoti, father of deceased; PW 2-Asha Lahoti, mother of deceased andPW 13-Akash Lahoti, brother of deceased.On the point of dying declaration, theprosecution relied upon the oral dying declaration made before the brother of deceasedi.e.PW 13-Akash and the written dying declaration recorded by PW 14-PadmakarBadhe i.e. Special Executive Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::On 15.11.1998, PW1 lodged his complaintat Police Station Hingna.On 15.11.1998 at about 2.00 p.m., Archana died.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::Thus, the testimony of PW1 shows that after marriage only onceArchana visited his house on the occasion of Diwali and at that time she informed thatthere was ill-treatment at the hands of the accused.As per the testimony of PW 1,accused on 11.11.1998 caught hold of her, poured kerosene and set her on fire.At that time, she told that accused were harassingand ill-treating her.According to PW2 on 6.11.1998 they reached Archana to hermatrimonial house.Accused no.1 Omprakash told her daughter for abortion of theoffspring in the womb.Her daughter told PW2 that they did not provide food to herso also the accused-Omprakash asked Archana to get divorce.Significantly, PW1 issilent on the aspect of accused asking Archana to give divorce.Moreover, the parents failed to lodge anycomplaint in the Police Station against the alleged ill-treatment, whereas the dyingdeclration shows some other version of deceased Archana.The evidence of PW13-Akash shows that he used to receive phonecalls from Archana and she used to tell about the ill-treatment at the hands of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 6accused.According to PW13 when he reached to Hospital on hearing the news thatArchana received burn injuries, Archana informed him that all accused persons sether on fire as they were forcing her abortion of child in her womb when she refused,accused caught hold of her and poured kerosene on her person.Thus, as per thetestimony of PW 13, Archana was set on fire by the accused persons, whereas thedying declaration shows some other version of deceased-Archana.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::Now coming to the dying declaration recorded by PW 14-PadmakarBadhe, who is the Special Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying declarationof Archana.He stated that he had given requisition to the concerned Doctor to seekhis opinion whether Archana is in condition to give statement or not.The Doctorinformed that patient is in a condition to give her statement (Exh.52).PW 14 deposedthat Archana stated that her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in- law his wife andchildren were residing in the house.She further stated that she herself pouredkerosene on her person and set herself ablaze.Archana added that her husband,brother-in- law and his wife quarreled with her, beat her and used to say that the childin the womb be aborted.Since they were all insisting for abortion, she burnt herself.She further stated that on the date of incident her husband beat her for no rhyme andreason.She further stated that none came to her rescue and then she fell andthereafter she does not know what had happened.Thus, as per the dying declaration, Archanacommitted suicide.It is worthwhile to note that although as per the version of PW 14- ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::CRI.APPEAL.255.05 7Padmakar he made enquiry with regard to fitness of Archana, the concerned doctorhas not been examined by the prosecution.Significantly the said link is missing in the instant case.The Courthas to examine the dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find outwhether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mindand without being influenced by the relatives present or by the Investigating agencywho may be interested in the success of investigation or who may be negligent whilerecording the dying declaration.It is also well settled that when there are more than onedying declarations, it should not be that the dying declaration which supports theprosecution case alone can be accepted while innocuous dying declarations have to berejected.While recording the dying declaration the Court has to see that, (i) theexamination of the patient by the doctor is conducted, before recording of his statementand a certificate is obtained from the Doctor that the person is in a sound mental stateto give statement; (ii) the presence of the doctor near the patient during recording of ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 8the statement; (iii) the relatives of the patient should not be near the patient and if atall present should be removed from that place where the statement of the patient isbeing recorded so that the patient should be in a position to make voluntary statement,free from any influence or any tutoring ; (iv) after recording the statement it should beread over to that person and the contents thereof should be explained.There should beconfirmation from that person that the statement is correctly recorded and it has truesense.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::This Court in the case of Sanjay Saosakde vs. The State ofMaharashtra, reported in MANU/MH/3207/2015 has, in similar circumstances, held thatdying declaration should be voluntary and should not be prompted and physical wellas mental fitness of maker was to be proved by the prosecution.It is further held thatthe prosecution has miserably failed to prove material aspect beyond reasonabledoubt.In my view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Archanawas mentally and physically fit to give her statement.Since the medical officer has notbeen examined by the prosecution there is absolutely no evidence on record to saythat while recording her statement all throughout Archana was physically and mentallyfit to give her statement.In view of the aforesaid missing link it is held that theprosecution has failed to prove the dying declaration of Archana and that she was ill-treated by the accused persons, so much so that she was driven to commit suicide bysetting herself on fire.In fact, the prosecution has contradicted its own case by bringingon record suicide case whereas the testimony of the father and brother of the Archana ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 9shows that accused persons committed murder of Archana by setting her on fire.Moreover, the dying declaration recorded by PW15-Ku.Jyoti Nikam, Family CounsellorWomen legal Education Movement, Nagpur, shows that Archana informed her that herhusband, brother of her husband, his wife and mother in law were mentally torturingand ill-treating her.It was informed that on 7.11.1998 she was mercilessly beaten by theaccused persons.The accused persons did not like her child in the womb.On11.11.1998 the accused persons again beat her as a result she became unconsciousand when she regained consciousness she was in flames.She raised her voice tosave her however nobody came to rescue her.Thus, the testimony of PW15 isdifferent from the case put up by the other prosecution witnesses.In view of thediscrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution it is heldthat the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt .Thelearned trial Judge ought to have considered the evidence led by the prosecutionwitnesses in its right perspective.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prosecution hasmiserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.The learned trial Judgehas passed an illegal order by relying upon the dying declaration.As such, theimpugned order needs to be quashed and set aside.Hence the following order:i) Criminal Appeal No.255/2005 is allowed.ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2005 in Sessions Trial No. ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: CRI.APPEAL.255.05 10232/1999 passed by the learned 1 st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur is setaside.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 :::iv) The fine amount if paid by the appellants be refunded to them.::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:13:53 ::: | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,017,259 | In addition, Crl.At the same time, Crl.M.C. No. 3469/2014 had been instituted by Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj and her husband, Shri Surender Bhardwaj, who are the accused in FIR No. 155/2014 registered at the instance of Shri Ranveer Singh under Sections 186/332/34/353 IPC on 19.03.2014 at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar.In substance, all the aforesaid parties concerned are stated to have settled the matter amicably amongst themselves and now they jointly pray for the said FIR Nos. 154/2014 and 155/2014, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed.Bail Appln.Nos. 1276 & 908/2014 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 2 of 8A photocopy of the said settlement deed has also been annexed to this petition.All the parties are also present in person.M.C. 3473/2014 has been moved by Shri Ranveer Singh, who is the accused in FIR No. 154.2014 that was registered at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar on 19.03.2014 under Section 354 IPC at the instance of Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 2 of 8The aforesaid Bail Application Nos. 908/2014 and 1276/2014 were also taken up on 17.07.2014 where also the statements of all counsel including counsel for the complainant, as well as the State, to the effect that both the matters have been settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that the complainants in both the FIRs do not desire to press the matter any further or to continue with the prosecution, have been recorded.Today, counsel for the respondents in Crl.M.C. 3473/2014 and 3469/2014, enter appearance and accept notice.Counsel for all the parties involved are present today and have reiterated the position that the complainants in these matters have settled the matter to their satisfaction, and are no longer interested in pursuing the matter any further.When Bail Appln.Nos. 1276 & 908/2014 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 7 of 8 there is peace in State, there will be peace in country.....M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 7 of 8FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."I am also of the view that the matters deserve to be given a quietus since the parties have settled their disputes amicably and both the complainants are now not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby diminishing the chances of prosecution succeeding in the matter.Under the circumstances, both the petitions, being Crl. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,017,696 | Mr. Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.PremFrancis,learnedcounselfortherespondent.JusticeAlokAradhe,J.ORDER (12/11/2014) This petition under Section 439 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been fi led seeking winding up of respondent Company.The facts, leading to fi ling of this petition in nutshell, are that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which deals in manufacture sale of pet bottles.The respondent is also registered as a Company under the provisions of the Act and deals in the business of manufacture and sale of liquor.The business transactions between the parties started in the year 1996-97, when the respondent placed a purchase order with the petitioner for supply of pet bottles.The respondent opened a current account in their 2 books of accounts in the petitioner's name.The payments were made by issuance of cheque and against such payments the supplies were made.On 31.1.1999 an amount of Rs.27,12,437 was due and payable by the respondent.The petitioner thereupon sent notices dated 18.2.1999 and 22.6.1999 demanding payment, however, the amount due to the petitioner was not paid by the respondent.It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent fi led a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen for off ences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for making forged entries in the ledger against the petitioner.Thereafter the petitioner fi led this petition on 25.10.1999 on the ground that the respondent should be wound up as it is unable to pay the debt which is due and payable by it.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent by communication dated 11.12.1997 admitted its' liability to pay a sum of Rs.32,09,813 to the petitioner.It is also submitted that defence set up by the respondent is mala fi de and was motivated to delay the genuine claim of the petitioner.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that before a debt can be termed as debt, it must be crystallized and if the same is not cystallized, it cannot be termed as debt.It is further submitted that in reply to notice dated 8.7.1997, the respondent has seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner and has questioned genuineness of the entries in the books of accounts. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,020,472 | 25 persons of one group and 16 of other group will not meet accidentally with weapons or at a neutral place like fallow land.When the spot proposed by the prosecution is accepted, it appears that because of ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 15 uprooting of the thorny bushes planted on boundary of Shivaji's field, the accused persons may have gone there to protect that field and crop.The accused persons will not prepare a "gap or way"::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::(khinda-Marathi) in fencing to pass through.Investigation has revealed that land within the field of Shivaji appear to be pressed and formed spot of incident.Criminal Appeal No. 619 of 2002 filed by the State challenged acquittal of remaining 20 accused (i.e. accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 to 16 & 20 to 25) and also sought enhancement of punishment inflicted upon the convicted accused persons.On 13.12.2002, this Court refused to grant leave to assail the acquittal and entertained State Appeal only for enhancing the punishment of the convicted accused.Before proceeding further, it will be proper to note down ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 ::: apeal448.02 3 how these convicted accused persons are punished by the Trial Court :::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::2. Accused No. 1 - Shivaji is held guilty for cutting of left ear pinna-upper part of PW-4 - Jagdeo by giving the axe blow under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Accused No. 5 - Anand is held guilty for death of Ratan by delivering a stick blow on his head without intention to kill but with the knowledge.For this RI of ten years and fine of Rs. 5000/-or in default to pay it, R.I. of one year is ordered.He is also found to have inflicted injury on head of PW-7 - Ramesh & PW-6 -Vinayak and for fracturing hand of PW-10 - Anil.Hence, punishment of R.I. for two years under Section 324 and of R.I. for three years under 325 of IPC, with fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default, further R.I. for two months each, is inflicted on him.Accused No. 17 - Haribhau is punished under S. 323 of the IPC for beating Ratan with stick and let free on imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs. 500/- or in default, further R.I.one month.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::Accused No. 18 - Vasanta fractured right hand of PW-5- Manik and committed offence punishable under S. 325 IPC and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default, further R.I. two months, is inflicted on him.Accused No. 19 - Prakash is found responsible for incise wound on leg of PW-4 - Jagdeo and around arm-pit of deceased Ratan and convicted under Section 324 IPC with R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default, further R.I. two months.The respective counsel for the appellants i.e. for the accused as also for the State have taken us through the material on record to advance their pleas.As the appeal is against conviction as also for enhancement of the punishments of the convicted accused, were elaborate in their efforts.Their main contentions briefly summarized are as under :Advocate A.M. Ghare for the appellant accused persons in both the matters has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of any of the appellants beyond reasonable ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 ::: apeal448.02 5 doubt.The Trial Court has evolved its own story and has considered an entirely different site as spot of incident.This has materially prejudiced its application of mind and lead it to erroneously hold the appellants as aggressors.When there were counter or cross complaints in relation to very same episode, genesis of the crime assumed significance.Here the controversy revolved round the right of way and hence, the spot ought to have been determined with specific attention to the prosecution story.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::The use of axes by the group of complainants, seizure from them of such axes demonstrated that the complainants were the aggressors.When the investigating officer found several persons falsely named as accused, the number of actual persons constituting the alleged unlawful assembly needed to be calculated after excluding the number of the acquitted accused persons.Thus, to oppose the 5 convicted accused, there were 16 persons on complainant's side.He adds that the plea of self defence of the convicted accused was in the alternative and trial court should have evaluated it only after holding that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::9. Learned APP advocate Nayak has urged that the spot panchnama itself speaks of the two spots and the trial court has discussed the relevant material to conclude correctly that the spot where blood was seen, was the real spot.Oral evidence has been then appreciated to gather that the appellants were the aggressors.Weapons have also been recovered from them.Not only their presence in large number but also grave injuries inflicted by them upon the complainant party have been noted to conclude that there was no fault on part of the injured witnesses or the deceased Ratan.Very minor injuries suffered by the appellants also supports the hypothesis of their guilt.The trial court has followed the right procedure as prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex court to adjudicate counter or cross cases of such nature.The injuries actually sustained by the injured could not have been, in such an incident, used as a measure relevant for adjudicating the nature of offence or penalty.He adds that the loss of an ear-pinna due to axe blow can not be viewed as a grievous hurt only.To buttress his submissions, he has relied upon various judgments.We will refer to the same in the course of this judgment, if and as and when necessary.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::Here as the controversy centers around the right of way, the spot of occurrence assumes importance.Trial Court holds the place where blood was found as the spot and negates the submission of the accused that place adjacent to field of accused No. 1 Shivaji by the side of Takli-Nandkhed way where the thorny bushes on the boundary of field were uprooted was the spot.There was a counter or cross complaint filed by these appellants against the injured eye witnesses in relation to the very same incident.Both these offences are investigated by the very same investigating officer PW-14 - PSI Satish Deshmukh.Sessions Trial 232 of 1996 in crime number 235 of 1995 for offences under S. 148, 307 & 149 of IPC was decided first and the accused therein were acquitted.Those accused persons are the eye witnesses relied upon by the trial court in this trial against these appellants.Deposition of PW-14 reveals that he had searched house of PW-5 Manik (herein) and seized two sticks and one iron ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 ::: apeal448.02 8 pipe.From house of the accused in counter case Sanjay Shirsat he seized a big fish shaped knife and a button knife.2 axes were seized from the house of accused 17 Harishchandra and produced in that case.This I.O. states that investigation in counter case revealed that these 2 axes were snatched from PW-4 Jagdeo and PW-6 - Vinayak in present matter.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::Thus, in this situation any party who wants to defeat the prosecution or show its innocence is bound to create confusion about the spot itself.Trial Court therefore ought to have gathered the spot first from the prosecution case and then proceeded to resolve controversy, if any, regarding it.The spot panchnama, witnesses on it and IO PW-14 - Satish, therefore, are the most important witnesses.Before going to the deposition at Exh. 102 of PW-1 Bhalchandra Shirsat who proved that panchnama Exh. 103, it is to ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 ::: apeal448.02 9 be noted that one Suresh Rajaram Shirsat has shown the spot of occurrence to the police.PW-1 deposes that field of Shivaji (accused 1) was the spot of occurrence.He makes distinction between this spot of occurrence and the spot/ place about 200 feet away therefrom, where the blood was seen.Exh. 103 also marks this distinction between the spot of occurrence and place in fallow land at a distance of 200 feet therefrom where 4 pools of blood were noticed.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::15. PW-14 - Satish Deshmukh, in paragraphs 2 & 3 deposes that the at spot a way was created by removing thorny bushes to pass through a field on Takli-Nandkhed way.He came across three blood pools at a distance of 200 feet from this point where the way was created.It will be appropriate at this stage to peruse the depositions of the injured witnesses.Ratan injured on 21.10.1995 died on next day.PW-4 - Jagdeo, on 05.02.2002, deposes that he was ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 ::: apeal448.02 10 proceeding to his field for spraying the insecticides.When he reached near field of accused 17 Haribhau Jawarkar, accused before the Court were present there with weapons and they inquired from him as to who had uprooted the thorny fencing.As per his narration the assault then commenced.In cross-examination, he deposed that field of accused No. 1 - Shivaji is on east of village.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:42 :::He maintains that foot way and cart way to his field is from inside the field of accused 1 Shivaji.Thus he does not speak of attack on him in any fallow land or fallow field or the gram panchayat land.Instead of accepting the spot to be near field of Shivaji, he points out the field of accused No. 17 - Haribhau.18. PW-5 No. - Manikrao, also on 05.02.2002, states that he was returning from his field with deceased Ratan and incident took place near field of Laxman Jawarkar.He also maintains that there is a way from inside the field of accused No. 1 - Shivaji.Paragraph 10 (cross-exam) shows that accused No. -17 - Haribahu was stating that there was no way from inside the field of Shivaji and was not permitting PW-4 - Jagdeo to go from inside.Thus, the quarrel began which lead to assault at same place.In police ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 11 report dated 21.10.1995 at Exh. 118, he does not describe spot specifically.He was in hospital for 45 days and his S. 161 statement was recorded on 05.12.1995 when he was already accused in counter case.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::PW-6 - Vinayak has deposed on 06.02.2002 that a day earlier i.e. on 20.10.1995, he was returning back from his field and entered the field of Laxman Jawarkar as there was mud on regular way.Accused No. 19 - Prakash had then threatened him for using the field as a way.About the actual incident on next day, as he heard noise near field of Laxman, he hurried and found accused persons in a fallow land.He then speaks of assault in that fallow land.In cross-examination, he maintains the stand that there is way from inside the field of accused No. 1 - Shivaji.He, therefore, shifts the venue of assault itself away from the field either of Shivaji or Haribhau and to a fallow land.20. PW-7 - Ramesh Shirsat on 06.02.2002 speaks of fallow land as spot and adds that said fallow land is adjoining the field of Laxman Jawarkar.His cross-exam reveals that field of accused No. ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 12 1 - Shivaji is distinct from field of Laxman.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::PW-8 - Pralhad has deposed on 07.02.2002 that to watch the incident, he went near field of Laxman Jawarkar.He does not say that assault was going on in field of Laxman or in fallow land.He states that it occurred near field of Laxman to the east of slum area.Distance between that spot and slum area is about 250 feet.After slum there is fallow land and adjoining it, is the field of Laxman Jawarkar.PW No. 9 - Gautam Sirsat deposes on 07.02.2002 that he heard shouts for help from the direction of field of Laxman Jawarkar and he went there.His deposition, therefore, does not mention the actual spot of occurrence.His cross-exam brings on record fact that there are other fields in the vicinity & no other person from those fields came there.Accused No. 1 - Shivaji, Accused No. 17 - Haribhau and others were also injured in the attack.PW No. 10 - Anil deposed that on hearing the news he ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 13 went near the field of Laxman and saw injured lying there.He denied that they had entered the field of Laxman and created a way.His statement under S. 161 Cr.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::Thus, none of these prosecution witnesses support theory of two spots of assault.They do not point out two spots separated by distance of 200 to 250 feet from each other.Avoidance of PW-5 - Manik to fix the spot in his report speaks volumes.PW-4 - Jagdeo who entered the witness box first in point of time clearly speaks of a place near field of accused No. 17 -Haribhau as the spot.Later improvements therein can be appreciated date wise as the recording of oral evidence progressed in the trial.Prosecution does not speak of any fallow land as the "spot" of occurrence.On the contrary, place where three or four pools of blood were found is separately taken note of in spot panchnama.Witness who has shown the spot to the investigating officer also does not show the "pools of blood" as place where the attack occurred.Extent of injuries on record also is not such as to support finding of three or four pools of blood.Material on record like evidence of PW-6 and spot panchnama Exh. 103 shows that there were rains and the path way was muddy.In this situation ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 14 finding of blood at spot pointed out by the prosecution may have been difficult.It may have been washed away also and accumulated at few places.It is not possible to recognize the place where blood pools were found as spot of assault beyond any shadow of doubt.The injured eyewitnesses deposing before the trial court were accused in a cross or counter case instituted against them.They were, therefore, interested in adopting a low profile and projecting the appellants as aggressors.It was not in their interest to agree to the spot of occurrence in spot panchnama.We, therefore, find the discussion on spot of occurrence by the learned Trial Court and its finding that the appellants appear to be the aggressors which is eclipsed by that discussion, is unsustainable.We accept the boundary of and field of accused No. 1 - Shivaji as described in spot panchnama Exh. 103 as the spot of occurrence.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::25. Burden on prosecution to point out how the four blood pools got created at a distance of 200 or 250 feet.On previous evening, one of them was threatened for walking through the field PW-6 - Vinayak has deposed on on 20.10.1995, he entered the field of Laxman Jawarkar due to mud on regular way and hence accused No. 19 -Prakash threatened him.If this Vinayak or his group had uprooted the bushes and cleared the fencing, they would have been carrying the axes, pipes, knifes & sticks.We have already taken note of deposition of the investigating officer (PW-14) show that weapons were also used in counter case in an attempt to drive home the charge against the prosecution witnesses who were accused therein.If appellants herein got knowledge of said act or then wanted to prohibit the user of agricultural field of Shivaji as a "way", they may also have gone there fully prepared.Charge sheet Exh. 153 filed on complaint of Shivaji i.e. accused No. 1 herein, is against 16 persons as accused.It mentions the event on 20.10.1995 and states that PW-4 - Jagdeo (accused No. 8 in Exh.153) created a gap and hence when witness No. 20 in that matter who is accused No. 19 Prakash stopped him, Jagdeo quarreled and slapped Prakash.It also records that on next day i.e. at the time of incident, when complainant Shivaji and his brothers went to fill in that gap, accused persons (therein) tried to enter the field by displacing the fence.When they were obstructed, said accused persons assaulted complainant and his brothers with axes, iron pipes and swords.It is complainant of Shivaji that there was attempt to kill him and 6 eye witnesses.Exh. 153 also shows that the "way" was in the field of Shivaji and he had separated it from his cotton crop by a fence.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::The prosecution witnesses in present matter who were accused therein have been already acquitted by the very same trial court.PW-4 - Jagdeo was accused No. 8, PW-5 - Manikrao was accused No. 15, PW-6 - Vinayak was accused No. 13, PW-7 - Ramesh was accused No. 9, PW-8 - Pralhad was accused No. 6, PW-9 - Gautam is accused No. 1 in the charge sheet.Here it needs to be noted that father's name of PW-9 is Tukaram while father's name of accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 17 No. 1 is Kisan.But PW-9 has in cross-exam accepted that he was accused in counter case.PW-10 - Anil in this matter is accused No. 11 in counter case.Thus all these witnesses were bound to benefit by altering the spot of occurrence.They have also falsely implicated few more persons or even a non-existent person as co-::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::accused with Shivaji.PW-4 - Jagdeo himself states that accused persons got injured due to their own weapons.PW-9 - Gautam also reiterates it.IO PW-14 did not find any blood on the seized weapons.Trial Court has implicated only 6 from group of Shivaji.We, therefore, have to find out whether by protecting own field and their cotton crop, appellants become the aggressors.Definitely the appellants will not remove the thorny bushes on field boundary and create a gap for entry within.Fact that thorny bushes needed removal, itself demonstrated that the way was attempted to be created and not in ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 18 use till then.Appellants were therefore protecting their field and crop.They may have stopped and obstructed the injured from using the newly created way.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::Learned APP Shri Nayak has relied upon Bhagwati Prasad v. State of M.P., (2010) 1 SCC 697 : AIR 2010 SC 349 to urge that here also the spot asserted by the injured eyewitnesses must be accepted.In matter before us, the eyewitnesses were accused in counter case and, therefore, interested in creating the confusion about actual spot.They, therefore, did not support the spot as shown by one of them only to police on the day of incident itself.This precedent therefore does not advance the cause of the State at all.Counter cases by both the groups against each other in relation to very same incident, prosecution itself accepting the ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 19 snatching of weapons from the prosecution witnesses and attempt to create confusion about the exact spot all create serious doubt about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their story.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::There has been unreasonable delay in recording of the S.161 Cr.P.C. statements of important prosecution witnesses.The deposition of PW-13 - Doctor Khade does not support this delay.We do not find it necessary to dwell upon the simple or grievous nature of those injuries, in present matter.However, when the deposition of injured eye witnesses is not qua the true spot and there is attempt by them to mislead the adjudication, We do not find it necessary to delve into their individual depositions.It cannot be forgotten that they were accused for attack by them on Shivaji and others i.e. the group of present appellants.The respective Counsel have argued at length about the availability or absence of ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 20 right of private defence, its extent & scope.APP has urged that it can never be claimed in disputes concerning the right of way and could not have been resorted to in a dispute over right of way.In the light of our discussion supra, we are not inclined to embark upon the exercise to consider niceties of this argument.We are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring on record against the appellants, the cogent and consistent material to enable us to hold them guilty or sustain their conviction.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::Whether in such a group clash, the State Government has to remain satisfied by citing participants therein as witnesses against each other and then, permit them not to cooperate by causing the delay in initial statements or by attempting to mislead the investigation or the "Trial"; is the moot issue.After such a group war and causality therein, the other members will like to go scot-free.They may also help each other to defeat law.It is crime against society and at stake is law and order.Hence, prosecution could have attempted to project and deal with individual member of rival groups as contributing to death of Ratan and injuries to each individual.After recording of the evidence in both the Sessions Trials and hearing of the arguments, the learned APP ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: apeal448.02 21 could have made such a request in the alternative, at least, in these peculiar facts.However, as we have not heard the respective Counsel at length on desirability of adopting such a course, we refrain from recording any binding observations.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 :::We therefore allow the Criminal Appeal preferred by the convicts.(i) Accused No. 1 - Shivaji, Accused No. 5 -Anand, Accused No. 17 - Haribhau, Accused No. 18 -Vasanta and Accused No. 19 - Prakash i.e. appellants before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2002 are acquitted of all the offences for which they were held guilty and their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in S.T. Case No. 54 of 1996 vide its judgment and order dated 23.07.2002 is quashed and set aside.(ii) Consequently Criminal Appeal No. 619 of 2002 filed by the State Government for enhancing their punishment is dismissed.(iii) Bail bonds furnished by them are cancelled.(iv) Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by the Trial Court after expiry of the appeal period.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2017 00:56:43 ::: | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,022,178 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 304B/34 of IPC registered as Crime No.160/2014 at Police Station Sironj, District Vidisha Learned Public Prosecutor 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.The allegation of causing death of the deceased due to dowry demand related cruelty is alleged against the applicant, who is the husband, and his relatives. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,059,496 | This is first application under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.410/17 registered at Police Station Dharampuri, district Dhar for the offence punishable under sections 354, 509, 354-A IPC and under section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.As per the prosecution case on 25.12.2017 at about 4.30 P.M when the prosecutrix was alone at her house the applicant came there and caught hold of her hand with intent to molest her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant who is aged about 25 years is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence.The applicant has no past criminal history.The applicant is the neighbour of the prosecutrix and on account enmity he has been falsely implicated in the offence.The conclusion of trial would likely to take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail. | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,062,533 | The applicant has preferred the present leave application against the respondents No.2 to 8 relating to judgment dated 24/06/2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in ST No.201/2010, whereby respondents Jagdev Singh, Shivram Singh and Harendra Singh have been acquitted from the charges of Sections 148, 307 or 307/149 and 324/149 of IPC, whereas respondent Jagdev has also been acquitted from the charge of Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, whereas the remaining respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Sections 147, 324/149 and 307/149 of IPC.Prosecution's case, in short, is that on 21/01/2010, election of Gram Panchayat was going on and voting was to be done at Primary School Building, Adhiyari Khurd in the jurisdiction of police station Mau.In that election, one Surmesh Singh (PW-2) and respondent- Jagdev Singh were the contestants for the post of Sarpanch.At about 2:30 pm Surmesh Singh (PW-2 went to polling booth.At that time, Harendra, son of Jagdev Singh went with a woman for casting a fake vote and the Presiding Officer removed that woman from the polling booth and thereafter, a quarrel started.The respondents had beaten Surmesh Singh, Rajendra Singh, Vijayram and Gurudayal.It was mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/4 that the respondents were armed with gun, axe and other weapons.It is alleged that respondent Jagdev Singh fired with a gun causing death of Surmesh Singh but some pellets had struck to victim Munna Singh (PW-13).Various injured persons were sent for their medico-legal examination.Dr. B.Argal (PW-1) examined Munna Singh (PW-13) and gave a report Ex.Only two injuries of pellets were found to him.He examined Rajendra Singh (PW-5) and Gurudayal Singh (PW-6) and gave reports Ex.P/2 and Ex.Some superficial injuries were found to them.Munna Singh was also referred for X-ray examination.Vivek Kumar Soni (PW-14) examined him radio-logically and gave a report Ex.Two radio opaque shadows were found on his chest and left forearm.Thereafter, the applicant Munna Singh was sent for treatment to Higher Hospitals.Heard on leave application.Dr. Amit Ojha (PW-15) examined him and one pellet was removed from his skin.However, he found eight injuries to the victim Munna Singh.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court, it appears that charge of Section 324 or 324/149 of IPC was framed against the respondents for the victims- Rajendra, Vijayram and Gurudayal whereas charge of Section 323 or 323/149 of IPC was framed for the victim- Surmesh Singh.Charge of offence under Section 307 of IPC directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC was framed against various respondents for the victim- Munna Singh.Out of these victims, Surmesh Singh (PW2), Dinesh (PW-4), Rajendra Singh (PW-5) Gurudayal (PW-6), Dhaniram (PW-8) and Mahipal Singh (PW-12) etc. have turned hostile whereas Vijayram was not examined before the trial Court.These witnesses have stated that some persons were pelting stones in the crowd and, therefore, they sustained injuries.Therefore, they exonerated all the accused persons.According to them, one unknown person fired with a gun and pellets were inserted on the chest and forearm of the victim- Munna Singh.On the other hand, Shelu (PW-3) and Munna Singh (PW-13) have stated against various accused persons that they assaulted various victims by axe and other weapons.They have stated that Jagdev Singh fired with a gun causing injuries to Munna Singh.However, the complainant Surmesh Singh (PW-2) who was the contestant for the post of Sarpanch, has turned hostile.Surmesh Singh was the person who had lodged the FIR Ex.P/4 and, therefore, he did not support the FIR.According to the FIR, if the respondent Jagdev Singh was interested to kill the complainant Surmesh Singh then Jagdev Singh would have fired with a gun then some pellets would have struck to Surmesh Singh also.It was not possible that only two pellets were inserted in the skin of applicant Munna Singh (PW13).Shelu (PW3) is son of Munna Singh, who can state in support of his father whereas it was found that Munna Singh did not give any statement before the police about the incident and, therefore, his statements before the Court were considered to be afterthought by the trial Court in the light of statements given by various witnesses, including complainant Surmesh Singh.On the basis of aforesaid evidence, where other independent witnesses have turned hostile, the trial Court has rightly discarded the evidence given by Munna Singh and Shelu that the fire was done by Jagdev Singh.When Jagdev Singh was interested to fire upon Surmesh Singh who was a rival contestant whereas neither Surmesh Singh sustained any injury of gunshot nor he told before the Court about such fire.Looking to the injuries that only two pellets have stuck to victim Munna Singh, possibility cannot be ruled out that an unknown person fired with gun from mob and Munna Singh had tried to get advantage of the FIR lodged by Surmesh Singh to implicate the rival contestant Jagdev Singh.If evidence of Shelu and Munna Singh is considered for other victims, then neither Rajendra Singh nor Gurudayal sustained any wound which could be caused by axe and, therefore, medical evidence defeats the evidence given by Shelu and Munna Singh.It would be apparent that a tainted investigation was done by the prosecution.It is shown that one gun was recovered from respondent Jagdev Singh, however for recovery of that gun the police has taken the evidence of Prem Singh (PW-11) who was the real brother of Munna Singh.A copy of this order be sent to the Court below along-with its record for information. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,068,145 | The case at hand, is yet another case in which a married lady took her life in her matrimonial home by hanging herself from fan and that too within 7 years of her marriage with the petitioner herein.The present case was registered at the instance of Mr. Kulwant Singh, i.e. father of the deceased - Harpreet Kaur.It is stated that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the petitioner on Bail Appl.The incident in question is of 26.04.2015 when an information was received in Police Post MIG Flats, Police Station Rajouri Garden that "Bhabhi room ka darwaja nahi khol rahi hai"and on receipt of that information investigating team sent to the spot.It came to notice that Smt. Harpreet Kaur wife of the petitioner herein has committed suicide by hanging herself from fan in her room by locking the door from inside.The victim was taken to the MKW Hospital by her husband alongwith neighbours after breaking window of room.The victim Harpreet Kaur was declared brought dead by the doctor of MKW Hospital.MLC No.110/2015 with alleged history of hanging was prepared.Since the death was within the seven years of marriage, the SDM Rajouri Garden was informed, who conducted inquiry from the parents and sisters of the deceased.Statements of father, mother, two sister of the deceased were recorded.Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 1 of 9During the investigation, post mortem conducted and body was handed over to the parents of the deceased.Father, mother and sisters of deceased stated before SDM that Trilochan Singh (father-in-law), Mrs. Parveen Kaur Bawa (mother-in-law), Ms. Simran Kaur (sister-in- law) and Mr. Parminder Singh Bawa, husband of the deceased used to torture the deceased for demand of dowry.Even some articles like fridge and gold has been disposed of by them.Allegation of beating the deceased were also leveled against the husband and father-in-law.It is reported that a day before death, all in-laws quarreled with the deceased and the husband demanded Rs.2 lacs through the deceased Harpreet Kaur, but parents of deceased could not fulfill the Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 2 of 9 demand.On the next date, i.e. 26.04.2015 the victim committed suicide.Petitioner was taken into custody on the very same day.However the mother-in-law - Mrs. Parveen Kaur Bawa has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.06.2015 on her medical grounds.After interrogation, Simran Kaur was discharged from the investigation.% P.S. TEJI, J.By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.561/2015 under Section 498-A/304-B/406/34 of IPC, at Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 2 of 9Post mortem report was collected and Dr. V.K.Ranga opined the cause of death : "deceased died due to asphyxia secondary to constriction of neck structures as result of hanging." After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in this case and the case is pending for recording of witnesses.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no iota of allegation against the petitioner regarding demand of dowry or any cruelty against the victim.It is further informed that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and during the period of bail, he never misused the liberty of concession of anticipatory bail.It is stated that the petitioner is an innocent person and after recording the statement of the police officials, no allegation against the petitioner are made out which attracts the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC.Even there is no allegation of harassment or demand of dowry against the petitioner since the date of marriage with the victim.Moreover, the petitioner Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 3 of 9 has clean antecedents and his mother is in dialysis and father is heart patient and he is the only person to take care of them.It is therefore prayed that the petitioner be granted bail in the present case.Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 3 of 9Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposed the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the petitioner.It is contended on behalf of the State that the death of the victim was within 7 years of marriage and she was mentally and physically harassed by her in-laws, which compelled her to take her life by hanging herself with fan.Regarding the cause of death, the doctor had opined that "deceased died due to asphyxia secondary to constriction of neck structures as result of hanging."Accordingly, charge sheet has been filed and till date, only formal witnesses have been examined and the material witnesses are yet to be examined.It is further stated that though the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.06.2015 but it was on the medical ground and the petitioner cannot take benefit thereof.Moreover, the petitioner is a husband of the deceased and he has the high responsibility about the care and caution of his wife in her matrimonial home.It is further stated that there is specific allegation of the complainant regarding demand of dowry against the petitioner.More so, the petitioner is charged with the heinous offence punishable under Section 498- A/304-B of IPC and while considering the seriousness of the allegations and the offences with which the petitioner is charged, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the bail Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 4 of 9 application of the petitioner, which does not suffer from any infirmity.Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner be rejected.Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 4 of 9No.1472/2016 Page 7 of 9 adopted in the facts of each case.Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 7 of 9In view of the aforesaid, the facts emerging from the record culminate into dismissal of the present bail application.Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed at this stage.Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner.Nothing Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 8 of 9 contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial.Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 8 of 9In the light of the aforesaid, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.P.S.TEJI, J SEPTEMBER 05, 2016 pkb Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 9 of 9Bail Appl.No.1472/2016 Page 9 of 9 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,960,691 | ORDER S.L. Jain, J.Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants/accused have filed this petition for quashing the complaint Case No. 100/04 pending in the Court of JMFC, Harda in which cognizance was taken vide order dated 25-3-04 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of the IPC.2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily narrated as under:-On the report of applicant No. 1 Ku.It is alleged by the applicants that complaint in Criminal Case No. 354/03 was filed with an intention to pressurize the applicants to com- pound the offence of Crime No. 15/2000 of Police Station, Timarni.The present complaint has also been filed with the same ulterior motive.In support of the complaint in question, the complainant examined himself, one Sandeep and his son Ganesh in the preliminary enquiry.The learned JMFC on the basis of statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.I have heard Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Kamal Singh Rajpoot, learned Counsel for the complain- ant/respondent.Learned Counsel for applicant submits that complaint has been filed with an oblique motive to rope in the applicants so as to wreak vengeance from them.The allegations made in the complaint in view of the application are patently after thought.The reference of application dated 10-7-03 and the report lodged regarding the incident dated 15-5-03 was given in the complaint and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.PC but without insisting for filing of those documents, learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction in a capricious or arbitrary manner therefore, the proceedings should be quashed.The complainant in his application, filed in Criminal Case No. 354/03, has stated thus :- | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,073,354 | The applicant is presently working as District Deputy Registrar at Akola.From 2006 to 2009, the applicant was working as Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, City-2,Nagpur.2. Rule.Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned APP.By this application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks the following reliefs.i) Quash the Regular Criminal Case No. 1105/2011 at Annexure P-1 and the First Information Report vide Crime No. M-2/11 registered by non-applicant no.1 Police Station, Ambazari, Nagpur at Annexure P-3 being an abuse of process of law, in the interest of justice.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::iii) Stay the investigation in Crime No. M-2/2011, as also stay all further proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 1105/2011 and stay the arrest of the applicant in Crime No. M-2/2011 and R.C.C. No. 1105/2011, pending disposal of the present application, in the interest of justice.On 6.1.2009 Nagpur Friends Urban Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to "the Act"), initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Act. The said Society was not a Multi State Cooperative Society.The non-applicant no.2 had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- for business purpose in the year 2003 and he had not paid the entire loan amount and there was a subsisting liability of Rs. 32,842/-.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::4 cri.appln.no.470.11 On 17.4.2009, the non-applicant no.2 filed an application opposing recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Act and asserted that the claim was time barred.On 28.5.2009, the applicant issued recovery certificate, copy of which has been placed on record.The non-applicant no.2 did not challenge the said certificate under the Act. On 27.3.2011 the non-applicant no.2 lodged report with non-applicant no.1 alleging that the applicant had committed offences under Sections 109, 166, 219, 418, 422 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.The non-applicant no.1 refused to register the First Information Report against the applicant for the said offences.On 18.4.2011, the non-applicant no.2 filed petition purporting to be under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 1105/2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.On 18.6.2011 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur passed an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.On the basis of the said order non-applicant no.1 registered offence vide Crime No. M-2/11 under Sections 109, 166, 219, 406 and 422 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::It has been further stated that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised sparingly and cautiously.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that filing of petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is nothing but an abuse of process of the court as none of the offences alleged in the petition is made out against the applicant.The learned counsel further submitted that the Society not being Multi State Society, the applicant was entitled to issue the certificate.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::7 cri.appln.no.470.11 According to the applicant, the claim was not time barred claim and in any case, if aggrieved by the grant of the certificate, the non-applicant no.2 had effective remedy of challenging the same by filing Revision under Section 154 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not even bother to see whether petition made out cognizable offence/s which were required to be investigated by the police.Bhajan Lal & others.II) Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani & others vs. State of Maharashtra and others.Mr. Mirza, the learned APP submitted that the order under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: 8 cri.appln.no.470.11 Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed by the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance and as such merely because the First Information Report is registered against the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to challenge the said First Information Report.Mr. Mirza, further submitted that it is only in the event of process being issued against the applicant after filing of the charge sheet, the applicant is entitled to challenge the proceedings against him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::The learned Magistrate ought to have found out whether the petition discloses commission of cognizable offence/s by the applicant before passing the order under Section 156 (3).From a bare reading of the petition purporting to be under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., it is evident that the non-applicant no.2 was challenging the said certificate primarily on two grounds namely jurisdiction and limitation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::Insofar as to the point of limitation is concerned, in our view the only remedy available to the non-applicant no.2 was to challenge the order before the authorities under the Act, if aggrieved.Similar is the case in respect of jurisdiction.If the non-applicant no.2 was aggrieved ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: 13 cri.appln.no.470.11 by the recovery certificate issued by the applicant on any ground, he ought to have resorted to appropriate proceedings to challenge the certificate.Such a course can never be countenanced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::They are as follows:Where the allegations made in the First Information ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: 15 cri.appln.no.470.11 Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::At the cost of repetition, we state that if the non-applicant no.2 was aggrieved by the certificate issued by the applicant on the ground that it was in respect of time barred claim or that the applicant had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate, the applicant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: 17 cri.appln.no.470.11 ought to have resorted to remedy available under the Act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::The Full Bench answered question no.2 as follows:Such petition would be maintainable before the Magistrate."It would be a different matter, if the petition filed under Section 156(3) discloses cognizable office and in such eventuality the person against whom First Information Report is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: 19 cri.appln.no.470.11 lodged, may not be entitled to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3) and consequential registration of First Information Report inasmuch as since the commission of cognizable offence is disclosed it is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to direct investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::Needless to mention that the registration of First Information Report against a person, affects his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: 21 cri.appln.no.470.11 liberty inasmuch as under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., if the Officer In-charge of the Police Station or the Investigating Officer is entitled to arrest such person even without an order from the Magistrate.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::In view of the above, we are of the considered view that initiation of the proceeding against the applicant by non-applicant no.2 by filing petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is patently mala fide and with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance since the applicant had issued certificate under Section 101 of the Act.As stated above, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for his act done in good faith while discharging quasi judicial function in terms of Section 162 of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequential registration of First Information Report against applicant deserve to be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the Registrar (J) to circulate a copy of this Judgment to all the Principal District and Sessions Judges ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: 23 cri.appln.no.470.11 within the jurisdiction of Nagpur Bench, who shall, in turn, circulate the Judgment to all the Magistrates within their jurisdiction.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 :::With the above directions, the application stands disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:41:26 ::: | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,607,419 | Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State.Date of hearing : 15/01/2013 Date of judgment: .. /01/2013 (J U D G M E N T ) Per: Vimla Jain, J Heard.It is not in dispute that Nankuni Bai (deceased) is the wife of accused Nemlal.His first wife had died and from her, he has a son Basantlal.Accused Nemlal, witness Shyamlal, Darachandra and Ramraj are real brothers.--6--their agricultural activities separately but they live in one house but in different rooms.It is also not disputed that on the date of incident, accused Nemlal, Mitahilal, Shyamlal, Darachandra and Ramraj went to their fields for ploughing.Brief facts of the case are that the first wife of accused Nemlal died before 15 years and her son Basant was living with him and his second wife Nankuni Bai (deceased).There are some controversies between accused Nemlal and deceased Nankuni Bai relating to Basantlal.Due to such controversies, on 30/06/2001, when the deceased was all alone in her home at Manikpur, accused Nemlal by strucking a stone piece (iRFkj dh fly) on her thigh broke down her femur bone.For concealing the evidence of murder, the accused Nemlal wraped the dead body with bedding and poured the kerosene oil over it, set it ablaze in the room itself.By anyhow locking the doors of the room from inside, the accused had pretended that Nankuni Bai (deceased) had committed suicide.Witnesses Dhanesh and Manilal saw some smoke from the house of Nemlal.Dhanesh went to field to inform the incident to appellant Nemlal.After breaking the door of the--7--room, the dead body of Nankuni was found in a burnt condition.Thereafter Ramraj (PW-6) gave written information of the incident to the Police Station, Umaria upon which a Marg Intimation was registered by O.D.Tandiya, ASI Umaria.On 01/07/2001, Inspector V.K.Jain (PW-13) reached the spot and prepared the inquest panchnama (Ex.P/3) and spot map (Ex.P/6).After due investigation, he registered a FIR (Ex.P/16) against the accused/appellant.By recovering plain and burnt earth and pieces of bone of deceased Nankuni Bai, the seizure memo was prepared vide (Ex.P/14).He also seized SILL and BATTA (piece of stone), PLASTIC CONTAINOR with smell of kerosene, MATCH BOX and LALTEN.He prepared seizure memo Ex.It was, thus clearly evident that deceased Nankuni bai was died of homicidal injuries.There is no dispute that the deceased was a second wife of the appellant /accused and she was living with appellant and his first wife's son Basant Kumat (PW-10).Dhanesh (PW-8) stated that he has come from his field and took meals.Then few boys of Nemlal's house came and stated that there was fire in the house.He went and saw rooms of Nemlal on fire.Room was closed from inside.He had tried to open the room by his leg but could not succeed.Then he had brought stairs and went up on the tiles of roof.He went to field of appellant and informed the incident.Rampratap Singh (PW-1) stated in his cross-examination that there is only one door and no window in the room wherein--13----19--It is not in dispute that Dhaniram Kirar (deceased) and all accused persons belong to the same village.The accused persons are the members of one family.Accused Komal, Raju alias Langda, Mattu alias Mahesh and Lachhi alias Lachhiram are brothers whereas Gullu alias Gulab is their father.Brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2000 at about 11:30 am in village Imaliya (Kadheli), Dhaniram Kirar (deceased) was standing near his house and abusing in filthy language.The reason of MARPEET being that six months' prior to this incident, son of accused Gulab died due to electric current and accused persons suspected that deceased Dhaniram might have given electric current to his son.Ashok Kumar Patel gave the information of the incident to the Police Station, Tendukheda upon which Rojnamcha Sanha No. 670 was registered on 20.10.2000 at about 11:30 and on the telephonic information, the Town Inspector alongwith staff proceeded towards the spot.W hen Ram Prasad, cousin of deceased Dhaniram was going towards Police Station Tendukheda to lodge the report, on the way near village Ishwarpur, he met the Police Party and lodged the report there itself, which was reduced in writing as Dehati Nalishi vide Ex.P/3 at about 1:15 in the afternoon.On the basis of the report, Marg Intimation (Ex.P/4) was prepared.Complainant has filed ths appeal against the judgment dted 30/11/2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Umaria District Umaria in Session Trial No.113/2009 acquiting the--5--respondents of the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.According to prosecution Appellant preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/05/2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria District Umaria in Sessions Trial No.270/2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under with the direction to run both the jail sentences concurrently:-fine additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.U/s 201 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.The dead body of deceased Nankuni Bai was sent for postmortem for which an application Ex.P/11 was written and some queries were asked by Ex.Dr. Chandrabhusan Rohitas conducted the Postmortem of deceased Nankuni vide Ex.P/11 and the answered the queries by Ex.--8--On being charged with the offence under the said sections, the appellants/accused pleaded not guilty and complete innocence and stated that on the date of incident, he went to field for ploughing early in the morning and claimed to be tried with the prayer that he had been falsely implicated in the case.In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and proved the documents (Ex.P/1 to P/15).The appellant examined only one witness in his defence.The learned Court below, after scanning the evidence, found the charges proved against the appellant, convicted and sentenced him as hereinabove stated.Shri V.K.Jain (PW -13) Inspector Police Station Umaria has written in inquest panchnama (Ex.P/3) that left leg of deceased was broken.Although, more of the panch witnesses namely Vrindavan (PW -4), Ramsajeevan (PW -5), Munilal (PW -7) and Pyaribai (PW -9) came forward to support the respective version yet, but at the same time they admitted their signatures on the inquest panchaama (Ex.P/3) in absenc of any cogent reason for his interest, evidence of V.K.Jain (PW -13) inspector of Police Station Umaria, was sufficient to prove the factum of injury of deceased.On query, Dr. Chandrabhushan Rohitas (PW-11)--12--replied that when deceased was alive, she got injury of femur bone and her femur bone broke into three piece.In his opinion injury of left leg of deceased was ante mortem in nature.He further opined that corbon particles not seen in her lungs.He clearly stated that her death was homicidal in nature.He removed tiles of the roof and saw fire in side the room.Nankuni Bai was burning.the incident took place.The door was closed from in side by HATAKA of wood.The door could not be opened from out side.The roof is of tiles.He clearly stated that he did not find any hole for entrance and exit from the room, from the side of roof at the time of preparation of map.Therefore, the trial Court rightly concluded that before investigation by the police, appellant and his family members properly set the tiles on roof to suppress the evidence of entry in to the room from the side of room.In these circumstances it is found that appellant easily removed tiles of roof and enter the house after exit from room he could properly set the tiles on roof.Mithailal (PW-2), Darachandra (PW-3), Ramraj (PW-6) are brothers of appellant/accused and Basant Kumar (PW-10) is his son.They deposed that on the day of the incident, appellant had gone to his field.They were also in their field.They further stated that appellant stayed in his field from morning to evening.He did not go to his house to take food.These witnesses are closely related to the appellant.Therefore, naturally they went to save appellant.They are fully interested in appellant/accused.In the absence of independentwitness it could not be proved that appellant had not come to his house in between morning to evening.The incident occurred on 30/06/2001 at 5 PM.Ramraj (PW-6) who is the brother of appellant gave the information of the incident (Ex.P/14) to the police on the next day at 11.15 AM.There is 18 hours gap between the time of occurrence.He intimated that "ukudquh dejs ds vanj gS vkSj vkx yxkdj ty xbZ gS njoktk vanj ls can gS BkB dkVdj ns[ks gSA jtkbZ xn~nk vius ij yisV dj vkx yxkbZ xbZ gSA " and registration of the merge intimation therefore the story mentioned in merge intimation was unbelievable.Shri VK.Jain (PW-13) Inspector prepared inquest panchnama (Ex.P/3) and seizure memo (Ex.P/5).He had written in (Ex.P/3) that deceased Nankuni Bai had been burned brutally.Hair of her back head and quilt of her back side could not be bunt.Dr. Chandrabhushan Rohitas (PW-11) clearly stated that smell of kerosene oil was found on the clothes of deceased.He further stated that injury of left leg of deceased was ante mortem in nature the cause of death is asphyxia due to obstruction of air passage.He had not found any soot or carbon particle in any portion of the breathing system.These circumstances clearly established and beyond--15--doubt that appellant /accused firstly inflicted injury by sill (piece of stone) on her leg.Then he strangulated her neck and after that he fired her body.Thereafter, he is guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the conviction is confirmed.At the time of investigation it came out that there was quarrel between appellant/accused and deceased due to his firs wife's son Basant Kumar.But this fact is no proved by the prosecution.All witnesses were hostile.What was the immediate motive of the incident we do not know.The Appellant or deceased could know about it.The deceased is no more before us to tell the story.Thus, we find that the accused had been rightly held guilty of murder of his wife.The other question is whether he had rightly been convicted for offence under Section 201 of IPC.Section 201 of IPC defines the offence of giving false information to screen the offender or causing disappearance of evidence.In this case, we have found that appellant/ accused after committing offence properly set the tiles on roof to suppress the evidence of entry in to the room from the side of roof.Thus he misled the police to screen himself.This was an offence punishable under--16--Section 201 of IPC.So he was also rightly convicted for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.The appeal having no merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1664/2002 Komal alias Komal Singh Kirar & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (J U D G M E N T ) Judgment for consideration (Rakesh Saksena) Judge (SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE /1/2013Accused Gulab armed with TABAL, Mattu alias Mahesh armed with KATARNA, Raju alias Langda armed with axe, Lachhi alias Lachhiram armed with SABBAL and Komal armed with sword surrounded Dhaniram, assaulted him and caused injuries on his head and various parts of his body.As a result of such injuries, Dhaniram died on the spot.During the MARPEET, when Maltibai and Baribai, wife and mother of deceased Dhaniram came to intervene, accused Kerabai and Gauribai pelted stones on them--20--from their house and caused injuries to Baribai. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,077,821 | Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Akhilendra Singh, Government Advocate for the respondent.(ORDER) Passed on 06th of May, 2015 This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli, Headquarter Waidhan, in Sessions Trial No.111/2013, framing the charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC.Brief facts of the case are that on 08.06.2012 Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar lodged a complaint before the Police Station Sarai, District Singrauli, alleging that on 26.11.2011 the applicants committed fraud with him by preparing a registered sale-deed in respect of agricultural land owned by her with the help of other persons, who are Engineer and Secretary, assures her to pay compensation and fraudulently obtained signature on the sale-deed.After completion of due investigation the applicants were charge-sheeted.2 Cr. R. No.1867 of 20142 Cr. R. No.1867 of 2014After committal proceeding learned trial Court by the impugned order have been framed aforesaid charges against the applicants, which are challenged by this revision.It is pointed out that the statement of Rajendra Sengar, Public Servant before whom document Annexure A-1 was filed for registration does not state any thing against the applicants.It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties are of civil nature and in support of it copy of the plaint also filed which was presented by the complainant Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar herself in the Court of learned II Civil Judge Class-II, Deosar, District Singrauli which was registered as Civil Suit No.10-A/2013 Jagmatoya Vs.Govind Das and others.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the applicants be discharged from the charges as mentioned above.After perusing the documents filed with the revision, particularly the charge-sheet in light of above discussed legal matrix prima facie well founded case is made out against the applicants.At this preliminary stage, statements of Sub Registrar, Rajendra Sengar alone cannot be deciding the fate of the case of the prosecution, because charges of impersonation are also framed against the applicants.R. No.1867 of 2014 made out against the applicants for framing of above mentioned charges against the applicants. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,081,530 | It is hereby allowed.By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Nandu Muniya s/o Mangu Bhil has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.459/2015 registered by Police Station Bilpank, District- Ratlam for offence under Sections 450, 376, 323 & 506 of IPC.The affidavit by the prosecutrix has been filed to the effect that there being a dispute between the parties and she herself had gone to file a report regarding hot talk exchanged between the parties and whereas offence has been registered u/S.376, 323, besides offence u/S.455 and 406 of IPC.On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 3 Judge JYOTI | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,608,723 | This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Indore and he has no criminal antecedents.Prosecutrix is aged about 18 years and she had volantarily gone with the applicant.She remained in the company of applicant for about 15 days, during this period she has not complaint to anybody in this regard nor tried to escape from his company.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.He is detained since 14/07/2015, whereas trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,960,956 | On 22-5-1994, information was received in Police Station Subji Mandi that a quarrel was going on in house No 4289,Arya pura subji mandi ASI Krishan Chand was directed to go to the spot and make an enquiry Kishan Chand along with_ Constable Krishan Kumar went to the spot but another information was received to the, effect that a murder has taken place in house No 4345, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.During investigation Sonia, (PW.7), daughter of Karan Singh made her statement to the.effect that on 30-4-94 she had come to the house of her aunt (Bua) Anita' (PW18) during summer vacation of her school.On that day, she along with her aunt- Anita were washing clothes at about 11.45 a.m Meanwhile, Raj Kumar, younger brother of her uncle (Phupha) Vinod, (PW 10) who is also known as Man came there and asked her aunt Anita to give him dumble.She disclosed, while crying, that Raj Kumar had injured her mother and her brother Ashu.She further stated that Raj Kumar left the room after throwing the weapon of assault.Neighbours collected and police also reached there Sarla, Anita, Aashu and Golu to hospital.ORDER Arijit Passayat, C.J.He imposed death sentence on the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, IPC), ten years RI for the offence punishable under Section 307 and two years RI for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1950 (for short Arms Act).Since death sentence was imposed, reference has been made to this Court under Section 366 of Code.Prosecution case sans unnecessary details is as follows -Anita told him that dumble was not there and asked him to leave Raj Kumar asked her younger sister Mona for giving dumble Again her aunt Anita told him that it was not there.Hearing this Raj Kumar gave many blows on the head of her aunt Anita with a big knife which he was having in his hand.he gave further blows on her hands when she raised her hands to protect herself thereafter Raj Kumar snatched a small child, son of Anita, named Golu, who was with Anita's sister Mona, and injured Golu with the knife that he was carrying.On account of injuries Anita and Golu started crying for help.On hearing this, Sonia and Mona also started crying for help and raised an alarm.Hearing their alarm neighbours and the mother-in-law of another aunt Sarla (sister of Anita) also reached there Bhawana (PW 8) daughter of Sarla also reached.She stated that she had seen Raj Kumar was quarreling with Vinod and his brothers Sushil PW 12 and her aunt Anita and Sarla the was telling that a mentally retarded child was born to him while his brother got sons and as such they were depriving him of share in the shop.A case was registered on the basis of statement of Sonia Dr. Prithvi Raj (PWI) had certified that Aashu and Sarla were brought dead to him by the police Post mortem was conducted by Dr. C.B. Devas (PW2).The other sentences are stated to be harsh.In Dilip Singh Vs. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,095,828 | The applicant herein referred as a child.The case of the prosecution against a child, in short, is that child along with other relatives was going on the motorcycle and at Hajariya Nala, shot fire at Ashutosh Tiwari, who received the gun shot injuries on the right side of his back, blood was oozing out and he rushed to the Hospital.The new Act "Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015" come in force.Sub-Inspector Sher Ali Khan, recorded the report of Ashutosh Tiwari and registered a crime number 0/19 for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC at police chowki, Hospital, Police Station Sagra, registered a permanent crime no.70/2019 against the child as well as other accused.After investigation, a child was taken into custody during investigation.The application for taking the custody of the child filed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (hereinafter referred as "Act'').Learned Appellate Court vide order dated 09.08.2019 dismissed the appeal.When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,097 | The appellant himself was outside the prison for more than six years.He was outside the prison more than the period he spent inside.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant is suffering life imprisonment in Central Jail, Kannur in view of the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').He made a claim before the State Government that the Kerala Prison Rules, 1958 (in short 'Rules') provide for release on probation on completion of 8 years of custody.According to him the period of study leave amounting to 6 years 10 months and 13 days have to be reckoned while computing the period of sentence undergone.The prayer was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner had not suffered 8 years of custodial sentence and, in fact, he had undergone imprisonment for 6 years, 3 months and 25 days to which the remand period of 1 month and 17 days is to be added making a total of 6 years 5 months and 10 days.The High Court found substance in the stand of the State Government with reference to Rule 225(2) that the writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief.A writ appeal was filed before the High Court.The Division Bench by the impugned order held that the case of the writ petitioner could not have been placed before the committee as he has not suffered mandatory period of 8 years of sentence.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the period of study has to be reckoned.Reference is made to RuleLearned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the order of the High Court.The parameters and requirements have to be kept in view while considering the case.The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,100,215 | nbj Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15395 and 1523 of 2012 | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,961,026 | During thependency of this appeal, A3 died, and hence, insofar as A3 is concerned, theappeal becomes abated.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated thus:a) P.W.1 Narasimhan was an Assistant in the office of the Directorateof Fisheries Development.A3 was the Superintendent in the same departmentand he was running Nagalakshmi Finance Institution.P.W.1 Narasimhan, PW4 Jayalakshmi, PW5 Gowrieswari, PW6 Sarojam, PW7Megala, PW8 Santhakumari, PW9 Premakumari, PW10 Kasi, and PW11 Renganathanhave deposited amounts under Fixed Deposit scheme.Fixed deposit receiptshave been issued to them under Exs.P.W.1 Narasimhan, PW4Jayalakshmi, PW9 Premakumari, PW12 Sundaramurthy, PW13 Revathy, PW14Renugadevi and PW15 Rajalakshmi have made deposits under recurring depositscheme.The passbooks have been issued under Ex.PW1, PW4, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14and PW15 had preferred complaints under Ex.PW2 Kumaresan has spoken to the fact that he waspresent when A3 was being enquired by the police in his shop and has alsospoken about the search of the house of A3 and signatures have been marked asExs.PW16 Malini, PW17Vijayalakshmi, PW1 8 Padmini, PW19 Syed Hamanullah, PW20 Shakila Begum, PW21S.Rajam, PW22 Janaki, PW23 Kuppabai, PW24 Sivagami, PW25 Chandra, PW26Vinothini, PW27 Balaraman, PW28 Selvabooshnam, PW29 Agnes Durairaj, PW30 IdaDurairaj, PW31 Shanthi, PW32 Mohanraj, PW33 Dorthi S.Raj, PW34 V.Seethalakshmi, PW35 Hanna Anand, PW36, Anbazhagan, PW37 Gopala Krishnan, PW38Shanthi, PW39 Shanthakumari, PW40 Dhamodharan, PW41 Lalitha, PW4 2 Saraswathi,PW43 Lakshmi Kanthammal, PW44 Voilet Shantha, PW45 Savithiri, PW46 Malliga,PW47 Jamuna Achari, PW48 Kuppanna Achari, PW49 Sumathy, PW50 Mathivanan, PW51Balamurali, PW52 N.Kannan, PW53 Saraswathy, PW54 Rajan, PW55 Abiramasundari,PW56 K.Natarajan, PW57 Ghandhimathi, PW58 Hyder Aliyar Begum, PW59G.Nagarajan, PW60 Subbulakshmi, PW61 Dhanalakshmi, PW62 Suseela, PW63 Girija,PW64 Srinivasan, PW65 Vijayakirubakaraju, PW66 Jayaraman, PW67 Shakileswari,PW68 Padmanabhan, PW69 Thirusooli, PW70 Pechiammal, PW71 Rangarajan, PW72Ponnambalam, PW73 Loganayaki, PW74 Mohanabai, PW75 Lalitha Kumari, PW76Padmini, PW77 Suseelabai, PW78 Saraswathy, PW79 Kalyani, PW80 Srinivasan, PW81 Samshia Begum, PW82 Jayalakshmi, PW83 Dhanamani and PW84 Vidya Nagarajanhave deposited money under various schemes with A1 institution.b) On the strength of the complaint given by P.W.1 on 14.2.1997 atabout 7.30 p.m., P.W.85 S.Suryanarayanan, Sub Inspector of Police ( Crimes),Periamedu formerly Sub Inspector of Police in Central Crime Branch, Egmore hadregistered a case in Crime No.200 of 1997 under Sections 120B and 409 IPC.F.I.R. was marked as Ex.A3 was arrested and produced.His statementwas recorded.A search of the house of A3 was done on 15.2.1997 at 10.00a.m., which was situated at No.6, Lloyds Colony, Government Quarters.In thepresence of P.Ws.2 and 3 the documents were seized.Index : YesInternet : YesvvkToThe Special Judge, TNPID Cases, MadrasThe Principal Judge, ChennaiThe Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore,The Public Prosecutor, MadrasThe Dy.Inspector of Police, Chennai-4This is an appeal made by A1 to A3, who stood charged and tried alongwith A4 under Sections 120 B r/w 420, 409, 109 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPIDAct.The appellants were found guilty under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 ofTNPID Act. A1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh through A2, while A2and A3 were convicted for 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and topay a fine of Rs.50000/- in default six months RI and for the section 5 ofTNPID Act to undergo 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh in default oneyear RI and both the sentences to run concurrently.The trial court acquittedthe fourth accused of all the charges levelled against her.The properties recoveredwere produced before the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.A3 was alsoproduced before the said Court and was remanded to judicial custody.TheInvestigating Officer examined P.W.1 and 107 witnesses and recorded theirstatements.He seized the documents of Fixed Deposit Receipts and perused therecords pertaining to the fixed deposits.All the pamphlets makingadvertisement as to the benefits to the depositors by A1 Firm, namelyExs.P.352, 353 and 354 and Ex.P.355 visiting card bearing the name of A2 wererecovered and produced before the Court.Further investigation was taken upby P.W.86 Krishnamoorthy, who verified the earlier investigation and laid acharge sheet against A1 to A4 under Sections 120 B, 409, 420 IPC and Section 5of TNPID Act.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 86 witnesses and marked 355 exhibits.No materialobjects were produced.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as tothe incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses.But, it cannot be repaid in time,since they could not recover the amounts from the persons to whom it wasadvanced.On the side of the defence, four documents were filed.Onconsideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the availablematerials, the trial court found A1 to A3 guilty of the offence referred toabove and sentenced to pay fine and imprisonment as stated above, while A4 wasacquitted of all the charges levelled against her.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, Mr.K.Jayakumar, the learned counsel inter-alia made following submissions forconsideration by this Court.There was no prior enmity betweenP.W.2 and P.W.3 with the accused.The lower court has failed to note theprior enmity, which was suggested at the time of cross examination of the saidwitnesses.There were number of irregularities, which were elicited at thetime of cross examination of the Investigating Officer, but the lower courthas not taken note of the same.The lower court has not discussed theevidence of the individual witnesses and given a separate finding.There wasno iota of evidence to indicate that the accused Nos.2 and 3 have cheated thepublic and no one of the ingredients under Section 420 of I.P.C. was proved.It is pertinent to note that the interests on the deposits were continuouslypaid without any default till the time of the complaints that were made.Under such circumstances, the conviction under Section 5 of TNPID Act was notwarranted.In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be held that the accusedNo.2 was the Managing Director and Accused No.3 was the Manager of the Firm.While the lower court has acquitted the fourth accused, it should not haveconvicted A1 to A3 on the basis of the same evidence.Strongly opposing the contentions put forth by the appellants'side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that thesecond accused has categorically admitted that he was the Managing Director,while the third accused, who was a Government employee, was acting as Managerto collect the money by way of Fixed deposits making the public believe thatthey will give high rate of interest and by way of recurring deposits also;that the said fact was never disputed by the accused during trial; that it isalso not in dispute that those amounts were not repaid at all, whichnecessitated the witnesses to lodge complaints; that at the time ofinvestigation, all the depositors one after another gave complaints; that allthe documents were seized and they have been placed before the lower Court;that in view of the evidence available, the lower court has taken a view thatin the name of the Financial Institution, A2 as Managing Director and A3 asManager have made public believe by their misrepresentation and collectedamounts and thus the provisions under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPIDAct were attracted; that it is pertinent to note that A2 was acted as ManagingDirector during the relevant period, which fact was also admitted by him atthe time of questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hence, the judgmentof the lower court has got to be sustained.A careful consideration of the rival submissions and a carefulanalysis of the entire materials available would lead to the irresistibleconclusion that the trial court was perfectly correct in recording aconviction against the second accused under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 ofTNPID Act.Admittedly, the first accused, Nagalakshmi Finance InvestmentsConsultants, situated at D.No.6, Lloyds Colony, Royapetah, Chennai, was aFinance Institution, which was collecting amounts from the public under fixeddeposit scheme and recurring deposit scheme, in respect of which voluminousadvertisements have been made representing the public stating that they willgive high rate of interest at 21% and above.From the admission made by thesecond accused, it would be clear that even gold coins were distributed inorder to attract the public at the first instance.During the relevantperiod, Accused No.2, who was a student, has acted as Managing Director.Aperusal of the fixed deposit vouchers, which were collected at the time ofinvestigation, would clearly show that the second accused has signed asManaging Director of the first accused Financial Institution.It remains to be stated that at the time of questioning underSection 313 Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 has admitted that he was the ManagingDirector.He also admitted that the amounts were collected from thewitnesses.He adduced some reasons why it could not be repaid.In view of the evidence availableand in view of the admission made by A2, it would be too late for theappellants' side to state that A2 had nothing to do either with the dealingsor collections of money so made.From the available evidence it would beclear that only by making misrepresentation of fabulous interest rate andmaking distribution of gold coins and also by issuing pamphlets for makingdeposits in their favour, the accused Nos.2 and 3 have attracted the public.It is heartrending that the accused No.3, who himself was a Governmentemployee, has collected money from number of staff of the same department andalso from different departments, which includes retired persons and pensionersalso.As pointed out above, insofar as A3 isconcerned, he died, and hence the appeal becomes abated as against A3.Insofar as A2 is concerned, it is brought to the notice of the Court that hewas only 24 years old and he was actually a student at that time; that he wasutilised by his father; that he had nothing to do with the FinancialInstitution, and he had no benefit from the said Financial Institution.Thelearned counsel for the appellants further stated that it cannot be statedthat he was the Managing Director of the Firm and he had nothing to do withthe collection amount.Taking into consideration the age of the accused, the court is ofthe view that awarding punishment of six years R.I along with the fine awardedby the trial court as referred to above under Section 5 of TNPID Act wouldmeet the ends of justice.Therefore, the sentence of 10 years RI underSection 5 of TNPID Act imposed by the lower court on A2 alone is reduced tosix years R.I. In other respect, the judgment of the lower court isconfirmed.With the above modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,105,668 | P.Ws.1 to 3 are the victims in this case.At the time of occurrence, they were 12 years, 10 years and 11 years of aged respectively.They were all residing at Vannarapettai in Chennai city.The accused at the time of occurrence was aged around 74 years.He was also residing in the same locality.P.Ws.1 to 3 were studying in a local school.Their parents and other family members used to go for work outside.It is alleged that on 01.03.2010, the accused took them to his house.According to P.W.1, the accused took her into the house made her to see an obscene film in the television and then despite her resistance, he had sexual intercourse with her.The accused threatened her and warned her not to disclose the same to anyone.P.W.2- the second victim was similarly taken into the house of the accused and much against her resistance had sexual intercourse with her after tying her legs and hands.The accused closed the mouth of the victim by using a plaster.After the occurrence, the accused untied her, removed the plaster and sent her back with a warning not to disclose the same to anyone.P.W.3 - the third victim of the crime has stated that the accused took her once to his house.He had shown her an obscene film in the television.Then he tied her legs and hands with a rope and closed her mouth with a plaster.Then much against her resistance, he had sexual intercourse with her.Then, he untied her, removed the plaster and sent her with a warning not to disclose the same to anyone.All the victims did not disclose to anyone about the occurrence out of fear for the accused.After some time, P.W.1 complained of abdominal pain.Therefore, P.W.4 the mother of P.W.1 took her to a private hospital.The Doctor on examination found that she had been sexually exploited.Then P.W.4 took her back to the house.Thereafter, P.W.4 along with her husband went to the police station and made a complaint.P13 is the complaint.P.W.16 took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness.He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.356 of 2011 on the file of the Mahila Sessions Court, Chennai.He stood charged for offences under Sections 366-A (3 counts), 342 (3 counts), 376 (3 counts) and 506(ii) (3 counts) IPC.By judgment dated 09.07.2012, the Trial Court convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 366-A IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each count for the offence under Section 342 IPC; to undergo imprisonment for life for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 376 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each count in default to undergo imprisonment (simple or rigorous imprisonment not mentioned) for 6 months for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.,P.W.16 - the then Inspector of Police on receipt of the complaint in Ex.He forwarded them to the Doctor for medical examination.P.W.7 Dr.Suganya Devi examined all the three victims on 03.04.2010 and found that they had been sexually exploited.P.W.16 then arrested the accused and forwarded him to the hospital for examination.P.W.15 Dr.Santhakumar examined him on 16.04.2010 and gave opinion that he was capable of performing penal sexual intercourse with women.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first para of this judgment against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited, besides 3 Material Objects viz., M.0.1- Television, M.O.2 Onida DVD player, M.O.3 Compact disk containing obscene film were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence and that the accused had sexual intercourse with them against their resistance.P.Ws.4 and 5 mothers of P.Ws.1 and 3 respectively have stated that P.Ws.1 and 3 have told them about the occurrence.P.W.6 is the Head Constable who took the accused to the Doctor for examination.She has opined that all the three victims had been sexually exploited.P.W.8 has stated that she took the victims to the hospital for medical examination.P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused.P.W.10 has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch.P.W.11 - father of P.W.3 has deposed on the basis of hearsay evidence.P.W.12 an NGO has stated that P.W.3 had narrated the entire occurrence to her.P.W.13 - the father of P.W.2 has stated that P.W.2 told him about the occurrence.P.W.14 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar.P.W.15 has spoken abut the medical examination conducted on the accused.P.Ws.16 and 17 have spoken about the investigation done and final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.8.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.P.Ws.1 to 3 are the victims in this case.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.They were not cross examined by the accused.Thus, the fact spoken by them have not been challenged at all.Similarly, other witnesses were also not cross examined.Relying on the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the medical evidence, the trial Court had convicted the accused under all the charges.The judges differed on the course to be followed after holding that the trial against the appellant was flawed.It occurred in a public transport bus when that bus was carrying passengers and stopped at a bus-stand.The moment the bus stopped an explosion took place inside the bus that ultimately resulted in death of four persons and injury to twenty-four persons.The same was recorded by the Trial Court.Thereafter, the accused filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., requesting the Court to recall the said witnesses.After that the accused surrendered before the court and got the Non-bailable warrant recalled.Even thereafter, he did not choose to make any plea to recall the witnesses.On those dates, though the accused made appearance, his counsel did not appear.The Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Public Prosecutor.On considering the said arguments and after going through the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused.As we have already pointed out, for the reasons best known, the accused had instructed his counsel not to cross examine the witnesses on the date when the prosecution witnesses were examined.Having chosen to file a petition later on, to recall the witnesses, the accused did not come forward to cross examine them, though they were recalled and they made appearance.In this regard, it needs to be mentioned that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the victims of heinous crime of rape at the age of around 10 and they cannot be allowed to be harassed repeatedly by making them to appear before the Court and to explain themselves.The trauma caused by the act of the accused would be everlasting and the depression out of the said trauma will have an impact on the children. | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,107,396 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in crime No.125 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3368 of 2018The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.125 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that they have completed entire investigation and about to file a final report and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to file a final report within a period of Four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.10.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no ksa 6/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3368 of 2018The Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3368 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No. 3368 of 2018 10.09.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,108,121 | 1] Nominal roll produced by learned APP is taken on record as "Exhibit-A".It shows that till 30 th October 2019, the prisoner has put in 13 years 10 months and 9 days of actual imprisonment and with remission he has completed 19 years 6 months and 12 days.2] His recommendation by conviction Court shows that at the relevant time, he has not put in 14 years and therefore, the concerned Court found him not entitled to beneft of remission as per 125th Birth Anniversary Remission Scheme.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:10:40 :::He is therefore, entitled to beneft of remission of 3 months as per the said Scheme. 5] Accordingly, we direct the authorities to look into this aspect while working out his date of actual release after orders on his categorisation are passed.6] The petition is thus allowed and disposed of if. 7] Order be communicated to the prisoner in Jail.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:10:40 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,115,437 | Notices were issued to the respondent nos.1 to 5 as well as to the State of West Bengal to show cause as to why the appeal against acquittal would not be admitted.The assailed judgement was delivered on 28.02.2014 in which the Learned Trial Judge acquitted all the accused persons, who are now the respondent nos.1 to 5 before this Court in respect of the charge punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code.Heard the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, for the State.Perused the Lower Court's records including the impugned judgement.The fact in nutshell, which went on trial before the Learned Trial Court as we got from the evidence on record can be stated thus: that the victim cum de facto complainant used to reside at first at village Sukhdebpur, District South 24-Paraganas.After her marriage with PW 2 (Pulak Mondal) they shifted to their new residence at village Dhanyasisha within P.S. Bishnupur of the same district.The present respondent nos. 1 to 5 are all residents of Sukhdebpur from where the de facto complainant and her husband had to shift to Dhanyasisha before one month due to dispute in between their family and the respondent no. 5 (Debabrata Mondal).It is also relevant for consideration that the respondent nos. 2 to 5 are all full brothers and the respondent no. 1 is the son-in-law of their family.The respondent nos. 2 to 5 are all residents of that Sukhdebpur village and respondent no. 1 is however a resident of Naraharipur, P.S - Usthi of the same district.It has been claimed by the prosecutrix that the incident took place in the intervening night of 12.06.2005 and 13.06.2005 and to be more precise at 12 in the midnight when the victim woke up to attend nature's call.It was her further case that five respondents and another accused, namely, Meghnad Mondal (declared as Juvenile) entered into the house of the victim and the respondent no. 1 (Brojen) put a white cloth on her mouth in which there was some adhesive.At that time, she found that her husband was tied by a rope with the grill.She, also, found other respondents, including the said Megnad Mondal, near the dinning room and Brojen Mondal forced her to write on a plain paper "Ami Tomake Bhalobasi, tomai chara bachbona, etc." and, thereafter, she was raped at first by Brojen and, thereafter, by other respondents including that Meghnad Mondal one by one.She became senseless and regained her senses at Vidyasagar Hospital where she was treated at first as indoor patient for one week and, thereafter, she was referred to one Government Hospital at Park Circus, where she was also treated.She lodged the FIR which was written by her husband as per dictation.She also made a statement to one Judicial Magistrate, which was recorded under Section 164 of the Code.The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses including the doctors and the Investigating Officer.The Ld. Trial Court as per the impugned judgment did not believe the version of the prosecution mainly on the ground that no injury was found either on her body or on her genitals (private parts).She was also examined by another doctor (P.W 9) on 13.06.2005 at 6.10 a.m. when the doctor found her to be unconscious but there was no abnormality in the blood pressure and she was shifted to Vidyasagar Hospital.In his cross-examination, he (PW 9) had to admit that he did not find any external injury in the body of the victim even though he examined the patient thoroughly.It may further be noted that P.W 10 further deposed that in case of a sexually habituated woman there may not be any injury on the genital even if she was subjected to gang rape.We have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence on record both oral and documentary.It is apparent from the evidence on record that there was enmity between the parties.This court is also not unmindful of the fact that the husband of the victim as P.W 2 categorically deposed that he went to the police station even before the victim regained her senses.The information which he divulged to the police has not come before this Court.He (P.W 2) categorically deposed that he was not aware of the fate of his wife on that fateful night at least prior to 12.30 p.m. on the next day when his wife regained her senses.He categorically deposed that he was tied with a grill and his wife was taken towards the varandah and he did not see then what happened to the victim.It may also be noted that as per evidence the victim was found in a senseless condition in the varandah.She was taken to the Hospital from her house in a senseless condition and as such this is one gray area of this case, which has not been answered by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons/respondents.Evidence of P.W 1 shows that the accused persons entered into the house by breaking open one window fitted with iron rods, which was in the bathroom, but the police did not seize any such broken rod.We have gone through the sketch map which was marked as Exb. 13 before the Learned Trial Court only to see that there is not mention of any bathroom not to speak of that broken window, the entry point of the miscreants.The order of acquittal was passed considering every details of the evidence on record.Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and, thus, is dismissed at the admission stage. | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,615,324 | Shri Vaibhav Saxena, learned G.A. for the State.Case diary is available.This is the second bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 31/2019 registered at Police Station Adegaon District Seoni for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(2) (i), 376(2)(j), 376(2) (1), 342 of I.P.C. and 4,5(k), 5(m), 6 of POCSO Act.As per the prosecution case, the applicant is alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix, who is handicapped.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.The applicant is permanent resident of District and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.On these grounds, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State and the counsel for the objector vehemently oppose the application and pray for dismissal of the bail application. | ['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,157,029 | Shri S. B. Shrivastava, counsel for the Objector.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime number and therefore, decided by the present common order.At this stage as prayed by learned counsel for the applicants application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicants Shakar @ Shanker and Bhura @ Bahiya Sahab is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.The applicants are in custody since 27.3.2015 relating to Crime No.71/2015 registered at Police Station Saikheda, District Narsinghpur of offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 302, 34 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.The deceased Ganpath died due to head injury.It was alleged against the co-accused Shakar @ Shanker and Bhura @ Bhahiya Sahab that they assaulted on the head of the deceased Ganpath.The applicants were not aware that the co-accused would assault in such a forceful manner on the head of the deceased Ganpath.No common intention of the applicants can be presumed with the co-accused.Prima facie no offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of I.P.C., remaining offences are not so grave.The applicants are in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned P.L opposes the application.Learned counsel for the Objector also opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,157,444 | G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)The Petitioners who are the private Complainants (and victim of sexual assault) prefer this Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and impugn the order dated 04.10.2005 and order on sentence dated 05.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') whereby Respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/366/376/376(g)/305/368/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').PW-4/1 made by prosecutrix 'U' (name withheld to conceal identity as this being a case for offence under section 376 IPC).She informed the IO that on 21.02.1998 in the evening she went to attend the function in the house of her friend with her sister 'B' (name withheld to conceal identity) as her friend's Bhabhi (sister in law) Rekha gave birth to a male child.Respondent No.4 (Jitender Rohilla) who is her (prosecutrix's) sister's husband (in relation) met them there.At about 9:45 P.M. Jitender asked her that he would drop them on his two wheeler to their house.He made her and her sister sit on the pillion of the two wheeler.Finding that the two wheeler was not going in the direction of their house, she asked Jitender as to where was he taking them, Jitender informed 'U' that he was taking them to the house of their relative at Yamuna Vihar and they will return soon.She told him that she did not know the relative even then he took them to a place named Nehru Vihar across Yamuna river.According to the statement made by 'U' to the IO she and her sister 'B' reached a house at Nehru Vihar.Jitender took them to a room on the first floor where two cots were lying.After some time Jitender's friends Shashi Bhushan, Ramesh Kumar @ Raju and Nizamuddin came there, whom she knew earlier as she had seen them with Jitender.The name of the owner of the house was revealed to her as Suresh Chand and his wife as Smt. Kamlesh.According to the prosecutrix Suresh and Kamlesh waited outside the room in the verandah after speaking to Jitender and Respondent Ramesh Crl.Respondents Jitender Rohilla, Ramesh Kumar @ Raju and Shashi Bhushan took turns to commit rape on her one after the other whereas Respondent Nizamuddin committed rape on her younger sister 'B'.It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix 'U' became unconscious and regained consciousness after some time.She asked Jitender to drop them at their house.However, Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC whereas Respondents No.5 and 6 were convicted for an offence Crl.79/2006 Page 1 of 9 punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.79/2006 Page 1 of 9FIR No.85/1998 was registered on the statement Ex.Prosecutrix 'U' informed the IO that the house owner Suresh Chand and his wife Kamlesh did not come to their rescue.Jitender and his three friends threatened both the sisters not to disclose the commission of rape on them to anyone.79/2006 Page 2 of 9On their way back, when the two wheeler reached Wazirabad Bridge, she ('U') got down from the two wheeler and jumped in the river Yamuna.She was saved by the boatmen and was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital.In order to establish its case before the learned ASJ, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses.PW-4 prosecutrix 'U' and PW-13 prosecutrix 'B' are the star witnesses of the prosecution.During the course of investigation on 04.04.1998 the police got recorded the statements of both the prosecutrixes under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM').They gave an entirely different version to the learned 'MM'.In their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. they informed the learned 'MM' that they were simply teased and touched by the Respondents No.1 to 4 which was objected to by them.She gave a clean chit to the occupiers of the house and his wife stating that when the lady entered the room, the other persons stopped their activities.With regard to jumping into river Yamuna, prosecutrix 'U' informed the learned 'MM' that on their way back to their house Jitender again started Crl.79/2006 Page 3 of 9 touching and teasing them.While she jumped from the two wheeler she fell into the river Yamuna.79/2006 Page 3 of 9On appreciation of evidence, the learned ASJ found that there are wholesale improvements and contradictions in the statement made by the two girls in their deposition in the Court (as PW-4 and PW-13) and in the circumstances, the case for offence under Section 376 (g) was not established against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt.The Respondents were accordingly acquitted of the charge of rape but were convicted under Section 354/34 and 342/34 as stated earlier.79/2006 Page 4 of 9"8....The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her.In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook.There were contradictions in the statement before the police and the statement in the Court on the aspect of Jitender's friends being already present in the house or reaching their subsequently; contradiction with regard to the place from where Jitender took the prosecutrix; contradiction with regard to venue/place where two victims were to go to attend the function, do cast some doubt in the case of the prosecution.Replying on CFSL Serologist reports Ex.PW-22/A and Ex.PW-22/B the learned counsel for the Petitioners argues that the prosecution version is corroborated by the two reports.On the undergarment of prosecutrix 'U' the semen found was of 'AB' group.Prosecutrix 'U' as per the prosecution version was gang raped by Respondents Jitender Rohilla, Ramesh Kumar and Shashi Bhushan.Her undergarment was found to be having semen of 'AB' group which pertained to Respondent Nizamuddin.Nizamuddin as per prosecution Crl.79/2006 Page 7 of 9 version did not commit any rape on prosecutrix 'U'.He committed rape only on prosecutrix 'B'.Similarly, on the under pant of prosecutrix 'B' human semen of 'B' group was deciphered who was allegedly raped by Respondent Nizamuddin, whose blood group was neither 'A' nor 'B' but 'AB'.Thus, the CFSL report does not corroborate the prosecution version rather it gives a dent to the prosecution version.79/2006 Page 7 of 9Referring to the MLCs of the two victims, learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that the MLC supports the prosecution version in as much as hymen of both the prosecutrixes was found to be torn and as per the report of Dr. Sapna (PW-2) vagina admitted '1' finger.I do not find any corroboration to the prosecution version or even assurance from the MLCs Ex.PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-2/B. The prosecutrix 'U' is alleged to have been gang raped by three persons.She was a young girl of 16-17 years.She was examined on the next day of the alleged sexual assault.If she was really gang raped by three young boys, there would have been some external or internal injuries which were totally absent.Thus, MLCs Ex.The Petitioners have failed to produce any material on record to exhibit that there was any patent error of law or fact committed by the Trial Crl.79/2006 Page 8 of 9 Court.The Revision Petition is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.Pending Applications also stands disposed of. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,158,276 | company having software development skill as well professional services capabilities.Subsequently the working relationship between them was disturbed for inadequate service having rendered for allegedly committing breach of the terms of the agreement, and according to appellant company for such rendering of appropriate services of the respondent company, the appellant company suffered losses.In such case, substantial amounts were paid by the appellants to the respondent company for the services already rendered.The centre of dispute in such case was for making the entire payments for the services rendered to the appellants, which the Apex Court described the same to be a matter of civil jurisdiction.According to learned advocate Mr. Pratip Mukherjee for the complainant/opposite party, the moment when the petitioner took advance as loan on different dates, he presented himself as exporter having relevant document for the purpose.It was the misrepresentation/inducement by reason of exercise of dishonest criminal intention, which lead the complainant to hand over money to petitioner as advance.Thus according to complainant, his daughter also fell victim in this case, as on such inducement of the petitioner/accused, USD worth of 27980 was credited to the account of petitioner/accused maintained in Corporation Bank on 26.11.10 as advance against export of Jute, though on the relevant date, the petitioner/accused had no relevant Exporter Code, which he subsequently collected on 20.12.11, and if such conduct of the petitioner/accused was perfectly appreciated in terms of the law, the one and inevitable conclusion would be that it was the fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner which prompted the complainant to hand over the money in consequence of misrepresentation of fact, as presented by the petitioner to serve out his colourful intention at the time of making promise.The averments contained in the petition of complaint unerringly left materials that as against the outstanding dues taken as loan, some of the amounts had already been paid off to complainant. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,961,587 | JUDGMENT M.G. Chaudhari, J.It appears that as the allegation of the complainant was that the Respondent No. 1 had committed the offences under Sections 447 and 323 along with several other persons the charge under Section 114, I.P.C. was framed.However in this appeal only the Respondent No. 1 has been joined and therefore the acquittal of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 114, I.P.C. cannot be interferred.As far as the remaining two offences are concerned the complainant and the accused (Respondent No. 1) have compounded the offences.The learned Advocate for the said parties pray for an order accordingly.The portion of land of complainant encroached upon by the Respondent No. 1 giving rise to the incident out of which the offences that were alleged against the Respondent No. 1 arose was 16.05 square meters of land survey No. 779 situated at Kacharali talao area, Thane.It appears that the Respondent No. 1 has constructed a room and is residing therein.I questioned the complainant who is present in Court and she stated that she has voluntarily agreed to settle matter with Respondent No. 1 and she has willingly compounded the offences with the accused.She has chosen to compound the offences with the respondent. | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,158,902 | The petitioners are seeking compensation for the death of their son, Saurabh.W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 1 of 12On 15th August, 2015 at about 07:00 P.M., Saurabh Sharma aged about 10 years was running in the park at Badarpur to catch a kite which was going towards submersible pump of Delhi Jal Board.The ground was slippery due to rain on the previous day due to which Saurabh slipped and his body came in the contact with the control panel board of Delhi Jal Board which was having electrical current due to which Saurabh was electrocuted and he fell down near the pump.Saurabh was detached from the control panel board by a neighbour with the help of wooden sticks and was taken to Holy Family Hospital where he was declared as brought dead.Police registered FIR No.526 dated 16th August, 2015 under section 304A IPC at P.S. Badarpur.The Electrical Inspector inspected the site of the accident on 18th October, 2015 and submitted his report dated 20 thOctober, 2015 which is on record as Annexure D. As per the report of the Electrical Inspector, the supply of the electricity to the submersible pump and motor was not having an earth leakage protective device and the three core flat cable from the electrical panel board to the submersible pump was not protected against any mechanical injury by providing a metal casing or metallic covering.Relevant portion of the report of the Electrical Inspector is reproduced hereunder: -The information about the said accident was given to this office by Shri Dhananjay Kumar sub inspector police station W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 2 of 12 Badarpur on 17/08/2015 with a request to inspect the place of accident.W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 2 of 12As per directions of the Deputy Electrical Inspector, the site of accident was inspected by the under signed on 18/08/2015 in the presence of shri Dhananjay Kumar Sub Inspector police station Badarpur, Shri Udia veer Singh Assistant Engineer and Naveen Guher Junior Engineer Delhi Jal Board, Mohd Arif Assistant Manager BSES RPL and Shri Ram Kishan Supervisor SDMC New Delhi.During the course of investigation it was reported that on 15/08/2015 Master Saurabh Sharma while trying to fetch a kite received an electric shock from the electric panel board installed at DDA park near DDA colony Badar pur New Delhi which proved fatal.At the time of inspection a submersible pump of Delhi Jal board was found installed in the DDA park near DDA Colony BadarPur New Delhi.The electric supply to the said pump had been controlled through an electric panel board installed nearby alongside boundary wall of the said park.There were 2 numbers of three core flat cables laid from electric panel board to submersible pump motor which was just lying on the ground and had not being protected against any mechanical injury.The insulation resistance of the electrical installation of the said electric panel board was tested with 500V insulation testor (Meggar) and its insulation resistance was found about 10 Mega Ohms.As it has been reported that there was a water logging in the park due to heavy rain on the day of accident so there is every possibility of an accident to have happened, if any leakage of the electric current flow in electrical installation of W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 3 of 12 the said electric panel board or submersible pump along with supply leads under the wet condition by not providing earthing on the said electric penal board and submersible pump and earth leakage protective device (ELCB) So as to cut off the supply instantly.W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 3 of 12W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 5 of 12DDA has filed counter affidavit according to which DDA handed over the entire area in question to South Delhi Municipal Corporation.Delhi Jal Board has filed the counter affidavit.Delhi Jal Board admits that the submersible pump belongs to Delhi Jal Board.However, the liability to pay the compensation is disputed by Delhi Jal Board.According to Delhi Jal Board, the electrical supply to the main switch of submersible W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 6 of 12 pump was disconnected on 14th August, 2015 on a complaint received from the residents.It is further submitted that a vigilance team comprising of officials from answering respondent's departments inspected DJB panel and found that the operating panel of the tube-well was properly earthed.Ref Case FIR no 526 dated 16/08/2015 u/s 304A IPC PS Badar pur New Delhi.At the time of inspection the following provisions of central electricity Authority (measure relating to safety and electricity supply) Regulation 2010 had not been found complied with by the Delhi Jal board:The metallic body of the said electric panel board had not been connected by two separate and distinct connections with earth for production against any leakage of electric current in contravention of the provisions of regulation 41 (xii) of the said regulations.The supply of electricity to the said submersible pump and motor was not found controlled through an earth leakage protective device so as to disconnect the electric supply instantly on the occurrence of the earth fault or leakage of current in contravention of the provisions of the regulation 42 of the said regulations.The 3 core flat cable laid from the said electric panel board to submersible pump motor had not been protected against any mechanical injury by providing mechanically strong metal casing or metallic covering in contravention of the provisions of regulation 12(i) read with 37(i) of the said regulation."(Emphasis supplied)S.I. Rajendra Singh from P.S. Badarpur has produced the record of the criminal case according to which the charge sheet has been filed in FIR No.526/2015, P.S. Badarpur against Naveen Guher, J.E. of Delhi Jal Boad W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 4 of 12 and Banwari Singh, Pump Operator of Delhi Jal Board.English translation of the relevant portion of the charge sheet is reproduced hereunder: -W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 4 of 12During the investigation, SI Dhananjay Kumar sent Notice to the JE/BSES and called him to the Police Station and interrogated him who disclosed during the interrogation that that Electronic Point Board fell under the Delhi Jal Board.The SI sent Notice to the AE of Delhi Jal Board and called him who disclosed during the interrogation that the Area In-charge of tube-well No. 166 was Shri Naveen Guher JE.Even the JE/NDMC was served Notice and was called who stated that the responsibility of that tube-well was that of the Delhi Jal Board and his responsibility was only regarding the plants and trees.Banwari Lal, APD, Ward No.203 did the work of tube-well with Naveen Guher, the AE/Delhi Jal Board.This incident had occurred at that tube-well on 15/08/2015 when both of these people were deputed there.In the meanwhile, the SI got transferred and the case file was entrusted with me, the SI as per the order of the SHO and I was asked to conduct further investigation.I, the SI duly arrested tube-well operator Banwari Singh S/o Khoob Singh, Address- Column No.11 in connection with this Case when evidence sufficient for his arrest got collected during the investigation.His brief sketch was prepared and was attached with the sentence slip.And JE Naveen Guher was asked to co-operate with the investigation by way of sending him Noitce u/s 41.1, Cr.PC in connection with this case.When he joined the investigation, he was freed just on being bound and without any arrest.In order to obtain the opinion, the FSL report and the PM Report are filed in the AIIMS.Till now the opinion has not been obtained from the AIIMS.Supplementary Charge-sheet shall be produced in the W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 5 of 12 Court once the opinion is received.Evidence sufficient for preparing charge-sheet against Banwari Lal s/o Khoob Singh, R/o.Column No.11 and JE Naveen Guher S/o.Kishan Pal, R/o.Coloumn No.11A have been collected during the investigation so far and have been recorded on the pages of the file.The witnesses may be summoned and the accused may be sent Notice and the hearings of the case may be started.Accused Banwari Lal has been granted bail by the Police in this case and accused Naveen Guher has not been arrested."According to DDA, Delhi Jal Board was responsible for supply of water to the residents of the DDA flats and maintenance of electric submersible pump installed by it.South Delhi Municipal Corporation impleaded as respondent No.4 on 11th December, 2017 denies any kind of liability in respect of the accident in question.According to BSES, the submersible pump as well as service cable from which the electricity leaked belongs to Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Jal Board alone is responsible for the accident in question.BSES relies upon the report of the Electrical Inspector.According to Delhi Jal Board, the staff of BSES appear to have done some work on 16th August, 2015 and therefore, BSES was responsible.Without prejudice, it is submitted that the Delhi Jal Board be granted the recovery rights to recover the compensation amount from BSES.The relevant portion of the counter affidavit of Delhi Jal Board is reproduced hereunder: -W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 6 of 12It is stated for record that a complaint was received on 14.08.2015 by Junior Engineer (E&M) of the answering respondent, from the residents surrounding the DDA park, DDA Flats, Badarpur that a tube well was not working.Accordingly, the JE (E&M) directed Shri Banwari Singh, Assistant Pump Driver (APD)/Electrician to attend to the said complaint.After inspection, the APD found that submersible pump was faulty and it required replacement.The said APD also informed the concerned Junior Engineer (E&M) about the said situation, on which the JE (E&M) immediately directed him to disconnect the electric supply from the main switch, which.On 15.08.2015 an unfortunate incident happened in which the son of the Petitioner was electrocuted near the Tube Well in the aforesaid DDA park, DDA Flats, Badarpur.On receiving the information, the JE(E&M) and the AE (E&M) of the answering respondent, rushed to the site but were unable to enter the premises where the tube well was situated due to gathering of an angry mob.W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 7 of 12On 17.08.2015 the site was inspected by the Vigilance Team of the Answering Respondent along with the concerned officials of the Division; wherein it was observed by the Vigilance Team that the operating panel of the tube-well was properly earthed.All the parts of the panel such as Main Switch, Starter and Protector were found properly enclosed inside the MS panel enclosure.The cables inside the DJB panel were found properly fitted.During investigation/inspection the Vigilance Team also found some pieces of PVC wire/ Strips of BSES cable near the panel and at BSES electric pole, about which the residents informed the Vigilance Team that some repair/renovation work on BSES Cable of the panel was carried out by BSES Staff on 16.08.2015 i.e. the next date after the date of incident.It is pertinent to mention that such act of repair/renovation conducted by BSES appears to have erased the evidence from the site which would have proved that the bare unattended electric wires belonged to BSES.In view of the aforestated circumstances.it is denied that the duty on the part of the officials of the Answering Respondent by keeping the panel board of submersible pump naked and live.It is submitted that earthing of the wires of the submersible pump were provided through GI earth wires from the answering respondents electric panel board to the Tube Well/ Borewell, which was about 450 ft.deep approx.All the parts of the panel such as Main Switch, Starter and Protector were found properly enclosed inside the MS panel enclosure.The cables inside the DJB panel were found properly fitted.Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that there W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 8 of 12 was no negligence on the part of answering respondent in the unfortunate incident which happened on 15.08.2015."W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 8 of 129. Learned senior counsel for BSES disputes any liability of BSES on the ground that BSES has not done any act so as to warrant any liability of BSES.This Court is of the view that the primary liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners is of Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Jal Board is at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against any other person/authority against whom they consider liable.The deceased Saurabh Sharma was aged 10 years at the time of the accident.The petitioner No.1, father of the deceased, was running a grocery shop at Badarpur in a rented premises from where he was evicted in June, 2016 and petitioner No.1 is now working with a carpenter earning Rs.10,000/- per month.Petitioner No.2, mother of the deceased, is working as a maid servant and she claims to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month.The petitioners' claim to be staying in a rented accommodation and have three minor children who are studying in a school in Badarpur.In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 the Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the victims below 20 years and Rs.10 lakh to victims above 20 years of age by applying the multiplier method.The relevant portion of the Supreme Court judgment is as under:"38. ... It can be by way of making monetary amounts for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based on tortuous liability.W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 9 of 12But in such a case it is improper to assume admittedly without any basis, that every person who visits a cinema theatre and purchases a balcony ticket should be of a high income group person.In the year 1997, Rs. 15,000 per month was rather a high income.The movie was a new movie with patriotic undertones.It is known that zealous movie goers, even from low income groups, would not mind purchasing a balcony ticket to enjoy the film on the first day itself.To make a sweeping assumption that every person who purchased a balcony class ticket in 1997 should have had a monthly income of Rs. 15,000 and on that basis apply high multiplier of 15 to determine the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 18 lakhs in the case of persons above the age of 20 years and Rs. 15 lakhs for persons below that age, as a public law remedy, may not be proper.While awarding compensation to a large group of persons, by way of public law remedy, it will be unsafe to use a high income as the determinative factor.The reliance upon Neelabati Behera (AIR 1993 SC 1960) in this behalf is of no assistance as that case related to a single individual and there was specific evidence available in regard to the income.Therefore, the proper course would be to award a uniform amount keeping in view the principles relating to award of compensation in public law remedy cases reserving liberty to the legal heirs of deceased victims to claim additional amount wherever they were not satisfied with the amount awarded.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded in public law remedy cases, and the need to provide a deterrent, we are of the view that award of Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons aged above 20 years and Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard to those who were 20 years or below as on the date of the incident, would be appropriate.After depositing the compensation amount, Delhi Jal Board would be at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against BSES Yamuna Power Ltd, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and/or any agency, who they consider responsible, in accordance with law.List for disbursement of the compensation amount on 22 nd March, 2018 at 02:30 P.M.This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by the learned counsels for the parties in this matter.Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.W.P.(C) 11413/2015 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,615,900 | P.Ws. 1 and 2-Selvanayaki and Venkatesan are the mother and father respectively of the deceased.P.W.3-Siva is a neighbour.(ii) It is alleged that on 09.08.2009, at about 10.30 p.m., P.W.6 was taking dinner in his house and P.W.4 was serving.At that time, these two accused, trespassed into the house of P.W.4, through the back entrance.On trespassing into the house of P.Ws.4 and 6, they started attacking P.W.6. P.W.4 intercepted them.The accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked P.W.4 also.P.W.4 ran out of the house and went to the house of the deceased.In his house, the deceased was taking dinner and P.W.1 was serving.P.W.2 was sitting in the house.P.W.3 was standing outside the house.Initially, the deceased was hesitant.P.Ws.1 to 3 also followed them.The deceased intercepted and requested the accused Nos.1 and 2 not to make any more attack and tried to persuade them.The deceased addressed the accused Nos.1 and 2 as "Uncle" and requested them to stop the fight.The accused Nos.1 and 2 immediately turned towards the deceased.They abused the deceased and attacked him with a wooden log.The 1st accused attacked him first on the head, as a result of which, the deceased fell down.The 2nd accused attacked the deceased on the back of chest.Then, both the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.1 and others immediately took the deceased to the Raja Muthiah Annamalai Hospital.P.7 is the First Information Report.He forwarded Ex.P.1 and Ex.Pelvis-intact.Skull-fracture of parietal and both temporal bone present.Membrances-intact.Brain-Hematoma present over parietal and both temporal region.About 100 ml of blood collected on skull cavity."P.2 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.The Doctor gave opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the head injury.(vi) During the course of investigation, P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police, examined many more witnesses.On 21.08.2009, the accused Nos.1 and 2 had surrendered before the Court.On 21.08.2009, at 2.30 p.m., P.W.11 took police custody of both the accused on the orders of the learned Magistrate.While in custody, the 1st accused came forward with a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wooden log.Following him, the 2nd accused also gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wooden log.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement made by the 1st accused, in the presence of P.W.8-Thangamani, the Village Administrative Officer and another witness, the 1st accused took P.W.11 and the witnesses to the said place and produced the wooden logs (M.Os.1 and 2).On returning to the Police Station, P.W.11 forwarded the accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Court and handed over to the Material Objects also to the Court.(The judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C. No.69 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.The 2nd accused was one Sitaraman.The accused Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers.The 1st accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 294(B) and 302 IPC.The 2nd accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.By judgment, dated 25.04.2013, the Trial Court acquitted the 2nd accused, but, convicted the 1st accused under Sections 294(B) and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 294(B) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 25.04.2013, the 1st accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.The deceased in this case was one Velmurugan.The Doctor, on examination, declared him dead.P.W.10-Gnanasekaran, the then Special Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P.1 registered a case in Crime No.419 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 294(B), 323 and 302 IPC against both the accused.P.7 to the Court.(iv) The investigation was taken up by P.W.11-Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.8) in the presence of one Kannan and Baskaran.Then, he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem.(v) P.W.5-Dr.Ramesh of Government Kamaraj Hospital, Chidambaram, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 10.08.2009, at 12.30 p.m. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-"A moderately built male body lying on post-mortem table with hands by side and hands are free.Eyes and mouth-closed.Ear-No discharge.Nose-bleeding present.Tongue-inside.Teeth-intact.Extravasate of blood-beneath the scalp (parietal and both temporal region).Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by P.W.12-Kannan, the then Inspector of Police.(vii) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed the charges as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 denied the same.During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 8 documents and 4 material objects were exhibited.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.6 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.Ramesh has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.7-Saravanan has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.8) and also recovery of Material Objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.8-Thangamani, the Village Administrative Officer, has spoken about the arrest of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the confession made by the 1st accused, and the consequential recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 on his disclosure statement.P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done by him.P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done by him and the filing of the final report.(viii) When the accused Nos.1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied them as false.But, they have not chosen to examine any witness nor to mark any document.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court acquitted the 2nd accused, but, convicted the 1st accused alone for the offences under Sections 294(B) and 302 IPC.That is how, the appellant/1st accused is now before this Court with this appeal.We have heard Mr.M.Palanivel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State; and we have also perused the records carefully.It is true that there was no enmity between the 1st accused and the deceased.The very fact that the deceased had gone to the house of P.W.4, on her fervent request, and on going over there, he addressed both the accused as "Uncle" and tried to persuade them would go to show that he was in talking terms with the accused party and there was no enmity between them.Had there been any enmity between the deceased and the accused party, the deceased would not have gone there at all at the request of P.W.4 to persuade the accused party.Thus, even according to the positive case of the prosecution, there was no enmity between both the accused and the deceased.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and P.W.6 cannot be believed as they are interested witnesses.This argument deserves summary rejection, because, the presence of these witnesses cannot be disbelieved at all for any reason.At that time, P.W.1 was serving food to the deceased and therefore, she also followed the deceased.P.Ws.2 and 3, who were present there also followed the deceased and therefore, the presence of these eye witnesses cannot be disbelieved at all.Similarly, they have in a vivid fashion stated that the 1st accused attacked the deceased on his head.Though, these witnesses have stated that the 2nd accused attacked on the back of the chest of the deceased, the Trial Court disbelieved their evidence to that extent and acquitted the 2nd accused.The State has not made any Appeal in respect of the acquittal of 2nd accused.Though, these eye witnesses have been disbelieved by the Trial Court as against the 2nd accused, on that score, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto.The principle Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, is not applicable stricto sensu to the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence.The well settled law of the country is that if in the evidence of the eye witnesses the facts and falsity are mixed with each other and in the event, the Court is able to separate the grains from the chaff, it is well within the power of the Court to act upon the truth, thereby rejecting the falsity and convict the accused.To put it otherwise, where the grains and the chaff cannot be separated, the Court is left with no option except to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witnesses in toto and to give the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.Here in this case, the evidence of the eye witnesses that the 1st accused attacked the deceased with wooden log on the head, which resulted in a fracture has been corroborated duly by the medical evidence also.Thus, we find that absolutely, there is no reason to reject the evidence of the eye witnesses in respect of the attack made by this accused on the deceased.From these evidences, we hold that the prosecution has clearly proved that it was this appellant/1st accused, who attacked the deceased on his head and caused his death.The next question is as to, "what was the offence that was committed by the 1st accused by his act ?".We have carefully gone through the evidence of the eye witnesses.As we have already concluded there was no motive for this accused against the deceased.When the deceased intervened, it is stated that both the accused suddenly turned towards the deceased and attacked him.It is also in the evidence that P.W.6 was not attacked by this accused with any weapon.It is the evidence of P.W.6 that he was only manhandled by this accused with hands.This would give an inference that this accused was not already armed with any weapon and it was only in the quarrel, this accused took the wooden log, which was lying there and gave one single blow on the head of the deceased and ran away from the place of occurrence.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused would submit that at the time of occurrence, the 1st accused was 55 years old and he has daughters in the marriageable age.He has got a big family to take care off.The occurrence was not pre-meditated one and it was only out of a sudden quarrel, the occurrence has taken place.The 1st accused was not already armed with wooden log.Having regard to these mitigating circumstances as well as the aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that convicting the 1st accused for the offence under Section 304 (i) IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks, would meet the ends of justice.In our considered view, the conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 294(B) IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the Trial Court are liable to be confirmed.In the result, i.this Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant/1st accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.The conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 294(B) IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,961,678 | The prosecution case, in short, is that on 8.5.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. Netai Pada Bauri left his house for taking bath in a pond known as 'baripukur'.While he was proceeding to the said pond through a field, the appellants namely, Shyamapada Bauri, Anath Bauri, Sanatan Bauri @ Sonai, Juddha Bauri, Krishna Kanta @ Krishna Bauri, Ram Chandra @ Rampada Bauri and one Harachand Bauri forming an unlawful assembly attacked Netai Bauri out of previous grudge.The accused persons assaulted Netai Bauri with lathi, tangi, 'kural' i.e. axe as a result of which he sustained severe bleeding injury on different parts of his body and fell down on the said field.Sadhu Bauri (since deceased), Lakur Ghosh @Lagar Ghosh (P.W.4), Bablu Bauri (P.W.3) and many others of village Saluka saw the incident.The injured Netai Bauri was brought to Patel Nagar PHC and from there he was transferred to Suri Sadar Hospital.P.W.I stated that on query Netai disclosed that Juddha Bauri, Krishna Bauri, Haradhan Bauri are the persons who assaulted and injured him.He (P. W. 1) came to the place of occurrence and found injured Netai with bleeding and blood was oozing out from his head, hand and other parts of the body.Netai was wearing an old underwear and one old napkin and the wearing apparels were also stained with blood.At the place of occurrence he found Bablu Bauri, Sadhu Bauri, Rishipada Bauri (elder brother of Netai), Genu Bala (wife of Netai) and other persons.They took away injured Netai to Patel Nagar Hospital and the doctor after examining him advised for shifting the injured to Suri Hospital.Netai was thereafter transferred to Suri Hospital.Madhai Master (Karmakar) wrote out the FIR and he signed in it.Accused persons are agnates of Netai.Prior to the occurrence there was dispute between the parties over a bamboo grove.In his cross-examination he disclosed that when he came to the place of occurrence 8/10 persons already were present there.He found Netai with bleeding injuries but he was conscious and was capable of talking.Netai told him the names of assailants at place of occurrence in presence of Bablu Bauri and Sadhu Bauri.After the amicable settlement there was no dispute between Netai and his agnates.6. P.W.2 Madhai Karmakar in his evidence stated that on 8.5.93 at about 5 p.m. five persons came to his house and informed him that Netai was murdered.He proceeded towards the house of Netai and on the way found that Netai was being carried towards police station.Netai had bleeding injuries all over his body.On being asked Netai told that Anath Bauri, Ram Bauri, Juddha Bauri, Sonai Bauri and others assaulted him by axe, tangi etc. He, P.W.I, Sadhu and others took away injured to Patel Nagar Hospital and the doctor advised them to take away the injured to Suri Hospital as condition of the patient was grave.Thereafter, they carried away Netai to Suri Hospital where he was admitted.He informed the O.C. of the matter and scribed the FIR according to direction of P.W.I. There was longstanding dispute between Netai and the accused persons over the bamboo grove.They settled the dispute between the Netai and the accused persons at the intervention of police, and thereafter, the incident took place.His cross-examination reveals that he got the information at about 5 p.m. The place of occurrence was about 50 yards from the new house of Netai and about 50 yards from the 'baripukur'.When Netai gave name of the assailants to him Sadhu Bauri and wife of Netai were present.She heard hue and cry which was coming from the side of the tank and she rushed towards the tank and found that her husband was lying on ground near the tank with injuries and profuse bleeding.The land or the field over which her husband was lying belonged to Golam Mortuja.In the injury report it was mentioned by him that patient was not in a position to speak and patient was semi-unconscious.He stated that in respect to injury No. 1 he did not mention whether it was incised wound or incised looking wound.The other injuries might have been caused by coming into contact with blunt substance.On examination he found (i) Incised looking wounds over left parieto occipital region 5" x 2" upto bone depth with bonee fracture visible.(ii) Incised looking wound 4" x 1/2" over right parieto occipital region with bonee fracture visible and palpable, (iii) Incised wound 3" x 1" across frontal region of bone depth, (iv) 1" x 4" incised wound across left arm triceps region of 1" depth in distal part of wound.(v) Multiple bruises on both arms and forearms.Careful dissection of the multiple wounds over arms and forearms showed both peri-and intra-muscular collections of blood.No bony fracture was detected.(vi) Multiple bruises over lower back.JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Suri in Sessions Trial No. 1 of August, 1999 (Sessions Case No. 81 of 1993) thereby sentencing the appellants to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for six months each for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).The appellants were also convicted under Section 148 of the IPC but no separate sentence was imposed on them for the said offence.Md. Golam Mortuja (P.W.1) lodged the FIR (Ext.1) and on the basis of it Mohammad Bazar P.S. Case No. 28 dated 8.5.93 was started.During investigation the injured Netai Bauri expired at about 12.15 at night i.e. 00.15 a.m. of 9.5.93, and after his death Section 302 of IPC was added.After investigation the police submitted chargesheet and the trial that followed ended in conviction of the six appellants mentioned above.The accused Harachand Bauri expired during pendency of the case and did not face the trial.In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses namely, P.W.I Md. Golam Mortuja (the informant), P.W.2 Madhai Karmakar, P.W.3 Bablu Bauri, P.W.4 Lakur @ Lagar Ghosh, P.W.5 Smt. Genu Bauri (wife of deceased Netai Bauri), P. W.6 Sourendra Nath Garai, P. W. 7 Samir Bauri, P.W.8 Gouri Sankar Dey, P.W.9 Sakti Pada Dey, P. W. 10 Md. Najimuddin, P.W.11 Chandan Mukherjee, P.W.12 Bimalendu Singha and P.W.13 Dr. Ambarish Gupta (post-mortem surgeon).Out of the aforesaid 13 witnesses P.W.I, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.7 are witnesses of occurrence.P.W.4 was also a witness of occurrence according to prosecution case but, he did not support the prosecution case in his evidence and was declared a hostile witness.P.W.5 came to place of occurrence hearing the hue and cry and saw her husband in injured condition and learnt names of assailants from her husband.P. W.6 is a witness of seizure.P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.13 are the medical officers out of which P.W.8 is the medical officer of Suri Hospital, who admitted injured Netai into the said hospital on 8.5.93 at 8.55 p.m. P.W.9 is the medical officer of Mohammad Bazar BPHC who treated the injured Netai Bauri first when the injured was produced before him and he instructed the patient party for shifting the injured to Suri Hospital for better treatment.P.W. 10 is a homeguard who brought the deadbody of Netai Bauri to Suri Hospital morgue for post-mortem examination.P.W.11 was the then O.C., Mohammad Bazar P.S. who received the written complaint (Ext. 1) from P.W. 1 Md. Golam Mortuja and started Mohammad Bazar P.S. Case No. 28 dated 8.5.93 and filled up the formal FIR (Ext. 8) and endorsed the case to Sub-Inspector of Police, N.B. Chatterjee (not examined) for investigation.P.W.12 is a police officer who was attached to Suri P.S. at the relevant time and he held inquest on the deadbody of Netai Bauri at Suri Hospital on 9.5.93 and prepared the inquest report (Ext. 3).Before we enter into the points raised by the learned Advocate for the appellants in this appeal it would be fruitful to discuss the evident first.P.W. 1, the informant in his evidence stated that he did not witness the incident of murder, but he heard about it from the deceased himself.The FIR narrates the prosecution story in such a manner as if P.W.I was the eye-witness.He did not inform the police about his talk with Netai regarding name of the assailants.7. P. W. 3 Bablu Bauri in his evidence stated that Shyamapada, Ram, Krishna, Haradhan assaulted Netai by lathi, axe, tangi etc. He, P.W.I, Sadhu Bauri, Rishi Bauri, Samir Bauri and other villagers rushed to the place of occurrence.Netai fell down on the land sustaining bleeding injury.They took away the injured on a trolley to Patel Nagar Hospital.The doctor advised them to shift the injured to Suri Hospital as his condition was serious.The accused persons were agnates of Netai and there was dispute between Netai and the accused persons concerning bamboo grove.His cross-examination reveals that he got the information at about 4.30/5 p.m. He gave name of four assailants to police at hospital.He saw the assault on Netai from road.The place of occurrence was about 500 cubits from the place where he was standing when he first saw the incident.Thereafter, he came forward and witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 150 cubits.The assault continued for about 2/3 minutes.Nobody was present by his side.When he reached the place of occurrence Netai was lying on the ground and he was conscious.Netai gave the name of assailants to Rishi.He denied the defence suggestion that there was dispute between Netai and the villagers concerning 'balak bhojon' i.e. giving meal to boys over 'dharmapuja' i.e. a kind of festival.8. P.W.4 was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case in all respects.His evidence reveals that Netai Bauri was murdered and at the relevant time he was easing himself by the side of 'baripukur' when Hara pushed him and he fell down and thereafter he did not see any other person.He stated before police that on 8.5.93 while Netai was going to 'baripukur' he was following him and Netai was assaulted by the accused persons as a result of which Netai sustained bleeding injuries.Prior to the incident Netai had dispute with accused persons over possession of bamboo grove.Netai fell down on the ground and the villagers took away injured Netai to Patel Nagar PHC.Subsequently, he stated that he did not state to police that the accused persons assaulted Netai over dispute concerning bamboo grove for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution.In cross-examination by defence he stated that he did not state to police as to who assaulted Netai.Even in the cross-examination by defence he stated that a few days prior to the incident there was dispute between Netai and Madhai over bamboo grove.9. P.W.5 is the wife of deceased Netai who in her evidence stated that on the date of incident her husband returned home from his place of work and went to take bath in a tank named 'baripukur' which was to the west of their house.It was then about 5 p.m. and her husband was wearing old underwear and a napkin.Her evidence also reveals that Rishi Bauri and Sadhu Bauri, the two witnesses are also dead.Her husband was taken to Mohammad Bazar P.H.C. but she did not accompany her husband to the police station.Next morning she learnt that her husband had expired at Suri Hospital.After she reached her husband, Bablu, Samir, Golam Mortuja and Lagar arrived at the place.Her husband was taken on the road by the witnesses and from there he was taken to Mohammad Bazar P.H.C. on a trolley.She denied the defence suggestion that there was dispute between her husband and villagers concerning 'dharmaraj' festival.She stated that her husband wanted to say something but she restrained her husband.The learned Advocate for the appellants wanted to impress upon us that this would show that the deceased did not make any statement disclosing name of the assailants.We are not convinced at all with this submission and in our opinion evidence of P.W.5 disclosing that she restrained her husband from talking cannot be interpreted in the sense as if the deceased did not disclose name of the assailants to her and others.It indicates that P.W.5 restrained her husband from talking much considering his serious condition.10. P.W.6 is a witness of seizure of blood-stained earth and controlled earth.He heard about the incident from wife of Netai Bauri.He learnt the names of assailants from wife of Netai Bauri.In cross-examination he stated that the place of occurrence was to the east of 'baripukur'.He is a supporter of a particular political party and deceased Netai was also a supporter of that party.P. W. 7 in his evidence stated that at the relevant time he was working in the field of Karali Garai when he heard the hue and cry raised by deceased Netai Bauri from the side of 'baripukur'.He rushed to that place and found that accused Shyam Bauri, Ram Bauri, Krishna Bauri and Haradhan Bauri were assaulting Netai Bauri by tangi, axe and lathi.Netai sustained bleeding injury on his person.He found Netai and the accused persons in the field of Golam Mortuja and Soukat AH on the eastern side of 'baripukur'.He, Bablu Bauri, Rishi Bauri, Sadhu Bauri and others took away Netai to the road side.From there Netai was taken to Patel Nagar Hospital on a trolley.The doctor of that hospital referred Netai to Suri Sadar Hospital as his injury was serious.Netai was taken to Suri Hospital but he did not go to Suri.Before incident there was dispute between Netai and accused persons concerning bamboo grove.His cross-examination reveals that he was examined by the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) 20/25 days after the incident as he was not present on the first day of visit by police.12. P.W.8 is the medical officer who was attached to Suri Sadar Hospital.On 8.5.93 he examined Netai Bauri who was referred to that hospital from Patel Nagar PHC.Netai Bauri was admitted at Suri Hospital at 8.55 p.m. On examination he found head injury and condition of the patient was so serious that without further examination the treatment was started to save his life.Ultimately, the patient died at about 12.15 at night.On that day at 7 p.m. he examined Netai Bauri of village Saluka and on examination he found multiple cut injuries over the scalp: a) left parietal 3" x 1" x 1/4" ; b) right parietal 4" x 1" x 1/4" and also 3" x 1" x 1/4" :c) midline about 2" above 4" x 1" x 1/4".He also found injuries on right lateral eyebrow 2" x 1" x 1/4".There was injury on left arm which was deep seated penetrated injury with fracture, fracture on left forearm.On right arm he found deep seated penetrated injury with fracture.Right forearm had deep seated penetrated injury with fracture.P.W.9 stated that the patient was brought by one Rishi Bauri.According to statement of the attendant of patient the patient was assaulted by Shyam Bauri, Haradhan Bauri, Kishan Bauri, Ram Bauri, Raksha Bauri, Ananta Bauri and others with tangi and sharp instruments.His cross-examination reveals that in the injury report it was not mentioned by him as to who gave the statement to him regarding history of assault.Careful dissection of bruises over lower back showed large peri-and and intra-muscular collection of blood in lumber muscles.Further dissection per abdomen showed collections of blood clots in perinephric fatty capsule more so on the left side.No damage microscopically seen to involve kidneys.Examination of Scalp:(1) Linear fracture of 6" extending from left parietal bone extending backwards and obliquely to left part of occipital bone.Subdural haematoma was found deep to anterior end of fracture of about 2" x 3" dimensions.(2) Depressed fracture of right parietal bone with linear extension backwards obliquely.Subdural haematoma and also evidence of bleeding within the brain matter.Blood found in lateral ventricle.Examination of Thorax:(1) Fracture of mid shafts and anterior ends of ribs left 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th.Left lung collapsed with haemo pneumo thorax.In left pleural cavity.The kidneys were found intact but perinephric harmatomato were found.He opined that death was due to cardio respiratory failure caused by homicidal injuries to skull causing subdural and intra-cerebral bleeding, compounded by respiratory embarrassment due to left lung collapse and haemothorax caused by homicidal fracture of the ribs.His cross-examination reveals that after there is difference between incised looking wounds and incised wounds.Incised looking wounds may be caused by blunt weapon over hard substance such as the scalp.Axe and tangi are sharp-cutting weapons and if any person is struck by axe and tangi incised wounds would be found but injuries haematoma, bruises and fracture might be caused by any hard and blunt substance.Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, the learned Advocate for the appellants contended that in the inquest report names of assailants were not mentioned.When already specific Mohammad Bazar P.S. Case was started the mention of Suri P.S. U.D. case number in the inquest report is significant to show that assailants were unknown and purposefully the names of the assailants were inserted in the ante-timed FIR.We are not convinced with this submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants.The FIR (Ext. 1) was lodged on 8.5.93 at 23.00 hours.The patient Netai Baud died at Suri Hospital at 00.15 a.m. night i.e. on the same night.On the basis of information received by Suri Police Station from the Suri Sadar Hospital the Suri P.S. U.D. Case No. 94 dated 9.5.93 was started and the inquest was held by police officer who was attached to Suri P.S. We find no illegality in holding inquest on the deadbody of Netai Bauri under the banner of Suri P.S. U.D. case number as Mohammad Bazar P.S. was not aware of the death of deceased at that time.The hospital authorities was not aware about starting of Mohammad Bazar P. S. case as the patient party after admitting Netai Bauri into Suri Hospital at about 8.55 p.m. on 8.5.93 returned back to Mohammad Bazar P.S. and lodged the FIR there at 11.00 night.The hospital authorities informed the Suri P.S. concerning death of Netai Bauri and they accordingly started the U.D. case at Suri P.S. and Suri P.S. was not aware of starting of specific Mohammad Bazar P.S. case at the relevant time.The purpose of inquest is to disclose apparent cause of death.It should contain whether the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by any animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body of the deceased appear to have been inflicted.The inquest report need not contain the overt act of accused persons or the manner in which the accused persons assaulted the deceased and the names of the accused persons or the names of the eye-witnesses [See Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P. reported in 2006(1) SCC (Cri) 661].The law is clear that the inquest report should not contain names of assailants or the parts played by the assailants or their overt acts as well as names of eye-witnesses.Mr. Ghosh also contended that the FIR is hit by Section 162 of the Cr. PC.P.W.I in his evidence stated that the contents of FIR was not read over to him.Accordingly, the FIR being hit by Section 162 of Cr.PC no reliance can be placed on such FIR and prosecution cannot take any benefit of such FIR.We are not convinced with the submission of Mr. Ghosh and after going through the materials in the record as well as evidence we do not find any element which can show that FIR was hit by Section 162 of the Cr. PC.The casual remark of P. W. 1 in cross-examination that on the way to Suri Hospital from Patel Nagar Hospital Madhai Master had been to the Mohammad Bazar P.S. to just inform the matter cannot be accepted as lodging information of the incident at Mohammad Bazar P.S. before lodging of actual FIR.P.W.2 Madhai Karmakar @ Madhai Master totally negatived this portion of evidence of P.W. 1 uttered during his (P. W. 1) cross-examination.Both in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination P.W.2 stated that he did not go to the Mohammad Bazar P.S. on the way to Suri Hospital and he came to Mohammad Bazar P.S. with P.W.I on 'moped' after admitting the injured Netai Bauri at Suri Hospital.P.W.I himself did not go to Mohammad Bazar P.S. before actually lodging the FIR, and consequently, he cannot give any statement touching an alleged fact which fact he himself did not see and, we cannot place reliance on such casual statement of P.W.I concerning a fact which was not seen by him.P.W.2 is allegedly the person who went to Mohammad Bazar P.S. as stated by P.W.I which has been denied by P.W.2 himself.There is no proof and evidence that before actually lodging FIR P.W.2 went to the police station to give information of the incident.The FIR accordingly is not hit by provisions of Section 162 of Cr. PC nor the same can be regarded as ante-timed.Mr. Ghosh next contended before us that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses as P.W.4 stated about some assailants.One witness uttered name of only three accused persons whereas another witness uttered name of four accused persons.P.W.9, the doctor stated that patient was not in a position to speak and naturally statement of the deceased disclosing name of the assailants cannot be believed.The witnesses did not state which particular accused was in possession of which type of weapon and which accused assaulted the deceased Netai Bauri with particular weapon.It was also contended by Mr. Ghosh that the Investigating Officer was not examined and other vital witnesses were also not examined and adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act should be drawn against the prosecution.Out of political rivalry the appellants were falsely implicated in this case.On the contrary, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, the learned Advocate for the State submitted that in the FIR names of the assailants were disclosed.There are some eye-witnesses and some witnesses came to place of occurrence immediately after the incident and heard about the incident and names of assailants from the injured and other eye-witnesses.Evidence of latter category of witnesses are admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res gestae.Non-examination of I.O. is not at all fatal for the prosecution, if the case is otherwise proved from evidence, materials on record and circumstances.All probable witnesses were examined and vital witnesses were not withhold.The witnesses namely, Rishi Bauri and Sadhu Bauri could not be examined before the Trial Court as they were dead.After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully scrutinising the evidence of the witnesses and materials on record we find that P.W.I stated that Juddha, Krishna and Haradhan were the assailants.P.W.2 in his evidence disclosed name of four assailants namely, Anath, Ram, Juddha and Sonai.P.W.3 stated that Shyamapada, Ram, Krishna and Haradhan were the assailants.P.W.5, the wife of deceased in her evidence stated that Shyamapada, Ram, Krishna, Haradhan, Juddha and Sonai were the persons who assaulted her husband which she heard from the mouth of her husband.P.W.7 stated that Shyamapada, Ram, Krishna and Haradhan were the assailants who assaulted Netai Bauri.It is thus clear that P.W.5 uttered name of six accused persons including Haradhan who is dead.She did not tell the name of Anath Bauri.Other witnesses did not state the name of all seven accused persons but the combined effect of evidence of P.W.I, P.W.2, P. W.3 and P. W. 7 reveals involvement of all the accused persons in the incident.From evidence we find that though P. W. 1 in the FIR narrated the incident in a manner as if he was an eye-witness, but in fact, he was not the eye-witness as he stated in his evidence.P.W.2 was also not an eye-witness.Evidence of P.W.I and P.W.2 reveals that they heard from Netai Bauri the names of the assailants.Their evidence discloses that they heard from the deceased that he was assaulted by the assailants with axe, tangi etc. P. W.3 in his evidence stated that the accused persons assaulted Netai with lathi, axe and tangi and he first saw the incident from road which was about 500 cubits only.He was proceeding towards the place of occurrence and finally saw the incident from a distance of about only 150 cubits.His evidence also reveals that Netai, the injured was conscious at that time and Netai told names of assailants.P.W.5 also stated in her evidence that from her husband Netai she learnt that the accused persons assaulted him with axe, tangi, katari, lathi.Evidence of P.W.6 reveals that he found the injured Netai lying with injuries on the land of P. W. 1 and his father Soukat Ali.P.W.7 was working in the land of Karali Garai and hearing hue and cry he came to place of occurrence and saw Shyamapada, Ram, Krishna and Haradhan assaulting Netai with tangi, axe and lathi.In our opinion, law does not require that all the witnesses like a parrot or tutored witness would disclose names of all the assailants.Truthfulness of a witness depends upon his sense of perception, his power of memory and time of his arrival at place of occurrence.After a gap of so many years it was not possible for the witnesses to remember all the details of the incident.It is also clear from evidence that all the witnesses did not come to the place of occurrence at a time and for this reason all are not eye-witnesses, and some are persons who came to the place of occurrence later on and heard about the incident from other witnesses and, some witnesses came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and heard about the incident as well as name of assailants and the weapons used from the mouth of the injured himself.The evidence of the witnesses who came to place of occurrence immediately after incident and heard about the incident from the injured Netai Bauri including names of assailants and the offending weapons are admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and these witnesses are P.W.I, P.W.2 and P.W.5. P.W.3 and P.W. 7 are the eye-witnesses.P.W.9, the doctor of Mohammad Bazar BPHC in his evidence stated that patient party told names of the assailants.The patient was semi-unconscious.It reveals that before the doctor the deceased could not give any statement relating to names of the assailants.This cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case when from evidence of P.W.I, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.7 it is clear that patient Netai Bauri was not unconscious immediately after the incident.Their evidence proves clearly that immediately after incident Netai was conscious and he told names of the assailants who assaulted him and also disclosed what were the offending weapons that were used in assaulting him.The submission of Mr. Ghosh that patient was unconscious and he could not disclose name of assailants is not acceptable.The time gap between the incident and production of the injured before the doctor of Patel Nagar PHC cannot be ignored and due to the time gap for excessive bleeding and for the serious nature of injuries the patient gradually became weak and lost his senses and ultimately when he was produced at Patel Nagar PHC he was semi unconscious.He could not regain his senses and breathed his last at Suri Hospital on the same night at 00.15 hours.There is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.I, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.7 and their evidence clinchingly establishes that the prosecution was able to prove that the appellants assaulted Netai Bauri on 8.5.93 when he was proceeding from his house to 'baripukur' for taking bath.The assault on Netai Bauri caused by the appellants was so serious that Netai Bauri ultimately succumbed to his injuries.We find that vital witnesses were not withheld as two other important witnesses who were present at place of occurrence namely, Rishi Bauri and Sadhu Bauri were dead when the trial commenced as a result of which the prosecution would not examine them.Non-examination of the I.O. is not fatal in this case when we find from evidence of other witnesses including ocular version of eye-witnesses as well as medical evidence that prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellants assaulted Netai Bauri in such a manner which resulted into his death.The assault on his head was so severe that death was inevitable.The medical evidence gives us the picture how serious was the assault on Netai Bauri and the doctors opined that injury on head was sufficient to cause death.Examination of I.O. would not have favoured the appellants in this case when we find such overwhelming direct evidence and corroborative evidence.In the cross-examination of the witnesses we did not find any material omission, contradiction, lacuna or defect which can impair value of their evidence and testing their evidence through the touchstone of reliability we find the witnesses credible and trustworthy.It is true that due to non-examination of the I.O. the contradictions between evidence of the witnesses in Court and their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. PC could not be taken, still considering the entire scenario, the evidence of witnesses including the evidence of doctors and considering the circumstances we find that non-examination of the I.O. was not at all vital or fatal for the prosecution in this case.In our opinion, failure of the witnesses to state which accused was carrying what type of weapon is not a ground to disbelieve their evidence.After a gap of more than six years from the date of the incident it was not possible for them to remember which appellant was carrying which type of weapon and this cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses.Moreover, it appears that seven persons assaulted the deceased and the eye-witnesses saw the incident from a gap of 150 cubits and it was not possible for them to observe actually which weapon was used by a particular accused on the person of deceased.It was not possible also for the deceased to remember who assaulted him with particular weapon as deceased Netai Bauri was assaulted all on a sudden.A person who is being assaulted remains busy in saving himself and in such a situation when the attack on the deceased is by number of persons it is not possible for him to remember which accused assaulted him with which particular weapon.The deceased at best can utter the weapons which were in the possession of the accused persons when there were several accused persons who assaulted the deceased.Accordingly, failure of the witnesses to disclose the types of weapons used by each accused is not at all vital and this cannot be a ground to throw the prosecution case out of Court.In case of assault on deceased by members of unlawful assembly it is not necessary to record a finding as to who among the members of the assembly caused fatal injury.The Supreme Court relying on State of Rajasthan v. Nathu 2003 SCC (Cri) 1156 in Munivel v. State of T.N. reported in 2006(2) SCC (Cri) 581, has held that: "It is also well-settled that if death had been caused in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, it would not be necessary to record a definite or specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the total injury."Mr. Ghosh also submitted before us that out of political rivalry the appellants were implicated in this case.We are not at all impressed with this submission as political rivalry cannot be a ground for false implication in this case when after the assault by the appellants the deceased succumbed to his injuries and the incident was witnessed by 2/3 eye-witnesses and other witnesses coming to place of occurrence immediately after the incident heard the entire incident from the deceased who was alive at that time and was capable of speaking.The statement of deceased before the witnesses including his wife and others amounts to dying declaration and such statement of victim or the deceased cannot be disbelieved.From evidence of the witnesses it transpires that dispute between deceased and the appellants concerning the bamboo grove was settled through the intervention of Mohammad Bazar P.S. and local panchayat.After such settlement there was no animosity between the parties at the time of occurrence and as such the appellants had no motive or intention to assault Netai Bauri.The dispute concerning bamboo grove cuts both ways.The appellants who wanted to have control on bamboo grove was dissatisfied with the settlement and they had the grudge in their mind and out of their grudge and to get rid of Netai Bauri for having control over the bamboo grove the appellants assaulted Netai Bauri so mercilessly particularly on his head knowing fully well that after such assault he would not survive.The entire scenario and the manner in which the appellants assaulted Netai Bauri clearly reveals that the appellants had the intention of causing murder of Netai Bauri.The injuries found on the deceased as it appears from evidence of medical officers including the post-mortem surgeon clearly speaks of the motive behind the murder of Netai Bauri.The prosecution has been able to bring home its case against the appellants.Minutely considering the evidence of the witnesses, the materials on record and the circumstances we are unable to agree with the views of Mr. Ghosh that there was no motive behind the incident of murder and there was no animosity between the parties at the time of occurrence.From evidence it transpires that there was dispute between the deceased Netai Bauri and the appellants concerning a bamboo grove.In our opinion, this is the root cause of the incident and, though there was apparently a settlement before the incident it was the main cause of attack on the deceased.The appellants could not swallow the alleged settlement as they had eye on the bamboo grove.After carefully going through the evidence of the witnesses we find that involvement of appellant No. 2 Anath Bauri in the incident of assault on Netai Bauri is doubtful as the prosecution witnesses except P.W.2 did not utter his name.The eye-witnesses namely, P.W.3 and P.W.7 did not state that Anath Bauri also assaulted Netai Bauri.P.W.I and P.W.5 who heard the names of assailants from the injured Netai Bauri himself did not tell that Anath Bauri assaulted Netai Bauri.P.W.2 came to the place of occurrence much afterwards as it appears from his evidence and he only stated that the deceased also uttered name of Anath Bauri and this portion of evidence has not been corroborated by other witnesses including the wife of deceased.Accordingly, in our opinion, benefit of doubt should be extended to Anath Bauri and he is found not guilty of the alleged offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC and also under Section 148 of the IPC.In the result, the appeal in relation to appellant Nos. l and 3 to 6 is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against them are affirmed.Criminal Section is directed to send down the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this judgement to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Suri forthwith for information and necessary action.P.S. Datta, J.I agree. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,961,717 | JUDGMENT Vyas, J.These are appeals from a judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, by which judgment the learned Magistrate has convicted both the accused of offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 465 read with Section 34, Section 468 read with Section 34, Section 471 read with Sections 465 and 34 and Section 420 read with Section 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Originally there were three accused persons in this case.In other words, the charge against the accused was under Section 120-B read with Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.In other words, the charge was under Section 465 read with Section 34, Section 468 read with Section 34, Section 471 read with Section 34 and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Incidentally it may be noted that the original accused No. 3 has been acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate.Accused No. 1 was at the material time (i.e. in the month of March, 1949,) the managing director of the Goldberg India Ltd., Accused No. 2 was the accountant of that company.Accused No, 3, with whom we are not concerned in these appeals, was a director of the said company.The office of the Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, issues licences to import articles into India from foreign countries and an established importer has got to make an application to the Chief Controller of Imports if he wants to obtain an import licence.While making the application for an import licence, the importer has got to make a statement of his past imports made ill particular years, and in support of the figures, particulars, etc. of the past imports, he has got to produce either a quota certificate or customs bills of entry or a certificatefrom a Registered Accountant certifying the past imports.That application is exh.A on the record of this case.It was accompanied by a covering letter of the company and certain other documents, one of which was the auditors' certificate.The prosecution contends that the value of the past imports for the year 1947-48 as stated in the upper portion of this certificate was a false value.The figure Rs. 1,15,710 was not a correct figure.The prosecution further alleges that the signature "Kapadia and Mehta" which is to be found at the foot of this certificate, exh.The application, exh.A, which was made by the Goldberg India.Mr. Varadkar, who was the Controller of Imports at the material date, felt the necessity of verifying the auditors' certificate.He felt that the value of the hardware items, namely tools and screw drivers as stated in the upper portion of the auditors' certificate and also as stated in the body of the application, exh.A, was unusually large.(5) It may be noted that in the meantime on May 6, 1949, the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, received another application from the Goldberg India Ltd. That application also was accompanied by a covering letter from the company and certain other documents.On May 12, 1949, accused No. 1 as the managing director wrote a letter to the Deputy Chief Controller asking him to treat the earlier application of the company dated March 28, 1949, as cancelled and the reason which he assigned for the cancellation of the said earlier application was that in that application there were clerical mistakes and further that some of the items which ought not to have been included in that application were wrongly included therein.Mr. Varadkar, the Controller of Imports, has stated in his evidence that if he had accepted the application, exh.A, as being an application containing true statements of facts, and if he had accepted the auditors' certificate, exh.B, is a forged certificate, in that the signature "Kapadia and Mehta" at the foot of the certificate is not really the true and genuine signature of Kapadia and Mehta, but that the said signature was written by accused No. 1 himself.So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, the contention of the prosecution is that in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy between himself and accused No. 1, he had put his signature "D. T. Sood" at the foot of the statement of particulars of the past imports for the year 1947-48 of this company, which statement of particulars is to be found in the upper portion of the auditors' certificate, exh.In short, the case of the prosecution against these accused is that there was a criminal conspiracy between them and one more person who has since been acquitted to forge an auditors' certificate and to use that forged certificate as a genuine document for thepurpose of cheating the office of the Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, and inducing that office to grant to their company an import licence for an amount to which the company on true facts being disclosed was not entitled.Both the accused have resirted the charge against them.Accused No. 1 contends that he was not a managing director of Messrs. Gold-berg India Ltd., at all.He had only one-fourth share in the company, whereas original accused No. 3 being a relative of two other share-holders was the person mainly in charge of the affairs of the company.It was he (accused No. 3) who was in charge of the bank accounts, cash, stores, sales, etc. Accused No. 1 goes on to say further that he had no power to operate on the bank accounts of the company.According to him, it was accused Nos. 2 and 3 who used to go to the office of Messrs. Kapadia and Mehta for obtaining the necessary auditors' certificates for making applications for import licences.Speaking about this particular case, accused No. 1 says that when four certificates from the auditors were brought by accused Nos. 2 and 3, he (accused No. 1) asked them whether they had also brought copies of those certificates with themselves.He says that the reply of accused Nos. 2 and 3 to that query was in the negative.Thereupon, he enquired from them whether they had got with them blank forms and they said that they had brought only one blank form.Thereupon, accused No. 1 said that four blank forms were necessary for making out copies of four certificates.It is contended by accused No. 1 that he never intended to forge the signature of Kapadia and Mehta nor did he ever intend that the words "Kapadia and Mehta" which he put down on a blank form would be misused or fraudulently used for the purpose of obtaining a false import licence from the Chief Controller of Imports. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,961,753 | According to the prosecution, the appellant was a clerk in the accounts section in the office of the District Executive Engineer It izatnagar in district Bareilly in the employ payment orders, the accused presented these documents for payment at railway station, Bareilly.He is the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Simla.He stated that the three signatures purporting to be signatures of M. Singh appearing on the three payment orders are not his signatures.Exhibits P. 9 to P. 16 are specimen signatures of Sardar Manmohan Singh.Thus from the statements of Sardar M. Singh and Sri Sen ft is clear that somebody forged signatures which purport to be the Resident Engineer's signatures on Exs.It is, however, clear that the three signatures are forged.Further, the body of the three payment orders was prepared by the accused.P. 3 and P. 4 were encashed.And the payee was identified by Sri Mohammad Hamid, assistant station master, when Ex. P. 5 was encashed.Durga Dutt Pande said that he recognized the signatures of Sri A.B. Fanthome on Exs.Sub-section (1) contains four clauses.JUDGMENT Oak, J.For each offence he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.The two sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The accused on each occasion succeeded in obtaining payment of a sum of Rs. 107 upon each payment order.The fraud was detected by an officer of the Special Police Establishment, Luoknow.The payment orders in question were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents.It was found that the documents in question had been forged.The accused was, therefore, prosecuted for forging the three payment orders, and for fraudulently obtaining money on the basis of the forged payment orders.The case was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.The accused pleaded not guilty.He denied having forged any of the three payment orders.He also denied having received any money on the basis of those payment orders.I noticed that the case was tried by the learned Special Judge, Lucknow.I entertained some doubt as to whether this appeal ought to be heard at Allahabad or at Lucknow.The learned Counsel for the parties were agreed that this appeal ought to be disposed of at Allahabad.It was pointed out that although the case was heard at Lucknow, the case really relates to district Bareilly.This appeal was listed before me.It is, therefore, permissible to dispose of this appeal at Allahabad.On any view of the matter, it is permissible to dispose of this appeal at Allahabad.which purports to be a confessional statement made by the accused to Sri J.K. Mehta, railway sectional officer, Special Police Establishment, Lucknow.The learned Special Judge has relied upon this confession (Ex. P. 19) But I find that this is a confession made to a police officer.Mr. Katju appearing for the State urged that Sri J.K. Mehta was not a police officer, but was an officer belonging to some other department temporarily attached to the Special Police Establishment.Exhibit P. 47 is the first information report furnished by Sri J.K. Mehta.In Ex. P. 47 Sri Mehta wrote that he made efforts to detect frauds and catch defaulters redhanded.He gave his designation as railway sectional officer of Special Police Establishment, Lucknow.From this description also, it appears that Sri Mehta belongs to the police establishment.Sri Sarpal (P.W. 4) is the District Executive Engineer at Izatnagar.He too gave evidence with respect to confession (Ex. P. 19).But the document itself shows that it was addressed to Sri J.K. Mehta.The accused stated before the Court that this document was obtained from him under coercion and pressure.In support of this contention, two witnesses were examined in defence.It is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss the defence evidence as to whether the document was obtained under pressure.Mr. V.K.S. Chaudhry appearing for the appellant pointed out that the charge framed by the trial court was defective.The charge framed by the learned Special Judge ran thus:That you on or about the months of April to June 1950obtained for yourselfthe amount of Rs. 321 on the basis of Exs.P. 3, P. 4, P. 5, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 5 (1)(d) read with 5(2) of Act II of 1947;..and secondly, that youforged the documents Exs.It appears to have been encashed on 3 June 1950, Thus from a perusal of these three documents it is possible to ascertain the dates of preparation of the payment orders and the dates of their encashment.The learned Special Judge, however, did not take the trouble to specify those dates in the charge framed against the accused.A single charge of forgery was framed with respect to the three payment orders, Exs.A bare perusal of the three documents is sufficient to show that the three documents were prepared in three different months, They cannot, therefore, be said to be parts of the same transaction.Three separate charges of forgery should have been framed with respect to the three payment orders.Similarly, three separate charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 should have been framed by the Court with respect to the three acts of encashment.I agree with Mr. Chaudhry that the charge framed by the trial court was defective.Firstly, I take up the three counts relating to forgery, There are two witnesses on the charge of forgery.The first witness on the charge of forgery is Ram Gopal (P.W. 5).He was head clerk in the accounts section in the officer of the District Executive Engineer at Izatnagar.He stated that the accused was also a clerk in the office.The witness said that he can recognize the appellant's handwriting.Ram Gopal deposed that Exs.P. 3 to P, 7 are in the handwriting of the accused.Exhibit P. 3 purports to be a payment order issued by Sri M. Singh Resident Engineer, payable to Sarju Mal, temporary post-war clerk.There is evidence to the effect that Sri M. Singh did not issue any such payment order.Thus, according to Ram Gopal, head clerk (P.W. 5), the payment order (Ex. P. 3) has been forged by the accused.Similarly, the accused forged the other two payment orders (Exs. 4 and P. 5).In cross-examination Ram Gopal stated that there were nine clerks working under him.Ram Gopal is in a position to recognize the handwriting of all those nine clerks.Besides Exs.Ram Gopal was questioned about Ex. P. 8 also.In his statement before the police Ram Gopal stated that Ex. P. 8 also is in the hand writing of Prem Shankar Misra.But Ram Gopal stated before the Court that the handwriting of Ex. P. 8 appears to be different from that of Exs.The signatures at the foot of Exs.P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5 bear a rubber stamp (Resident Engineer, Izatnagar Division).Ram Gopal stated that there was no hard and fast rule for the safe custody of seals.The seals were not kept under lock and key.Ram Gopal stated that the forms of cash payment orders were kept in the establishment section of his office.Har Narain Sharma was in charge of that section.He said that blank forms of cash orders were lying on an open rack.They did not bear any serial numbers.Har Narain thus suggests that some unauthorized person might have picked up the cash order forms surreptitiously.According to the prosecution, the appellant signed on the stamps on Exs.P. 3 to P. 5 as Sarju Mal.Ram Gopal said that he is not in a position to say if the writing across the stamps on Exs.P. 3 to P. 8 is that of the accused or not.Since the accused was working under this witness, Ram Gopal is in as position to identify the appellant's writing.He stated that several writings and signatures were sent to him for comparison.Ex. hibits P. 17, P. 18, and P. 21 to P. 29 are admittedly in the handwriting of the accused Sri Sen stated that the writer of Exs.P. 17, P. 18, P. 21 to P. 29 and the writer of Q. 1 and Q. 2 on Exs.P 3, Q. 4 on Ex. P. 4 and Q. 7 on Ex. P. 5 are the same person.Q. 1 is the body of the payment order (Ex. P. 3).Q. 2 is the signature on the revenue stamp purporting to be Sarju Mal's signature.Q. 4 is the body of the payment order (Ex. P. 4).Q.5 is the signature on the revenue stamp purporting to be Sarju Mal's signature.Q. 8 is the disputed signature on the revenue stamp.According1 to Sri Sen, the body of the three payment orders (Exs.P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5) was written by the accused.The signature Q. 2 on Ex. P. 3 was also written by the accused.As regards the two signatures Q. 5 on Ex. P. 4 and Q. 8 on Ex. P. 5, Sri Sen indicated that these two signatures were also probably made by the accused.In his examination-in-chief Sri Sen gave briefly the reasons in support of his view.It is always open to the opposite party to require the expert to elaborate any particular point further in cross-examination.Sri Sen gave out opinions from time to time.In Ex. D. 4 Sri Sen wrote that it was.necessary to have signatures of Sarju Mal, Shyam Lal and M. Singh for purposes of comparison.Again, in Ex. P. 30 Sri Sen wrote:I am unable to identify the writer or writers of the rest of the writings on the basis of the present materials.He stated before the Court that when the expert demanded more documents for comparison, Sri Kehar Singh sent Exs.P. 21 to P. 26 again.A perusal of the three opinions (Exs. D. 4, P. 30 and P. 31) shows that five papers marked by Sri Sen as 1 to 5 were used by him as the basis for comparison for purposes of the two opinions (Exs. D. 4 and P. 30).It 'is not, therefore, surprising that, in his supplementary opinion (Ex. P. 31) Sri Sen was able to say something about the writing Q. 1, etc.Mr. Chaudhry contended that after all Sri Sen's statement is merely his opinion and it is not safe to base the appellant's conviction on the opinion of an expert.Sri Sen's opinion is not the only material for holding that the disputed writing and signature are the appellant's writing and signature.We have also got Ram Gopal's statement on the same point.P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5 were written by the accused.These three payment orders purport to have been issued by Sri M. Singh, Residential Engineer.The charge of forgery has, therefore, been proved against the accused on three counts.These payment orders were prepared in the name of one Sarju Mal.There is evidence to the effect that a person purporting to be Sarju Mal encashed the payment orders.Obviously forgery was committed for the purpose of cheating.This charge relates to the encashment of the three payment orders.There are again two witnesses on this charge.The first witness on this charge is Durga Dutt Pande (P.W. 2).He stated that in 1950 he was posted as goods clerk at Bareilly O.T.R. Station.He made payments on the three cash orders (Exs.P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5).On each occasion the witness paid Rs. 107 to the accused, who purported to be Sarju Mal.The practice was that the payee had to be identified by the station master or the assistant station master.In accordance with that practice, the payee was identified by Sri A.B. Fanthome, station master, when Exs.Sri Fanthome was a material witness.He claims to have identified the accused, because he appeared before the witness on three occasional for receiving payment.But no such remittance register was produced before the Court to show that Durga Dutt Pande made payments on the three dates.The witness had no reason for falsely implicating the accused.The payee appeared thrice in succession to obtain money on the three cash orders during the short period of two months.The second witness on the question of encashment of the payment orders is the handwriting expert Sri Sen (P.W. 6).He indicated that the admitted signature of Prem Shankar and the disputed signature Q. 2 on Ex. P. 3 were by the same person.In other words, the signature Q. 2 which purports to be Sarju Mal's signature on Ex. P. 3, was in fact made be the accused.Three charges of forgery have been proved against the accused.Strictly speaking, the Court should have awarded separate sentences for the three offences.But since the Court framed a single charge under Section 468, I.P.C., a single sentence was passed for this offence.A total sentence of imprisonment for three years cannot be said to be excessive for the three offences of forgery. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,191,874 | It is the case of the prosecution that on 31 st May, 2009, Vandana Tayde, along with her husband Ravi had come to attend wedding of her younger sister Nisha, at her maternal home situated at 43, Babumurai Colony, Airport Road, Indore.At about 3:30 in the afternoon, when she along with her sister Usha and other family members was sitting in the house, Yogesh and Bablu, came and picked up bicycle kept inside the house.When Ravi objected for the same, they started abusing him.There was some verbal altercation between both of them suddenly, Yogesh took out knife kept in his waist and inflicted a blow on the chest of the deceased with intent to kill him.The deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed.Vandana, her brother Anil, Sister Usha and mother Manglabai rushed to rescue him, but Yogesh gave knife blows to them also.Vandana and her sister Usha also sustained injuries.Both the accused persons fled away from the spot.Gopi and other neighbours have also seen the incident.Vandana lodged FIR Ex.The police investigated the case, visited the spot, prepared spot map Ex.P/2, seized plain and blood smudged soil from the spot vide Ex.P/3, called the witnesses and prepared memo of corpse Ex.Shri Anand Soni, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sandeep Mehta, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.********** (JUDGMENT) Indore Dt.27.07.2019 Per Virender Singh, J:-The appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 28.9.2010 passed in S.T. No.973/09 by VIth Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 6 months RI.P/8, sent the dead body for postmortem and obtained report Ex.P/11, sent all the injured for medical examination and obtained their reports Ex.The police interrogated Yogesh, who revealed information with regard to the knife used in the crime (Ex.P/17) and recovered the knife on the basis of information given by Yogesh (Ex.P/18).The police sent the seized articles for---3--- Criminal Appeal.No.1184/2010 chemical analysis to the FSL, which confirmed presence of human blood on the knife seized from possession of Yogesh.After other usual investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against all the four accused persons namely Yogesh, Dinesh, Gopi and Bablu.All the accused persons were charged under Section 302, in alternate 302/34, 294 and 506 Part II of IPC.After the trial, the learned trial court acquitted other three accused persons viz., Dinesh, Gopi and Bablu from all the charges, acquitted the appellant Yogesh from the charges under Section 294 & 506 part II, while convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and awarded him life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months additional R.I.The appellant has preferred this appeal on the several grounds, but during the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits.His limited prayer is that there was no old enmity or rivalry between the parties.This is a case of single blow caused in a fit of rage on a trivial issue.Blow was neither intended to cause death and nor was it repeated.He didn't take advantage of opportunity.The incident happened all of a sudden.In a heated moment, suddenly without any intention, preparation or premeditation, the appellant took out knife and gave a blow, which unfortunately hit the vital part of the body.He didn't target any vital part of the body.There is no evidence that his intention was to cause death.It is further submitted that the appellant is first offender and has no criminal antecedent.No other criminal case is ever registered him.He was hardly 20 years old at the time of the incident and is in jail since 02.06.2009 and has served out more then 10 years imprisonment.He belongs to a poor family.For these reasons, the case of the appellant falls under Section 304 part II of the IPC, therefore, the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the conviction of the appellant be converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.State of Punjab reported as AIR 1982 SC 1466, Kulwant Rai V/s.State of Punjab reported as AIR 1982 SC 126, Jagtar Singh V/s.State of Punjab reported as AIR 1983 SC 463, Hem Raj V/s.The State of (Delhi Administration) reported as AIR 1990 SC 2252, Gurmukh Singh V/s.State of Haryana reported as 2009 (3) Crimes 416 (SC) and Jagrup Singh V/s.The State of Haryana reported as AIR 1981 SC 1552 wherein---5--- Criminal Appeal.No.1184/2010 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when in case of a dispute on a trivial issue, all of a sudden the offender took out knife and gave a single blow and did not take undue advantage of the situation or has not acted in a cruel manner, the offence of the accused shall come under Section 304 Part-II.Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer and has submitted that looking to the nature of the case, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency.We have considered rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.The learned Public Prosecutor has not controverted the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant.Bare perusal of the statement of Vandana (PW1), the wife of the deceased, shows that the appellant has caused a single injury.As per the statement of Dr. A.K. Lanjewar (PW13), cause of death was heavy bleeding and shock due to grievous injury on the vital organ.Accept wife Vandana, all other family member, who had claimed that they had seen the incident, have not supported the case of the prosecution before the Court and have turned hostile.Vandana herself has turn hostile in her cross examination.There is no evidence that the appellant targeted the chest of the deceased or repeated the blow or that he was having knowledge that the single blow of knife would cause the death.Both the parties were well known to each other.The deceased was son-in-law of the victim family, therefore neither he not the appellant were acquainted with each other.This was the reason, the deceased objected when the appellant was picking up the bicycle as of right without taking permission and the appellant got annoyed and asked him as who is he to object? Admittedly, there was no previous malice or enmity.State of Punjab reported as AIR 1982 SC 1466, Kulwant Rai V/s.The State of (Delhi Administration) reported as AIR 1990 SC 2252, Gurmukh Singh V/s.State of Haryana reported as 2009 (3) Crimes 416 (SC) and Jagrup Singh V/s.The State of Haryana reported as AIR 1981 SC 1552, Madhavan and Ors.State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2017 SC 3847, Sikandar Ali Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2017 SC 2614 and Arjun and Anr.State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2017 SC 1150, in our considered opinion the act of the appellant satisfies the four requirements necessary to---7--- Criminal Appeal.No.1184/2010 invoke the powers namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and that (iv) the assailants had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner and therefore, the case of the appellant falls under Section 304-II of IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the fact that the appellant is in jail since 2.6.2009 and has already served out sentence of more than 10 years without remission and with remission he had served out about 13 years of imprisonment and, therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, it would be just and proper to set aside the conviction under Section 302 of IPC.Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and the conviction of the appellant is altered from Section 302 of IPC to that under Section 304 Part II of IPC and considering the nature of the incident, age of the appellants coupled with the period of custody and other prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, he is sentenced to the period already undergone with the fine and in-default imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court.With the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part to the extent as indicated herein above.(VIRENDER SINGH) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE JUDGE SS/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2019.07.30 16:55:27 -07'00'---9--- Criminal Appeal.No.1184/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE (D.B. HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI VIRENDER SINGH & HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) CRA.No.1184/2010 Indore dated 27.07.2019 Shri Anand Soni, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sandeep Mehta, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.Judgment delivered signed and dated.(VIRENDER SINGH) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE JUDGE | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,193,616 | 1) Application is hereby allowed.2) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "b" to the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:21:58 :::4) Fees of the appointed counsel is quantified @ Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) which is to be paid through High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.5) Rule made absolute in the above terms.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:21:58 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,194,960 | According to the case of the State, an FIR was registered in Tendukheda Police Station, District Damoh in connection with Crime No.57/16 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 & 506 of IPC against the applicant who is said to have assaulted the complainant on 29.04.2016 and it is stated that the applicant had slapped the complainant, because of which he fell down and suffered an injury on the knee.It is further alleged that the applicant is said to have used filthy language and abused the complainant.Besides offences under Sections 323, 294 & 506 of IPC, subsequently offences under Section 3(2)(v-ka) and 3(1)(da) of SC & ST Act were included.Upon medical examination and X-ray done on the complainant, it was found that the patella has suffered fracture, on account of which, offence under Section 325 of IPC has also been added to the list of offences.Further, the FIR also does not disclose that the applicant had knowledge of the fact that the complainant belongs to SC/ST community and it was on account to humiliate him, the applicant herein had assaulted the complainant.I have requested the learned counsel for the State to read out the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the complainant.Learned counsel for the State says that it is not legible beyond a point.However, the legible portion that is read out by the learned counsel for the State does not disclose that the applicant herein assaulted the complainant in order to humiliate him because of his caste status.Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that the bar of Section 18 of SC/ST Act has been lifted, as prima facie, it does not disclose any offence under the SC/ST Act. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposing of the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,198,826 | From the record i.e. Age Certificate issued on 10.12.2019 by the Chief Medical Officer, Gonda (annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), it transpires that the radiological age of the detenue is about 17-18 years.Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the learned Board, Child Welfare Committee, Gonda in case arising out of Case Crime No. 471/2019, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition."In compliance of earlier order of this Court, detenue- Shanti Devi @ Kranti has been produced before this Court by Smt. Vidhya Saroj, Constable.The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of detenue-Shanti Devi @ Kranti through her next friend/mother-in-law Bulla, on the ground that the detenue-Shanti Devi @ Kranti, is major and she married to Rajesh Pal by her own free will.Detenue- Shanti Devi @ Kranti W/o Rajesh Pal has made statement before us that she got married with Rajesh Pal with her own free will and wants to live and perform matrimonial relations with him.However, annoyed with their marriage, the opposite party no.4 has lodged the F.I.R. dated 03.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0471 of 2019, under Sections- 363, 366 IPC at Police Station-Mankapur, District-Gonda.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenue- Shanti Devi @ Kranti has given statements Under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. interalia stating therein that she is 21 years old and has married to Rajesh Pal with her own free will.The statements are on record as Annexure Nos. 3 and 6 to the writ petition.In view of the aforesaid judgments on the point in issue, a major girl cannot be forced to live in protective home without her consent and be immediately allowed to go wherever she wants without any hindrance either from the police or from the parents in particular. | ['Section 363 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. |
196,199,437 | Heard, Case-diary perused.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of temporary bail to the applicant.The applicant is directed to be released on temporary bail for a period of 5 days from the date of Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.03.07 12:02:45 +05'30' M.Cr.C. No.9534/2019 2 his release, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand Only), with two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of trial Court that the applicant will surrender himself before the concerned trial Court on or before the expiry of the aforesaid period of five days from the date of his release for being taken into custody and sent to jail to suffer remaining sentence under the written intimation to this Court, failing which, the Police Authority is at liberty to arrest the appellant without further reference to this Court.C. No.9534/2019 2Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.03.07 12:03:05 +05'30' | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,206,916 | This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing order dated 31/07/2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T. No.175/2014, whereby charges have been framed under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC against the petitioners.It is not disputed that the petitioner No.1/Bakesh is the husband of the deceased/Jamuna Bai, petitioner No.2/Bajilal and petitioner No.3/Suganta Bai are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased/Jamuna Bai.Marriage of the deceased was performed 10-12 years prior to the incidence.Dead body of Deceased/Jamuna Bai was found in the well along with her minor son Monu.The postmortem report of the deceased persons indicate that they died due to asphyxia as a result of drawning.Police Shahpur District Betul has lodged Crime under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners.She was being beaten by her husband at the instance of his parents, because of which she sustained injuries.The deceased, therefore, committed suicide due to the harassment caused by the accused persons.Charge- sheet has been filed under Sections 498-A read with Section 306 of IPC.It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners.There was no demand of dowry.There was no harassment which could have prompted the deceased to commit suicide.Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.State of Andra Pradesh reported as (2010) 1 SCC 750, in which the deceased was a domestic servant allegedly stolen gold ornaments from the house, when the accused, the employer demanded Rs.7,000/- given in advance to the servant, he committed suicide.Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the contentions and argued that the statement of Manglia, the father of the deceased categorically stated that the deceased/Jamuna Bai was being treated with cruelty and her husband harassed and beaten her.In the statement of Pooja, the daughter of the deceased and petitioner No.1, she was made it clear that on 31/12/2013, she was subjected to cruelty, her father had beaten her because of which she committed suicide on the following day.Learned Panel Lawyer for the state justified the impugned order and the charges by referring the statement made by Lalita Parte, sister of the deceased/Jamuna.Perused the record.The case of Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) is distinguishable on the facts.In the present case, the constant harassment and ill-treatment by the husband of the deceased/Jamuna lead to the commission of suicide.The statement of Pooja indicate that inflicting injury on the previous day to her mother by the husband, petitioner No.1/Bakesh.Lalita Parte and Manglia also indicate that the relationship of the deceased with her husband was strained and deceased was being treated with cruelty.Ill-treatment and maltreatment to the deceased was lead to the incident which may fall in the category of abetment .She had no other option but to commit suicide.So far as, petitioners No.2 & 3, Bajilal and Suganta are concerned.Their involvement in the crime can only be limited to harassment.No presumption can be drawn under Section 113-A of Evidence Act for the marriage took place more than 12 years ago.There are omnibus allegations against the petitioners No.2 & 3 regarding causing harassment and cruelty only.Keeping in view the above circumstances existed in the present case, the present petition is allowed partly .So far as, petitioner No.1 is concerned.This petition is dismissed.So far as, petitioner No.2 & 3 are concerned, this petition is allowed to the extent that offence under Section 306 of IPC is not prima facie made out against them.Hence, order dated 31/07/2014 is modified to that extent.Petitioners No.2 & 3 are discharged from offence under Section 306 of IPC only.(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE RS | ['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. |
196,209,345 | C.R.R. 3171 of 2009 Mr. Manjit Singh Mr. A. Keshari ..........for the petitioner This revisional application is directed against the order dated 29.7.09 passed in CGR Case No. 747 of 2006 under sections 498A/497 IPC.But the relation between the petitioner and his wife, the O.P. No.2 turned bitter as it is alleged that the petitioner is involved in an illicit relation with one Indrani Sarkar, wife of Sri Sanjay Sarkar of Shyambazar.A complaint was submitted by the O.P. No.2 at Lake P.S. and as a result of that Lake P.S. Case No. 55/06 dated 29.3.06 under sections 498A/497 IPC was registered The petitioner submitted a petition before the learned court below on 20.2.09 stating that charge against him under section 497 IPC cannot be framed. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,209,920 | The facts giving rise to the factual matrix of the present case are that the complainant namely, Sh.The Crl.P. No.440/2015 Page 1 of 5 complainant alleged that after her marriage, her husband-respondent no.1 and his family members started harassing her on account of demands of dowry.According to the complainant's version, the threats and harassment went till 7th December, 2011 when her husband called her for the purpose of finalizing everything and for meeting him.When she went to meet him, a heated exchange of words led to her husband/respondent no.1 beating complainant by giving her kicks and punches and she was not allowed to leave.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking setting aside of the order dated 21st April, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 26/14 titled `State v. Jai Kishan @ Jony & Ors.' arising out of FIR No.209/2012 registered under Sections 498- A/406/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), PS Mukherjee Nagar thereby discharging the accused persons arrayed as respondents herein, for an offence committed under Section 313 of the IPC.On 13th December, 2011, the doctor informed the complainant about the miscarriage of her pregnancy.P. No.440/2015 Page 1 of 5The complainant instituted a complaint against the respondents on the basis of which FIR No.209/2011 under Sections 498A/406 IPC at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, was registered against the respondents.The chargesheet was filed by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/313/34 IPC.The police seized the prescription slips dated 12th December, 2011 & 13th December, 2011 issued by Dr. Deepa Dureja with respect to the miscarriage.P. No.440/2015 Page 2 of 55. Learned APP for the State has submitted that since offence under Section 313 IPC was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The arguments were advanced by the parties and the accused were discharged on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against all the accused for the offence under Section 313 IPC.It had also been held that as the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC were triable by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was observed that the learned MM may hear arguments on the point of charge for the said offences.However, it was added that till date, the investigating agency had not obtained opinion of the expert and charge-sheet was not filed for the purpose of commencement of trial and, therefore, in the absence of expert's opinion, charge under Section 313 IPC cannot be made out.Besides this, it was also averred that the medical certificate was forged and fabricated one and no such incident happened.P. No.440/2015 Page 3 of 5I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State at length & gone through the available records.No doubt, the allegations of miscarriage had been made against the accused persons, the same were not corroborated by the medical record rather the medical prescription slip which was produced, does not show any Crl.P. No.440/2015 Page 4 of 5 indication expressly or impliedly that miscarriage was the result of any injury caused by the accused persons.It would be essential for the prosecution to show from the medical record that it was a case of medico legal implication and no MLC had been produced in the Court.P. No.440/2015 Page 4 of 5Thus, the order passed by the Court below is upheld and the revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,221,626 | (Passed on this the 18th day of June, 2019) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of externment dated 03.01.2019 (Annexure P/6) and the order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad (M.P.) and District Magistrate, Hoshangabad (M.P.) respectively under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1990').Vide order dated 29.10.2018, the District Magistrate has externed the petitioner from the District of Hoshangabad and the adjoining districts for a period of one year.2 W.P. No.1174 of 2019Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the case at Sr. No.2 is concerned, he has already been acquitted in the same, however the other 08 cases are still pending adjudication hence it cannot be said that the people of the locality are not coming forward to depose against him on account of fear generated by the petitioner.The counsel has further submitted that so far as the cases from Sr. No.1 to 5 are concerned, they are in respect of the family dispute of the petitioner and the society at large is not affected so far as these offences are concerned.The counsel has further submitted that the learned District Magistrate has not recorded its satisfaction as to the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases which has led to the fear in the mind of the public so as to compel him to be externed from the District of Hoshangabad.3 W.P. No.1174 of 2019On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference is made out inasmuch as there are 09 cases registered against the petitioner from the year 2014 till 2018 and in each year either one or to offences or two or more offences have been committed by the petitioner since 2014 and his presence in the District has given to a law and order situation on account of his activities, hence the order has been passed by the learned District Magistrate after due consideration of the material available on record which has also been affirmed by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram which does not call for any interference.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.So far as the cases which have been registered against the petitioner are concerned, list of the same is as under:Crime No. Section Police Station1. 521/14 294, 506, 34 of IPC Pipariya2. 559/14 294, 427, 336, 506, 34 of IPC Pipariya3. 806/14 25 of Arms Act Pipariya4. 292/15 13 of Gambling Act Pipariya 4 W.P. No.1174 of 20194 W.P. No.1174 of 20195. 471/15 452, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC Pipariya6. 435/16 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC Pipariya247/17 327, 294, 506, 34 of IPC Pipariya8. 286/17 452, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC Pipariya19/18 294, 323, 307, 427, 506, 34 Pipariya of IPCIt is also noted by this Court that on 05.04.2019 the counsel for the State was directed to keep the record of the case available in the Court for its perusal but despite intimation the counsel has not produced the record, even today and on the last date of hearing i.e. 09.04.2019 the counsel for the State has sought time to produce the relevant record.Admittedly, the case at Sr. No.2 has been compromised between the parties and the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid case.5 W.P. No.1174 of 2019So far as the nature of offences are concerned, it is found that except the offence committed in the year 2018 at Sr. No.9 at Crime No.19/2018 which is registered under Sections 294, 323, 307, 427, 506 and 34 of IPC, none of the other cases are serious in nature so as to call for an order of externment against the petitioner.In this regard, a reference may be had to the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra) wherein the Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances has held as under :-In the instant case, the District Magistrate has in the impugned order only baldly stated that the list of offences registered against the petitioner reflects that he is a daring habitual criminal and because of this there is fear and terror in the public and has not recorded any clear opinion on the basis of materials, that in his opinion witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by a reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or property.In most of the cases, Challans have been filed by the Police in Court obviously after examination of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the cases are pending in the Court.There is no reference in the order of District Magistrate that witnesses named in the Challans filed by the Police are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner in Court.6 W.P. No.1174 of 2019In State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another vs. Sanjeev alias Bittu (supra), the Supreme Court interpreting section 47 of the Bombay Police Act, 1978, which is similarly worded as section 5 of the Act of 1990, has held in para 25:-On the contrary, the order directing externment should show existence of some material warranting an order of externment.While dealing with question mere repetition of the provision would not be sufficient.Reference to be made to some material on record and if that is done the requirements of law are met.The Act of 1990 certain serious restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom under Article 19(1) of the Constitution and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and unless the conditions mentioned under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 are strictly satisfied, an order of externment, will have to be quashed by the Court.While considering a case under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, which also empowered the police to pass an order of externment, the Supreme Court observed in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra 7 W.P. No.1174 of 2019 (supra), as under:-Since the impugned order of externment passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner are liable to be quashed on this ground alone, it is not necessary for us to deal with the other grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition.In the result, we quash the impugned order dated 18-11-2008 passed by the District Magistrate Rewa in Cr.Case No.227/08 as well as the appellate order dated 13- 1-2009 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division."8 W.P. No.1174 of 2019As a result, the order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Hoshangabad (M.P.) as also the order dated 03.01.2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad (M.P.) are hereby quashed.The petition stands allowed. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,223,908 | The accused is represented by Mr. Prashant Jain, Advocate as well as Mr. Jai Bansal, Amicus Curiae appointed by this court in the reference as well as the appeal.The complainant is represented by Mr. Puneet Ahluwalia, Advocate.Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha was arraigned therein as an accused person.On 8th August, 2008, the following charges were framed against him :"That on 2.3.2007 from 9.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. in Flat No.D-7/7382, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi you committed the murder of Smt. Surjeet Kaur aged about 62 years and a child Karanvir Singh aged 12 years and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance.Secondly on the above said date, time and place you committed robbery of Rs.9730/-, one KARA, two gold KARAS, one gold KARA with four JHUMKAS, one pair of gold JHUMKA, one gold chain which were lying in a purse of golden colour etc. by use of a deadly weapon by causing hurt to Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Karanvir Singh and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 394/397 IPC and within my cognizance.Thirdly on the above stated date, time and place you knowing that you have committed an offence punishable with death cleaned the blood from the floor of the said flat and also cleaned the knife used for commission of the murder and broke the mobile phone of Smt. Surjeet Kaur and concealed the dead bodies in the wooden box and a suit case and thereby committed caused this material evidence of commission of this offence of murder with intention to screening yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed an Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 3 of 206 offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and within my cognizance.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 3 of 206Fourthly at about 12.30 p.m. on 2.3.2007 at the above stated flat you attempted to commit murder of Ms. Mehar Legha aged about 14 years and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and within my cognizance.Fifthly at about 12.30 p.m. on 2.3.2007 at the above stated flat you also criminally intimidated Ms.Mehar Legha to kill her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and within my cognizance."As Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha pleaded not guilty, he was put to trial on the above charges.The prosecution examined 24 witnesses in support of the charges.After hearing arguments of both sides in the matter, by the judgment dated 1st July, 2010, the learned Trial Judge found Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha guilty of the charges and convicted him for commission of the offences under Section 302, 201, 394/397, 506(II) and 307 IPC.Col. Aman Preet Singh (PW-8), a Retired Army Officer, was living in a rented accommodation being Flat No.7382/D-7, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.On the relevant date, his family residing with him consisted of his wife Smt. Manjeet Legha @ Nancy, their daughter Mehar Legha (aged about 14 years) and son Karanvir Singh (aged 12 years).Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha was working as the domestic servant of the family since the last 6 years (before the date of the incident on 2nd of March 2007).He was also known as Chhotu.Smt. Manjeet Legha was a teacher while Mehar Legha (PW5) was a student of 9th class in Loreto Convent School.Ms. Nancy's Aunt (Tai), Smt. Surjeet Kaur was visiting the family from Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 5 of 206 Punjab.On 2nd March, 2007 Lt.Aman Preet Singh's wife Nancy and Mehar Legha left for the school at about 7.30 in the morning.Col. Singh also left for his place of work at 8.05 a.m. in NOIDA leaving Smt. Surjeet Kaur, Master Karanvir Singh and Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha alone in the Vasant Kunj flat.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 5 of 206As per Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh (Retd.) (PW-8) that day, at about 1.15 in the afternoon, he received a call from his daughter, who was crying and, informed him that Chhotu had tried to kill her; that Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Karanvir Singh were not in the house and further that Chhotu had told her that he had killed both of them and was going to kill her also.PW-8 immediately started for his residence in a company vehicle.On reaching home, he found a large number of people and police gathered both outside and inside the flat, without any trace of Smt. Surjeet Kaur and son Karanvir Singh.Efforts to trace them by calling various relatives and friends were unsuccessful.The testimony of PW-8 is corroborated in all particulars by the evidence of Mehar Legha who appeared as PW-5 who has stated that on that date, she was appearing in school examination.She got free from school by about 12 noon while her mother remained on school duty.Mehar reached their flat at around 12.20 p.m., when the offender opened the door for her from inside.As her grandmother Smt. Surjeet Kaur did not open the door, as was Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 6 of 206 usual, Mehar Legha enquired from the offender as to the whereabouts of the grand aunt (grandmother) as well as about her brother.The witness has disclosed that the offender told Mehar Legha that both of them had gone to the Gurudwara and asked if she wanted anything to eat.Mehar told him that she would await her grandmother and brother's return and eat with them.As per PW-5 Mehar Legha, the offender thereafter attempted to strangulate her with a wire; that she escaped from the offender with difficulty and rushed down.She related the incident to Guddi (PW-11), a washerwoman who used to iron clothes on the ground floor, at which Guddi joined Mehar Legha in raising a hue and cry.As a result, persons from the neighborhood collected outside the flat.The offender who was still inside the flat, again opened the door within 2 or 3 minutes.Smt. Guddi, the washerwoman as PW-11 has fully corroborated the testimony of Mehar Legha.Smt. Guddi has disclosed that on 2nd March, 2007 at about 12.45 noon, Mehar Legha had come to the place where she was ironing clothes, weeping and told her that "Chhotu mujhe maar raha hai, mujhe Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 7 of 206 bachao".Guddi discloses that she took Mehar Legha to Flat No.7383 of Smt. Rani Chhabra and repeated the facts narrated by Mehar to her.On the knocking of Smt. Rani Chhabra (PW-1), the offender opened the door, pushed them aside and ran downstairs at which these persons raised an alarm due to which other people of the locality including a chowkidar gathered there and apprehended the offender.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 7 of 20612. PW-1, Smt. Rani Chhabra has also corroborated the testimony of Mehar Legha (PW-5).She claims to have heard the noise of cries on 2nd March, 2007 when she was present at home and had rushed towards the staircase as she lived on the second floor of the building.She accosted Mehar Legha climbing the stairs to meet her when she was told that Chhotu was trying to kill her.According to Smt. Rani Chhabra, Mehar Legha was full of blood, had abrasions or scratch marks on her face and a ligature mark on her neck.She confirms Mehar's narration of events at the flat.This witness attributes knowledge of events at the flat as having been narrated by Mehar Legha and that the offender had told her as well that Mehar's grandmother and brother had gone to the Gurudwara.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 8 of 206The prosecution has examined (PW-2) Mukesh Sehrawat, a resident of the flat No. 7380/D-7, Vasant Kunj located on the ground floor of the same building in which the Leghas resided on the first floor and Smt. Rani Chhabra on the second floor.This witness also came out of his flat after hearing the noise at about 12.30 noon when he saw that the offender (identified in court) in the grip of the guard Bhupender of the colony and that the offender was struggling to free himself from his clutches.The witness was told by PW-1 Smt. Rani Chhabra to help the guard as otherwise the offender would run away.PW-2 consequently also held that the offender, was still trying to free himself and gave him a little beating.Information of this incident was given to the SHO of Police Station Vasant Kunj whereupon DD No. 28A (Exh.PW-1/A) was handed over to SI Pratap Singh (PW-14) who proceeded to the spot and called HC Rajbir.Copy of DD No. 43B (Exh.PW-1/B) was also handed over to him.Inspector Suresh Dagar (SHO); SI Shiv Singh; SI Narender Singh; HC Subhash and HC Nanak Chand also reached the spot.Shri Bhupender Singh (chowkidar) and Mukesh Sehrawat (PW-2) produced the offender before the police.The offender was identified as their servant by (PW-8) Aman Preet Singh Legha and his daughter Mehar Legha (PW-5).In his testimony, (PW-14) S.I. Pratap Singh confirms that Bhupender Singh and (PW-2) Mukesh Sehrawat produced the Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 9 of 206 offender before them.He has identified the offender as the person who was handed over to the police.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 9 of 206This body was identified as that of Smt. Surjeet Kaur by (PW-8) Lt. Col. Aman Preet Legha.The dead body of Smt. Surjeet Kaur was found with a lot of blood and salt on her body and clothes.Her khes' (sheet) was also inside the box with other lose pieces of cloth.Upon search of other rooms of the flat, a green coloured suitcase was found under the bed of a bed room.When checked, Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 10 of 206 the dead body of a 10/11 years old male child was recovered from the suitcase.The dead body was identified by (PW-8) Lt. Col. Aman Preet Legha as that of his son Master Karanvir Legha.There were injury marks on the body of Karanvir as well.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 10 of 206Again there was a lot of blood as well as salt present on the body.There were injury marks on the neck and fingers of Smt. Surjeet Kaur as well as injury marks on the neck of Master Karanvir Singh.(PW-14) S.I. Pratap Singh recorded the statement of Mehar Legha (Exh.PW-5/A), who stated that the offender had told her that he had killed her grandmother and her brother Karanvir.SI Pratap Singh (PW-14) recorded his endorsement thereon (Exh.PW-14/A) and handed over the rukka to HC Rajbir Singh (PW-12) for registration of the case.The investigation was taken over by Inspector Suresh Dagar (PW-21).HC Rajbir Singh returned to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to Inspector Suresh Dagar.During investigation, a rough site plan (Exh.PW-21/A) was prepared on the pointing out of Mehar Legha.The crime team reached the spot and inspected the place of occurrence, photographs were taken.After the identification of the dead bodies by Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh and his cousin Captain R.P.S. Gill, they were sent to the mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital through HC Subhash and HC Nanak Chand.The wooden box in which the dead body of Smt. Surjeet Kaur was recovered as well as the green Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 11 of 206 colour suit case were sealed, both taken into possession and seizure memos duly recorded.Some blood lying near the green colour suit case; near the box; as well as from balcony was lifted and sealed.Blood stained concrete pieces of floor were lifted from the balcony near the box and from near the suit case.One blood stained mat lying near the bathroom was also sealed by the police.The pulandas in which these articles were sealed were taken into possession vide memo (Exh.PW-10/A).A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 11 of 206The offender made a disclosure statement (Exh. PW-10/B) to the police and pursuant thereto led the police party to the recovery of several items which we shall note hereafter.On the pointing out of the offender, Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha, one knife was recovered and seized from a place above the utility stand in the kitchen.The sketch of the knife (Exh.PW-8/A) was prepared by (PW-21) Inspector Suresh Dagar, the investigating officer.The offender also produced one orange coloured plastic container half filled with salt from the kitchen, a black coloured wire from the corner of the drawing room (seized vide memo Exh.PW-8/C).The offender also led the police party to the back side balcony and took out a floor mop (pochcha') having blood stains from the place where he had hidden it under used items which was seized vide memo (Exh.PW-8/D).Thereafter the offender then led the police party to the garage of the building at the ground floor and produced the clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident which included a Crl.No.3/2010 Page 12 of 206 red colour pyjama, one white full sleeve T-shirt, both covered with blood stains which were seized by the police vide Exh.PW-8/G. From the pocket of the pant of the accused, a newspaper clipping (Exh.PW-8/J), which contained an article about a non-combat attack with a knife, was recovered.The offender also produced a black coloured plastic bag which contained Rs.9730/- and a purse.This purse contained one golden kara, two designed karas, one kara having four jhumkas, two jhumkas and one gold chain.No.3/2010 Page 12 of 206(PW-8) Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh Legha has identified these items of jewellery recovered from the offender as belonging to his wife while the money as belonging to him for the reason that it was found missing from his cupboard, along with the jewellery.On 3rd March, 2007, the police again visited the flat of the offender and again at his pointing out; a mobile phone which belonged to Late Smt. Surjeet Kaur was recovered from the rear balcony of the flat, which had been concealed in some boxes.The offender also led the police to the recovery of a hammer which stood broken into three pieces hidden near the mobile (which had been allegedly utilised for breaking the mobile phone).The crime scene was also inspected by the dog squad, the crime team and a photographer.The proceedings of the crime team are on record as Exh.PW-13/A.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 13 of 206Post mortems were conducted on the bodies of the two deceased persons pursuant to the police request (Exh.(On court question, the witness explains that the cut was deep upto spinal vertibra), length was 15 cm and width was 4 cm, two skin tags were present over both angles of cut throat injury.Cervical vertibrae are cut at two places, one cm apart.Multiple scratch marks are present front of left shoulder in an area of 5x4 cm and varying in size from 3x0.5 cm to 1x4 cm.The doctor opined that the injuries present on the neck were sufficient to cause death of the child in ordinary course of nature.The doctor also gave detailed information as to whether the knife (Exh.P-20) was the weapon of the offence.The doctor prepared a sketch of the knife Ex.PW-6/B and gave his report (Exh.The upper end of the wound was merged with injury no.1The index finger on left hand shows cut mark on terminal phalynx, 0.3 cm long, obliquely placed - defence wound.On Internal examination Scalp, skull brain - brain was congested and rest of the structures were normal.No.3/2010 Page 15 of 206Platysmu, trachata, sternomastoid muscle, jugular vein and cerevial merous, both carotid arteries and vertebral colume at the label of second and third cervical verebru showed cut injuries.Structure below injury no. 2 is also cut like platysma, sternomastoid, vessels etc. The lungs were pale.Heart was normal.Abdomen and pelvis.Stomach was empty.Liver/spleen, kidneys - all were pale.The doctor opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury and that injury nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 16 of 206It appears that Late Smt. Surjeet Kaur was found clutching some hair in her hand.At the time of the medical examination of the offender, at the request of the investigating officer, the blood samples and hair of the offender Mithlesh were also preserved.Both of these were sent for forensic examination along with the examination on the recovered articles.The police also lifted chance prints from the spot.11) who in her cross examination has stated that Mehar had scratches on her face and appeared to be terrified when she had approached her.Mehar Legha (PW-5) has also explained that she was so distraught and shocked from the events on that date that she refused to go for a medical examination.Furthermore, the dead bodies of her grandmother and her own young brother after they were brutally murdered were recovered in her presence.(i) Circumstances personal to the offender.By a letter dated 31st December, 2012, the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences had sought a clarification as to the parameters on which the opinion of the medical board was sought.We had clarified on 16th January, 2013 that the opinion on the current mental status of the convict was required.A report dated 9th January, 2013 from the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences was placed before this court wherein it was stated that Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha was clinically, behaviourally and mentally stable.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.... convict Mithlesh has attended several Vipassana' meditation courses organized at CJ-4 and continues with his meditation till date.The inmate is a skilled embroiderer and has worked in the embroidery units at CJ-4, CJ-5 and CJ-7 and has also imparted basic training in embroidery to other prisoners.He was assigned labour in jute bag making unit started by NGO Scope Plus.Only the jail personnel and inmates were questioned apart from the victims' family.As a court, we have to undertake an objective analysis of all the relevant factors.In discharging our solemn duty, while ensuring safety and security of the victims and witnesses, it is essential for us also to apply the well settled Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 170 of 206 principles governing evaluation of the evolution of the criminal as well.Ms. Priyanka Yadav, the Probation Officer also noted that Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha has never visited any school.His only learning was in the jail under the "Padho aur Padhao" programme.The accused has separately assailed the judgment dated 1 st July, 2010 and the order on sentence dated 8 th July, 2010 by way of Crl.We have heard learned counsels as well as Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the State at length who have carefully taken us through the record.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 2 of 206The case of the prosecution as proved on the record is within a narrow compass.FIR No.147/07 (Exh.The case arising therefrom was tried as SC No.252/2009/2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The matter was thereafter kept for hearing on the quantum of sentence.By the order dated 8th July, 2010, Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha was sentenced to death for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC while for commission of the offence under Section 394/397, he was sentenced to extreme penalty of Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 4 of 206 imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for each offence) ; for the offence under Section 307, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months) ; for the offence under Section 201, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months); and for the offence under Section 506(II), he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-(in default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months).A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 4 of 206At this, the offender attacked her and started pushing her towards her room.On being asked why he was behaving in the strange manner, the offender is stated to have made an extrajudicial confession to Mehar Legha to the effect that he had killed Mehar's grandmother and brother and that he would kill her also and take away whatever jewellery and money he had collected.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 6 of 206The offender was handed over to the police who reached there after 15/20 minutes.(PW 2) - Mukesh Sehrawat as well as the police witnesses proved the arrest memo (Exh.PW-2/A) as well as the personal search memo of the offender (Exh.PW-2/B) both of which bore his signatures.In court, the offender was identified by all material witnesses including Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh (PW-8); Mehar Legha (PW-5); Smt. Rani Chhabra (PW-1); Mukesh Sehrawat (PW-2); Smt. Guddi (PW-11) as well as the police witnesses who had arrested him.A search was conducted amongst the empty boxes stored in the rear balcony of the flat.It is in evidence that in a black wooden box, bearing no. 50 in white paint, which was lying on the back side balcony of the flat and appeared to be heavier than the others, a dead body of a female aged about 55/60 years was recovered which bore injury mark on the neck and finger.All these articles were seized vide Exh.PW-8/A.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.PW-21/B and Exh.PW-21/C).Post mortem on the body of Master Karanvir Legha was conducted by Dr. Yogesh Tyagi, Senior Resident, Safdarjung Hospital (PW-6) who in his report Exh.PW-6/A observed and noted the following injuries :-Cut throat injuries present over front of neck, 8 cm below chin, below thyroid cartridge, cutting muscles, blood vessels, trachea and casothagoes, exposing cervical vertibra injury.PW-6/C) to the effect that the above injuries noted in the post-mortem report were possible with the weapon except the injuries at serial nos. 2 Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 14 of 206 and 3 which were more contusions and abrasion.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 14 of 206So far as the post-mortem on the body of Smt. Surjeet Kaur was concerned, it was conducted by (PW-7) Dr. Aman Thergaonkar (Chief Medical Officer, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi) on 3rd March, 2007 and his detailed report was proved as Exh.PW-7/A. The doctor has observed following injuries in his examination :External examination injuriesIncised wound on upper part of neck obliquely placed, measuring 14 cm long on front and sides of the neck x 8 cm wide x 4.5 deep.Incised wound on lower part of the neck, measuring 10x3cmx3cm deep, located 3 cm above suprasternal notch.Neck and thorax.Effusion of blood was seeing in the subcutenious tissues of neck.The structures beneth the injury No. 1 were cut as follows :-A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.The doctor also opined (Exh.PW-7/A) that the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon like a knife.The investigating officer also sought the opinion of PW-7 as to whether the injuries were possible with the knife which had been recovered.The sealed knife was placed before (PW-7) Dr. Aman Thergaonkar who prepared a sketch thereof and also gave a detailed report (Exh.PW- 7/B) opining that the above injuries described in the post-mortem report were caused by the weapon submitted for examination.In answer to a court question, the doctor opined that the death of Smt. Surjeet Kaur might have occurred on 2nd March, 2007 at about 12 noon.PW-7 Dr. Aman Thergaonkar also observed and commented on the fact that salt had been sprinkled on the body with the Crl.The investigating officer collected the finger prints of the offender which were sent for comparison with the chance prints lifted from the spot.The crime team lifted four chance finger prints from the spot and four chance prints were lifted from the wooden box.The finger print report dated 18th June, 2007 (Exh.PW-21/K) prepared after comparison of the chance prints lifted by the crime team and the finger prints of the offender supplied by the investigating officer reports that the finger prints of the offender match the chance prints lifted from the box in which Smt. Surjeet Kaur had been stored.The prosecution thus had established beyond doubt on the record of the case in the evidence that the offender also known as Crl.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 17 of 206 Chhotu had been working as a domestic servant since 6 years with Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh Legha and his family and was also living with them.On 2nd March, 2007, the deceased Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Master Karanvir Singh were last seen alive in the company of the offender after Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh departed for his office.The offender was alone in the company of Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Master Karanvir Singh and had opened the door from inside when Mehar Legha had returned from school.The offender made an extra judicial confession to Mehar Legha when she returned from school at around 12.30 p.m. that day and also made an effort to take her life and take away whatever jewellery and money he had collected.However, she was able to escape from his clutches.It was the offender who opened the door to Smt. Rani Chhabra and Smt. Guddi as well.On his criminal actions being discovered, the offender attempted to run away from the spot but was overpowered.Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the offender and pointing out of the offender, several articles which included one golden kara, two designed karas, one kara having four jhumkas, two jhumka and one gold chain belonging to the Leghas as well as cash belonging to Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh and his wife were recovered.No.3/2010 Page 18 of 206 inflicted on the bodies of the deceased could have been caused by the recovered knife.There was also a mark of ligature on the neck of the child which was noticed by (PW-1) Smt. Rani Chhabra.The scratch injuries on the face of the child caused by the offender during the fight were noted by (PW-1) Smt. Rani Chhabra as well as (PW-11) Smt. Guddi and they have given evidence on this aspect.No.3/2010 Page 19 of 206 that as it may, the testimony of Mehar Legha (PW-5) with regard to the bite has not been shaken in cross examination.A.No.249/2011 & Death Sent.No.3/2010 Page 19 of 206Apart from the above oral and documentary evidence, the finger print bureau report (Exh.This chance print was lifted from the very wooden box in which the body of the murdered victim Smt. Surjeet Kaur was recovered.According to PW-5, the offender picked up an electric wire lying there, put it around her neck and tried to strangulate her.Mehar resisted his attempt and fought with him.Mehar received scratch injuries caused by the offender on her face in this fight and also received a ligature injury on her neck.She could escape from the flat only by biting the hand of the offender and giving him a leg blow.In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the offender again made a false statement.So far as his presence on the spot on Crl.No.3/2010 Page 47 of 206 2nd March, 2007 is concerned, he has stated at one place that he was working at Byana Auto Industry and also stated that he was not working at the flat of Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh.At other places in his explanation under Section 313 of the CrPC, the offender admits that he was working as a domestic servant in the house of Lt. Col. Aman Preet Singh, though claims that he used to work temporarily, that he had been kept on a day to day basis and that he was not a permanent servant.The offender thereafter examined, in his defence, his brother Brijesh, Prem Kumar (DW-Being his brother, his conduct was most unnatural and implausible as he stated that he did not accompany Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha to the police station and he does not even remember the date when he met Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha again.(DW-2) Rajesh Kumar claims to have known Mithlesh for only the past 1 years.He claims to have gone to the quarter on 2nd March, 2007 at 11.55 a.m. with the offender and that they remained at the quarter till 1.30 p.m. when the police reached there and apprehended him.This witness has also claimed to have known the accused for the past one year.The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exh.PW-8/B) would show that the T-shirt and Pyjama of Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha recovered at his instance were having human blood of 'A' group.Having found the offender guilty of commission of offences under Sections 302/201/394/397/506(II) and 307 of the IPC by the judgment dated 1st July, 2010, the learned trial judge by the order dated 10th July, 2010 sentenced Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha as follows :The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently.Mithlesh Kumar Kushwaha has been given the benefit under Section 428 CrPC for setting out the period of detention undergone during investigation and trial against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.Concerned with the importance of the matter, by our order dated 4th December, 2012, we had appointed Dr. Mrinal Satish, Professor, National Law University, Delhi as an amicus curiae in the matter to assist us on this aspect.Dr. Mrinal Satish prepared elaborate written submissions on the question of the death sentence as well as on the aspect of appointment of a probation officer to submit a pre-sentencing report before the court.He made oral submissions as well, rendering valuable assistance to this court.The appellant and accomplices threw petrol into the bus and set it on fire leading to the death of three girls.(b) (2009) 12 SCC 580, Jagdish v. State of M.P. : The appellant murdered his wife, four daughters and one son (who were between one to twelve years of age) by stabbing.The attack by the appellant was unprovoked and brutal which were considered aggravating factors for imposition of the death penalty.(iii) Rape and murder(a) (2012) 4 SCC 37, Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra : The appellant, a 31 year old man, was convicted for raping and murdering a three year old girl.Shivaji was convicted for raping and murdering a nine year old girl.(e) (2013) 14 SCC 214, Maheboobkhan Azamkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra : The appellant with others had entered the house of the deceased (a 20 year old girl) with the motive of committing theft and robbery which led the appellant outraging the modesty of the deceased.Upon her resistance to his removing her gold earrings, he brutally successively stabbed her causing her death.No.3/2010 Page 106 of 206(f) MANU/SC/1173/2011, Surendra Mahto v. State of Bihar : The Supreme Court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for his entire life subject to remission.Hence sentenced to imprisonment for life.(i) AIR 2010 SC 832, Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab : The appellant had been convicted for murdering his wife, six year old son and four year old daughter by stabbing them.The court identified several mitigating factors including the unemployment of the appellant; indebted and socio economic status, his own attempt to commit suicide after murder and the motive to eliminate the family to rid them of misery.No.3/2010 Page 107 of 206 court believed that he could be reformed and sentenced to imprisonment for life.(j) (2010) 3 SCC 508, Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh : The old age of one of the appellants (65 years at the time of sentencing) as well as the socio-economic status of the man and ruled that there was no reason why they would not reform.They were sentenced to imprisonment for their entire life subject to remissions.The appellant was 24 years old at that time.The High Court set aside the conviction.(vi) Nature of evidence.Put in a tabular form, a bird's eye view of various judicial decisions, reveal as under:1. CIRCUMSTANCES PERSONAL TO THE OFFENDER--MITIGATING FACTORS AGGRAVATING FACTORS No.Re Miller, [2008] E XWHC 719 (QB), [2008] All ER (D) 357 (Apr)2. PRE-OFFENCE CONDUCT OF THE OFFENDER IN PARTICULAR THE MOTIVE OF THE OFFENCE Sr.MITIGATING AGGRAVATING FACTORS No. FACTORSThe offender was Re Rahman, [2008] EWHC 36 (QB), [2008] provoked (for example by All ER (D) 50 (Jan) prolonged stress) in a way not amounting to a defence of provocation.That the accused acted under the duress of domination of another person.CONTEMPORANEOUS CONDUCT OF THE OFFENDER WHILE COMMITTING THE OFFENCE Sr.MITIGATING FACTORS AGGRAVATING FACTORS No.Mental or physical In Re Rock, [2008] EWHC 92 (QB), suffering inflicted on the [2008] All ER (D) 290 (Feb) victim before death.The use of duress or threats against another person to Crl.MITIGATING FACTORS AGGRAVATING No. FACTORSThe appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 30 years.In the letter dated 3rd December, 2012 from the office of the Director General (Prison), we were informed that the convict was examined by Dr. Sandeep Govil, J/S Psychiatry, Central Jail Hospital, Tihar who had made the following observations :No abnormal psychopathology on MSE.No delusion/No HallucinationImpression :- patient is of sound mind.By the letter dated 9th January, 2013, the doctor has also informed that the convict was kept in a psychiatry ward of the Central Jail and the findings were supported on a detailed assessment and ward observation.No anger or cruelty in the behaviour has been identified.No.3/2010 Page 166 of 206It can be safely deduced therefrom that Mithlesh joined the Legha's service when he was barely about 13 - 13 years of age.At that age, children should be in school, playing with contemporaries. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,319,409 | TheState of Andhra Pradesh carried an appeal from the said order to the HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh.Forthe sake of convenience, we shall refer to the accused and the prosecutionwitnesses as per the numbers assigned to them by the trial court.Tondepi village is a faction-ridden village within the limits ofMuppala Police Station.There were two groups in the village, againstwhom, cases and counter-cases were pending.There were land disputesbetween A28-Rayidi Anjaiah and his father Rayidi Venkatappaiah.One groupwas supporting A28-Rayidi Anjaiah and the other group was supporting hisfather.On 16/3/1993, at about 1.30 p.m., some of the accused abducted PW-19V. Seshagiri Rao and tried to kill him.However, due to the timelyintervention of the police, he was saved and admitted in the GovernmentHospital, Settenapalli.In this connection, the police registered a casebeing Crime No.5 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,323, 324, 364 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC against some of theaccused in this case.As they were unsuccessful in their attempt to killPW-19 V. Seshagiri Rao, they armed with iron rods, axes, spears, sticks andbombs waylaid in Dammalapadu Donka and formed themselves into an unlawfulassembly with a common object of killing the persons belonging toNallabothu Venkaiah group.The accused attackedSingaiah and Chanchiah and PWs-1 to 16 when they reached Dammalapadu Donka.Bombs were hurled.Singaiah succumbed to the injuries at the spot.PW-1to PW-10 and Chanchiah, who sustained injuries, were admitted in theGovernment Hospital, Sattenapally.Chanchiah succumbed to the injuries on17/3/1993 while he was undergoing treatment.According to the prosecution, after admitting PW-19 at SattenapallyGovernment Hospital, PW-1 to PW-16, the two deceased and others werereturning to Tondepi village.At that time, at Dammalapadu Donka, theincident occurred.PW-1 is an important witness because he was injured inthe incident.Onthe basis of that dying declaration, Ex-P/26, the FIR was registered atP.S. Sattenapally.PW-1 stated that the police came to the spotimmediately and within 15 minutes of their arrival, they were shifted toSattenapally Government Hospital.He stated that PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppalacame there.He also stated that there was a police camp at Gram PanchayatOffice of Tondepi village.PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala confirmed that therewas police camp at the Gram Panchayat Office.PW-8 stated that S.I., P.S.Muppala came to the spot but he did not record his statement.PW-9 and PW-10 made similar statements.PW-12 stated that he escaped from the scene ofoffence, went to the village and came back to the scene of offence with thevillagers.He stated that he informed the police about the incident.(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.Both these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated24/07/2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal AppealNo.921 of 2000 and, hence, they are being disposed of by this commonjudgment.The appellants were charged and tried by the IInd Additional SessionsJudge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.967 of 1994 inter alia for offences underSections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.LearnedSessions Judge by judgment dated 11/2/2000 acquitted all the accused.By the impugned judgment and order dated24/07/2003, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convictedthe appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1424 of 2003 viz. A1-Nallabothu, A3-Rayidi Brahmaiah, A4-Rayidi Purnaiah, A11-Nallabothu Sreenivasa Rao, A14-Rayidi Kotiah, A15-Rayidi Veera Mallaiah, A16-Mupalla Ramaiah, A21-RayidiLingiah, A23-Rayidi Sreenivasarao, A24-Duggineni Peraiah, A25-MannemHanumantha Rao, A27-Rayidi Ramarao and A29-Rayidi Venkateswarlu, underSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”) and sentenced each one ofthem to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.In addition, Accused No.3and Accused No.4 were convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each.Accused No.25 wasconvicted under Section 324 of the IPC and also under Section 324 read withSection 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone year on each count.The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2004viz.A38-Chalamala Veeraiah and A39-Chalamala Subbarao were, however,convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentencedto suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.The appellants in boththe appeals were also convicted under Section 148 of the IPC and sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.The substantivesentences were ordered to run concurrently.Being aggrieved by theirconviction and sentence, the appellants have approached this Court.The hospital authorities sentan intimation to the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Sattenapally.Pursuantto the said information, the learned Magistrate went to the hospital andrecorded the statement of PW-1 R. Venkata Rao, on the same day, in thepresence of the Duty Medical Officer.On receipt of the statement of PW-1,the Sub Inspector of Police, Sattenapally, registered a case being CrimeNo.43 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the ExplosiveSubstances Act and transferred the case to Muppala Police Station, withinwhose jurisdiction the incident occurred.On receipt of the copy of theFIR, Muppala Police re-registered it as Crime No.6 of 1993 of their policestation.PW-29, the Circle Inspector, Muppala, conducted theinvestigation.After completion of investigation, the accused came to becharged as aforesaid.At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as31 witnesses.The accused denied the prosecution case.As earlier stated,the trial court rejected the prosecution case, held that the prosecutionhas not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.The High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused asaforesaid.Hence, these appeals.The High Court ought not to have set aside the acquittal order justbecause it felt that some other view was also possible.It is, therefore,necessary to set aside the impugned order and restore the trial court’sorder.Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel for the State ofAndhra Pradesh, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.Hesubmitted that the trial court gave undue importance to trivial matters.It wrongly disbelieved the evidence of injured eye-witnesses on account ofminor discrepancies.The trial court’s judgment rested on conjectures andsurmises.It was a perverse judgment and, therefore, the High Courtrightly set it aside.The High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trialcourt.In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors.[3], this Courtobserved as under:We shall examine the trial court’s view on each salient aspect of thecase and see whether it was perverse, warranting High Court’s interference.It must be borne in mind that the incident took place at dead of night andin an area which was away from town.Admittedly, there were two factionsin the village and the relations between the two factions were strained.This gives credibility totheir evidence.The High Court also noted that four torches were found atthe scene of offence and, hence, there was sufficient light at the scene ofoffence.But, taken with other facts,they assume importance.Some of them hurled bombs at thewitnesses.In any case, it wouldnot be possible for the witnesses to note what role each accused played.The overt acts attributed by the witnesses to the accused must be,therefore, taken with a pinch of salt.All the accused were not known tothe witnesses, because some witnesses stated that they would be able toidentify them if they are shown to them.He was posted on bandobastduty on account of the incident in which PW-19 was injured.Evidence of witnesses shows that they had informedthe police about the incident in question.PW-2 an injured eye-witnessstated that he informed the police about the incident, but his statementwas not recorded.PW-3 the Head Constable, who had accompanied PW-19 tothe hospital on 16/3/1993 stated that PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala and otherpolice staff came to the place of occurrence and injured were taken to thevillage and then to the hospital within an hour.He stated that PW-28S.I., P.S. Muppala did not record his statement.PW-3 was attached to P.S.Muppala. PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala should have recorded his statement andregistered a case but he did not do so.PW-13 stated that he escaped from the scene of offence and returned with thepolice.He stated that when he revealed the incident to the police, theyrecorded his statement.PW-14 stated that he had informed about theincident to the police but he does not know whether the police had reducedhis information into writing.PW-15 stated that he had witnessed theoccurrence for about three minutes.He had informed the police about theincident but the police did not record his statement.PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala admitted that he shifted the injured to thehospital and the injured informed him that the opposite group had attackedthem.He stated that when he went to the village to get a tractor to shiftthe injured, he had informed his superiors about the incident on phone.Hefurther stated that PW-29 Circle Inspector (IO) came to the village at 3.00a.m.and he assisted him in the investigation at the spot.Thereafter, heproceeded to the Police Station, Muppala and there, he received copy of theFIR from S.H.O., Sattenapally.The evidence of all these witnesses readwith evidence of PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala show that the witnesses hadinformed PW-28 about the incident and the fact that the opposite party hadattacked them.While statements of some witnesses were not recorded,statements of some witnesses were recorded, but they were not produced.PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala ought to have registered the FIR on the basis ofstatements of injured eye-witnesses.PW-3 Head Constable was, in fact,attached to the P.S., Muppala and was working under him.It is notunderstood why his FIR was not recorded.The omission to record thestatement of any of the injured witnesses as FIR or to record statements ofwitnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by PW-28 casts a shadow of doubton the prosecution case.There was no need for the police to wait forrecording of the statement of PW-1, treat that as dying declaration andthen register the FIR on that basis.TheHigh Court noted that even though injured persons were present, PW-28 S.I.,P.S. Muppala did not record their statements, he did not obtain any writtencomplaint, he did not register any complaint and did not send anyrequisition for medical treatment.The High Court further noted that PW-28S.I., P.S. Muppala did not make any enquiry with PW-2 and PW-4 about theincident.The High Court observed that PW-2 and PW-4 would have given theearliest version of the incident.But, surprisingly, the High Courtexplained away PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala’s inaction by observing thatprobably, he might not have brought any papers to the scene of offence.The High Court observed that since the witnesses were injured, PW-28 S.I.,P.S. Muppala’s first duty was to shift them to the hospital.The HighCourt then observed that PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala might be aware that beingonly Sub-Inspector, he could not have conducted investigation of a murdercase and that he was perhaps expecting the Inspector of Police to take upinvestigation as he had informed him on phone.The High Court furtherobserved that at best not recording statements of witnesses is anirregularity and cannot affect the veracity of prosecution case.We are ofthe opinion that the High Court treated this gross lacuna in theprosecution case lightly.In this case, where relations between the twosides were strained, there was an earlier incident of attack and there wereabout 50 accused involved in the incident, the earliest version of theprosecution case was most crucial but it was not noted down.The evidence of PW-29, the Circle Inspector, P.S. Muppala, who wasthe Investigating Officer, would also throw some light on this aspect.He was informed by PW-28 S.I., P.S.Muppala about the several statements made by the witnesses.He stated thathe instructed PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala to send the injured witnesses viz.He admitted that he did not note down theinformation received about the occurrence anywhere.He further stated thaton the night intervening 16/3/1993 and 17/3/1993, he did not visit Tondepivillage at all and he did not ascertain from the police picket at Tondepivillage as to whether any report was received by the police picket on thatnight regarding the incident.He stated that he did not make any furtherenquiry.He stated that when he reached P.S. Muppala between 7.00 p.m. and8.00 p.m., the Sentry talked to him and told him about the incident.Headmitted that he did not give any instructions to the Sentry to registerthe case on the basis of that information.He admitted that after visitingthe scene of offence where PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala and other staff werepresent, he did not register the case nor did he ask PW-28 S.I., P.S.Muppala to register the case.He further admitted that PW-28 S.I., P.S.Muppala had informed him that the injured persons had told him that peoplefrom Rayudu group waylaid and attacked them with country made bombs andthey could identify them.But, he did not register any FIR nor did he askPW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala to register the FIR.He tried to explain this bystating that since the dying declaration was being recorded, he directed PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala to register the FIR on the basis of the dyingdeclaration.He admitted that the FIR was not registeredeven at the time of examination of PW-1 to PW-6 by him in the hospital.The evidence of this witness also shows that though the earliest versionwas available, it was suppressed.It bears the date 16/3/1993 but does not statethe time.The explanation given by PW-21 that hechanged the date from 16/3/1993 to 17/3/1993 as it crossed midnight doesnot stand to reason.It is pertinent to note that PW-21 did not send anyintimation to the police in respect of other injured witnesses.PW-28S.I., P.S. Muppala and PW-29 the Circle Inspector, P.S. Muppala also didnot send any requisition to the hospital with respect to the other injuredwitnesses.PW-27 S.I., P.S. Sattenapally stated that he received Ex-P/20i.e.intimation in respect of admission of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 bearing date‘16/3/1993’ and the signature of PW-21 at 10.30 p.m. This means theinjured were in the hospital by the time of preparation of Ex-P/20 i.e.before 12.00 midnight.The trial court’s view that this creates doubtabout the prosecution’s claim that the incident happened at 1.00 a.m. on17/3/1993 cannot be called perverse.Moreover, if PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 wereadmitted in the hospital on 16/3/1993 much prior to midnight and if PW-1’sdying declaration had to be recorded, requisition should have been sent tothe Magistrate by PW-21 immediately and not at 3.05 a.m. on 17/3/1993.Consequently, Ex-P/1 i.e. the dying declaration of PW-1 recorded at 3.15a.m.on 17/3/1993 gives scope to criticism that after prolonged discussion,the investigating officer through PW-21 sent the requisition to theMagistrate and the dying declaration was recorded after much deliberation.Pertinently, PW-8 stated that some of their party leaders had visited themin Sattenapalli hospital.Besides, PW-19, who was attacked prior to theincident in question, was already there in the hospital.Therefore, thereis basis for the criticism that there was deliberation before recording thedying declaration.The High Court has referred to the evidence of PW-4 tothe effect that no leaders from the party of the prosecution witnesses hadvisited the hospital.The High Court held that therefore, there can be notutoring.It is difficult to accept this submission given the history ofthis incident.PW-19 was attacked by the other group prior to the incidentin question.His presence in the hospital at the time of recording of PW-1’s dying declaration and other statements itself is sufficient to createdoubt about the credibility of the prosecution case.It is also pertinent to note that while PW-13, the Head Constablestated that the injured were first taken to the village and then to thehospital, PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala stated that the injured were directlytaken to the hospital.If, as stated by PW-13 the injured witnesses werefirst taken to the village and then to the hospital, then it is possiblethat after consultation with villagers they implicated the accused.Thismakes a dent in the prosecution story.There are certain other aspects which add up to the weaknesses of theprosecution case.Ex-P/1 states that Challa Narasimha Rao went to thehospital along with PW-1, but his name was not in the charge-sheet as awitness.Ex-P/1 refers to Somapalli Kotaiah as an assailant but his namedoes not figure in the charge-sheet as an accused.Ex-P/1, which wasrecorded at 3.15 a.m. on 17/3/1993, states that two persons were murdered.PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that he did notget down from the tractor at any stage.But in his dying declaration [Ex-P/1], he stated that he fell down in the bushes.Moreover, in the inquestreport prepared by PW-29, the name of one Challa Koteshwar Rao is shown asthe person who first saw deceased-Singhaiah dead.In column 4, name ofChalla Koteshwar Rao is mentioned as the person who had last seen deceased-Singhaiah alive and that he was traveling in the tractor along with otherwitnesses.However, PW-17 Cholla Mangammao, the wife of deceased Singhaiahstated that on that day, Challa Koteshwar Rao was in the village.Seizureof weapons has been disbelieved by the trial court as well as the HighCourt.But names of only A1 to A12 and A15 figured therein.Names of all the accused were not stated by the witnesses.They statedthat they would be able to identify the accused.However, noidentification parade was held.Therefore, it cannot be said with certaintywhich accused attacked whom.Moreover, there are so many omissions andcontradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, that the entirefabric of prosecution case appears to be ridden with gaping holes.Thesediscrepancies have been meticulously noted by the trial court.The HighCourt, however, holds that the witnesses were examined 5½ years after theincident and, therefore, such discrepancies are natural.It is true thatdue to passage of time, witnesses do deviate from their police statementsas their memory fades to some extent.Reasonable allowance can be made forsuch discrepancies.In thiscase, the trial court has meticulously located the discrepancies and opinedthat the witnesses have discredited themselves.The High Court ought notto have overlooked this reasoning of the trial court.As noted by this Court in several decisions if two reasonable views arepossible, the appellate court shall not disturb the order of acquittalbecause it feels that some other view is possible.The reasonable viewwhich reinforces the presumption of innocence of the accused must bepreferred.It wastaken after thorough marshalling of evidence.It was a reasonably possibleview.The High Court erred in disturbing it.In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed.The impugned judgmentand order is set aside.The appellants in both the appeals are acquittedof all the charges. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,963,223 | (a) PW.1 Ramalakshmi is the wife of the deceased Murugiah.PW.7 is theyounger brother of the deceased.There was a long pending quarrel in respect ofplacing fence between PW.1's father and his younger brother, the second accused.The deceased, who is the husband of PW.1, supported his father-in-law and thus,the deceased and the second accused were on inimical terms.(b) on 14.1.1999 at about 6.00 a.m., PW.1 along with her husband sincedeceased, took their child to the Hospital at Vasudevanallur, and when they wereproceeding crossing a bus stop, PW.7 was coming on his way after answeringnature's call.At that time, A.1 and A.2 suddenly sprang with knife in theirhand and attacked the husband of PW.1 indiscriminately.Both PW.1 and PW.7witnessed the occurrence.On hearing their cry, both the accused sped away fromthe place of occurrence with the weapon of crime.PW.1 and PW.7 took theinjured to the Thenkasi Government Hospital by a van.PW.1 and PW.7, thereafter, tookthe injured to the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the second AdditionalSessions Court dated 30.1.2002 made in S.C.No.472/1999 whereby both theappellants stood charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, tried andfound guilty on trial and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine ofRs.3,000/- with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be statedthus:PW.3 the Doctor, attachedto the Government Hospital, Thenkasi, examined the injured at about 7.30 a.m.,on 14.1.1999 and the injured gave a statement to him as to the occurrence.Accident Register Copy was marked as Ex.(c) PW.10, the police, who was on duty at Tirunelveli Government Hospital,in turn, gave an intimation to the Vasudevanallur Police Station.(d) PW.2, the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Tirunelveli, on receipt ofintimation, proceeded to the Tirunelveli Government Hospital, verified thephysical and mental condition of the injured and after receiving a certificatefrom the Doctor that the injured was conscious and mentally fit, recorded dyingdeclaration from the injured.Dying Declaration was marked as Ex.(e) PW.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the VasudevanallurPolice Station, on receipt of intimation, proceeded to the TirunelveliGovernment Hospital at about 11.30 a.m., however, he could not get statement ofthe deceased since he could not speak and he recorded the statement of PW.1,which was marked as Ex.P.1 and on the strength of Ex.P.19, which was despatched to the Court.(f) On receipt of copy of the F.I.R., PW.14, the Inspector of Police,attached to Vasudevanallur Police Station took up investigation and proceeded tothe scene of occurrence, made inspection of the place of occurrence and preparedan Observation Mahazar Ex.P.21 and Rough Sketch Ex.(g) On 16.1.1999, pending investigation, A.1 was arrested by theinvestigator and he came forward to give confessional statement, which wasrecorded in the presence of two witnesses.(h) On 17.1.1999 at about 4.00 a.m., an intimation was received from theTirunelveli Government Hospital stating that the injured under treatment died.Then, the case already registered under Section 307 IPC was altered into one ofSection 302 IPC.P.16 is the Modified Express F.I.R, which was despatched tothe Court.(i) PW.14, the Investigating Officer, took up further investigation andconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnessesand panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report Ex.On receipt of arequisition, PW.5, the Doctor, attached to the Tirunelveli Government Hospitalconducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has given a Post-mortemCertificate, which is Ex.P.7 wherein he has opined that the deceased wouldappear to have died of multiple stab injuries and their complications.(j) Thereafter, the investigating officer came to know that A.2 hadsurrendered before the Court.A.2 was interrogated and he gave aconfessional statement in the presence of witnesses and the same was recordedand the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.14, pursuant to which, heproduced MO.4 knife and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.Then, theaccused was placed before the Court for judicial remand.All the MaterialObjects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the body of the deceasedand from the accused following the confession, were subjected to chemicalanalysis by Forensic Department, which resulted in Ex.P.10, Serological Report,and Ex.P.11 Chemical Report.(k) On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed afinal report against both the accused and the case was committed to the Court ofSessions, necessary charge was framed and the accused were tried by the Court ofSessions.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against both the accused,the prosecution marched 15 witnesses, and marked 23 Exhibits and MOs.5On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Both theaccused totally denied them as false.No defence witness was examined nor anydocument was marked.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, and on scrutiny ofthe materials, the trial Court found both the appellants/accused guilty as perthe charge and each of them awarded life imprisonment and directed to pay a fineof Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, which is thesubject matter of challenge before this court.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. V.Kathirvelu, whileadvancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants would submit as follows:(a) the prosecution rested its case on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 andthat PW.1 is the wife and PW.7 is the brother of the deceased and thus, they areclose relatives.If the test of careful scrutiny is applied, their evidence hasgot to be rejected.(b) The prosecution, before the trial Court relied on the dyingdeclaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to PW.2, the JudicialMagistrate and the Court also accepted the same.The occurrence took place at about 6.00 a.m. on 14.1.1999.According to the prosecution, the deceased was first taken to the ThenkasiGovernment Hospital and thereafter, he was taken to the Tirunelveli GovernmentHospital and the Dying Declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate atabout 2.00 p.m.,.While the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital atTirunelveli at about 9.30 a.m., the dying declaration was recorded only by 2.00p.m.,.There was an interval of 4 .hours and all the relatives by their sidewere there and they would have tutored him.In any event, PW.7, who was calledhimself as the eye witness was not referred to and in the dying declaration, itis found that three stab injuries were given on the back by A.2 but only onestab injury was found on the back as per the post-mortem report.In theinstant case, all these aspects casts a doubt on the dying declaration.(c) Apart from this, the driver, who took the injured from ThenkasiGovernment Hospital to Tirunelveli Government Hospital was not examined.(d) PW.3, the Doctor, attached to the Thenkasi Government Hospital, whohas deposed that he admitted the injured in the Thenkasi Government Hospital hasstated in the Wound Certificate that the deceased was brought by PW.7 and itdoes not refer to PW.2 and thus, PW.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all.In the instant case, both the accused are entitled for acquittalin the hands of this Court.The Court heard the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for theState on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the rivalsubmissions made and also perused the recorded evidence, both oral anddocumentary.It is not in controversy that the deceased Murigiah died out ofhomicidal violence.From the evidence of the Doctor, PW.5, who conductedautopsy and who issued the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.7, it would be quiteclear that the deceased died out of homicidal violence.The appellants have not disputed the cause of death of the deceasedeither before the trial Court or before this court.Thus, it can be safelyrecorded that the deceased Murugiah died out of homicidal violence and alsorecorded so.After careful examination of the materials available, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the prosecution to its advantage has got sufficientevidence in the instant case.PW.1 and PW.7 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.It is true,PW.1 is the wife and PW.7 is the brother of the deceased but on the ground ofrelationship, their evidence cannot be discarded.They have categoricallyspoken to the fact that PW.1 along with her husband and child proceeded towardsthe bus stop in order to go to Vasudevanallur Government Hospital and when theywere proceeding crossing the bus stop, both the accused armed with knife sprangover her husband and attacked him indiscriminately and the deceased sustainedgrievous injuries and he was taken to the Thenkasi Government Hospital andsubsequently, to the Tirunelveli Government Hospital wherein he died.It is pertinent to point out that both these witnesses have taken theinjured to the Thenkasi Government Hospital immediately, whereat, PW.3 was theDoctor on duty, when he enquired the injured, he told that he was attacked byknown persons.Subsequently, he was taken to the Tirunelveli GovernmentHospital.On receipt of requisition for recording dying declaration, theJudicial Magistrate No.6, Tirunelveli proceeded to the Government Hospital,Tirunelveli and after being certified that the deceased was in a fit mentalcondition to give such a declaration, recorded the dying declaration of thedeceased, which was marked as Ex.The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellantsattacking the dying declaration though attractive at the first instance, did notmerit acceptance.According to the learned counsel, the injured was admitted at9.30 a.m. but the dying declaration was recorded at 2.00 p.m., and hence, therewas possibility of tutoring the deceased before giving dying declaration.Inthe instant case, the earliest document is the Accident Register Ex.P.4, whichclearly accounts the place of occurrence, the time of the occurrence and also bythe known persons and with the weapons of crime viz., knifes.When the JudicialMagistrate No.6, after being satisfied and, that too, after receipt of thecertificate from the Doctor that the injured was fit enough to give declaration,has recorded the same.The deceased has clearly narrated the occurrence to theJudicial Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration, which would besufficient, in the instant case, to sustain the conviction and that there wasnothing to infer that there was any tutoring either.The declarant has statedthat A.2 stabbed at the back but three injuries were found cannot be a reason toreject the dying declaration for the simple reason that, at the time, when adeclaration is given, the Court must look into the mental condition of theperson who gives declaration and minor discrepancy cannot be taken into accountto reject the dying declaration.In the instant case, even as per the prosecution, A.2 is the juniorpaternal uncle of PW.1, the wife of the deceased.There was a quarrel betweenthe father-in-law of the deceased and his brother A.2 and the deceased supportedhis father-in-law, and thus, there was sufficient motive for A.2 to commit thecrime.It is pertinent to point out that A.1 is none else than the son of A.2.Hence, they had acted together at the time and place of the occurrence, botharmed with knifes, attacked the deceased indiscriminately, would clearlyindicative of the fact that they shared the common intention and thus the trialCourt after marshalling the evidence has taken a correct view that both theaccused have shared the common intention in causing the death as per the chargeof murder levelled against both the accused, which in the opinion of the Courtis perfectly correct.This Court is unable to find any ground to interfere withthe judgment of the trial Court.The Criminal Appeal fails and the same isdismissed.1.The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.Inspector of Police,Vasdevanallur Police Station,Tirunelveli District.(Crime No.19/1999).3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,632,384 | None for the complainant though compliance under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [hereinafter it would be referred to as the Special Act''] has been done.Heard on I.A. 5771/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Munnalal Baretha.Appellant- Munnalal Baretha has been convicted and sentenced as under:-RI Special Imprisonment for 3(2)(v) Rs. 5,000/-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.The appellant remained in custody for four years, hence, his sentence of offences under Sections 323/34 (two counts), 341(two counts) of IPC and Section 3 (1)(v) of the Special Act has been executed.It is alleged against the appellant that he was making encroachment on the land of the complainant who was of the Scheduled Caste.On deposit of fine amount before the trial Court if appellant Munnalal Baretha furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) along-with one surety bond to the satisfaction of trial Court that he shall appear before the Registry of this Court first on 07/04/2017 and on other subsequent dates given by the Office for his appearance till disposal of the appeal then appellant shall be released on bail and his execution of jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,963,305 | The prosecution case was briefly as follows: On 25-8-58, P. W. I Ram Sevak Ojha, a con-stable attached to the Detecting Department, noticed Sitaram Agarwalla and one Bholanath Gupta at the crossing Hariram Goenka Street and Kalakar Street.In consequence of an information received the constable decided to follow them.Sitaram Agarwalla and Bholanath Gupta got into a bus of route No, 32 and the constable also boarded the same bus.Sitaram Agarwalla and Bholanath Gupta got down from the bus at the junction of B. K. Pal Avenue and J. M. Avenue and so did the constable.These men took their seat in a park known as Narendra Deb Square.The constable kept watch on them from a distance.After a while these men came out and stood on the western footpath of J. M. Avenue.After sometime a baby taxi came there from the south along J. M. Avenue and stopped there.The accused Wang chih Kaw was in that baby taxi.He came down and shook, hands with the accused.Sitaram Agarwalla and all the three then got into the baiby taxi.When the taxi was about to start, the constable disclosed his identity to the driver and asked him to stop.He asked all of them to go to the thana, but the accused Sitaram Agarwalla and Bholanath Gupta got out of the taxi and tried to run away.The constable caught hold of them and put them inside a police wagon which happened to come up.The Chinese accused then tried, to escape.The constable asked the members of the public to secure him, and three young men of whom two were college students, namely, P.W. 2 Santi Kumar Sen and P. W. 3 Alok Kumar Dutta and P. W. 5 Tapaa Kumar Mnjumdar, chased the Chinese gentleman.who threw away three packets which these men picked up.A Sergeant, T. Mukherjee, came on a motor cycle from the opposite direction and he actually secured the Chinese accused Wang Chih Kaw, and the three young men handed over the three packets to the sergeant, T. Mukherjee.The sergeant took the Packets as well as the Chinese accused to Shampukur Police station and handect over the packets there as well as the accused.The packets were found to contain 23 gold bars of about 16 tolas each with Chinese inscriptions on them.On search of the person of Sitarane Agrarwalla who was also taken to Shampukur Police station, a sum of RS.JUDGMENT S.K. SEN, J.49,320/- in notes of various denominations was found with him.Subsequently, the Customs Department took charge of the gold bars and by an order of the Customs Collector, the gold bars were confiscated.The police, after investigation, sent up the three accused Wang Chih Kaw, Sitaram Agarwalla and Binolanath Gupta in respect of an offence under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The learned Presidency Magistrate who tried the case held that the case was not sufficiently proved against Bhclanath Gupta and acquitted him.He, however, convicted, and sentenced Sitaram Agarwalla and Wang Chih Kaw as already stated.The two accused have filed two separate appeals which have been heard together.Mr. A.K. Dutt, appearing for the appellant Sitaram Agarwalla has challenged the story given by the constable Ram Sevak Ojha that he followed Sitaram Agarwalla and another person on a bus of route No. 32 upto Narendra Deb Square and that there he saw Sitaram Agarwalla shaking hands with a Chinese gentleman and climbing into a taxi along with the Chinese gentleman.He has pointed out that the three young men who chased the Chinese gentleman subsequently, namely, P. W. 2 Santi Kumar Sen, P. W. 3 Alok Kumar Dutta and P. W. 5 Tapan Kumar Majumdar, did not say that they saw Sitaram Agarwalla and Bholanath Gupta getting into the taxi.Their evidence is that they saw a baby taxi parking and when the police constable challenged, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 got down from the taxi and the constable managed to secure them after a tussle, and that the constable called to the young men and asked them to help him in arresting the two men, and also the Chinese gentleman who came out of the taxi after those two men and that these young men then chased the Chinese gentleman who was actually arrested by a sergeant who came from the other side.It is possible that the three young men who were engaged in talking among themselves, did not see the two men Sitaram Agarwalla and Bholanath Gupta getting into the taxi, but this was noticed by P. W, 1 Ram Sevak Ojha, the constable, because the constable was actually keeping a watch On them there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the constable who at least in part is corroborated by the evidence of the three young men who had no reason to give false evidence in support of the prosecution case.Mr. Dutt has pointed out that the first G.D. entry which was made when the constable and the sergeant arrived at the Sampukur Police Station with the accused was not exhibited.Generally, therefore, we must accept the prosecution story that Sitaram Agarwalla who had a large sum of money with him had gone to meet the Chinese gentleman and after shaking hands with him got info the taxi with him when, the police constable challenged them and arrested them.The appellant Sitaram Agarwalla tried to give an explanation for the large sum of money in his possession by examining two P. Ws.p. W. 1 Paramananda Bagla is the maternal uncle of the appellant Sitaram Agarwalla and D. W. 2 Laduram Churiwalla is the father-in-law of the appellant Sitaram Agarwalla. | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,333,048 | 07.12.2020 Sl.No.59 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. 9835 of 2020 [via video conferencing] In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.11.2020 in connection with Bauria Police Station Case No. 103 of 2020 dated 25.10.2020 under Sections 448/325/307/354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Sukur Ali Laskar @ Sukur Laskar & Ors.... ... Petitioners Mr. Sudip Guha .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Tanmoy Kr.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,338,307 | A.No.26/1997 Page 1 of 16Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that in the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, violent anti-Sikh riots erupted in Delhi, which continued for a few days from 31.10.1984 onwards.On 02.11.84, at around 5:30 pm, a telephonic information was received at Police Station Kalyan Puri through Inspector Rajesh of PCR that the Additional Commissioner of Police Shri Nikhil Kumar had intimated on telephone that a massacre was going on in Block No.32 Trilok Puri and the police force may be sent there.The information was recorded in the daily diary as DD No.12A dated 02.11.84 and the copy of the DD report was entrusted to SI Man Phool Singh, who immediately proceeded for the place of occurrence along with Constable Pat Ram.The SHO and the other staff also reached Block No.32 Trilok Puri in an official vehicle, where they found houses No.123, 124, 484 and 485, besides many other houses, on fire.One Sucha Singh and Lacha Singh were found there in injured condition and they were removed to the hospital.In the meanwhile, some senior officers also reached at the spot of Crl.A.No.26/1997 Page 2 of 16 occurrence with additional force and about 107 rioters were rounded up.The women and children belonging to the Sikh community were also sent to the police station.Some other injured persons, who were found at the spot, were sent to the hospital.SI Man Phool Singh met the complainant Rijju Singh at the spot of occurrence and recorded his statement, which disclosed the commission of various offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/436/304/323 IPC.SI Man Phool Singh appended his endorsement to the statement of the complainant Rijju Singh and sent it to the police station for the registration of the case and on the basis of said statement, formal FIR No.426/84 was recorded at the Police Station Kalyan Puri.We may note the complaint of Rijju Singh was specific to the incident relating to his family and the murder of his brother-in-law Lakha Singh, besides general allegations pertaining to the loss of life and property caused by the rioters to several Sikh families.A.No.26/1997 Page 2 of 16Statements of several witnesses including Gopi Bai, PW2 were recorded on 7.11.84 at the relief camp.Gopi Bai, PW2, in her statement to the police stated that in the evening of 01.11.84, a mob of rioters led by one Ram Pal Saroj, resident of Block No.32, Trilok Puri killed her husband Badshah Singh and nephew Hakam Singh by setting them on fire and when she tried to save her husband and nephew, her right hand got fractured.She also stated that rioters looted her house and took away their belongings.Though the police tried to save them, they failed to Crl.A.No.26/1997 Page 3 of 16 succeed as the crowd started pelting stones at the police.Later on, she and her family members were taken by the police to the Police Station Kalyan Puri for their safety.A.No.26/1997 Page 3 of 16This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.12.1996 in Sessions Case No.63/95 arising out of FIR No.426/84 Police Station Kalyan Puri vide which the appellant has been convicted on charges under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and the consequent order on sentence dated 17.12.1996 sentencing Crl.A.No.26/1997 Page 1 of 16 the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and also to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which to undergo RI for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC.On conclusion of the investigation, a single charge sheet in respect of all the incidents which took place during riots at Block No.32 Trilok Puri was submitted in the Court.However, on the directions of the learned trial Judge, aforesaid charge sheet was split into separate charge sheets relating to specific incidents.So far as the case under appeal is concerned, challan was filed against one Ram Pal Saroj (since expired), who was charged for the offences punishable under Section 188 IPC, 148 IPC, 302 IPC read with 149 IPC and Section 397 IPC read with 149 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.PW2, Gopi Bai appeared on 02.02.96 as a witness in the Court.Apart from deposing that the accused Ram Pal Saroj was leading the pack of rioters, she also named the appellant Kaushalya @ Tilla, one Draupadi and one Jagdish @ Jagga being the members of the unlawful assembly of the rioters.A.No.26/1997 Page 4 of 16 with Section 149 IPC.On 15.04.96, they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.A.No.26/1997 Page 4 of 16At the outset, we may note that out of the four charged accused, only the appellant Kaushalya @ Tilla survives.The co-accused Rampal Saroj and Draupadi died during trial, as such trial against them abated.Jagdish @ Jagga died during the pendency of the appeal No.46/97, as such his appeal also stood abated.On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the appellant Kaushalya @ Tilla and her co-accused Jagdish @ Jagga guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 IPC and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.The conviction rests solely on the eye-witness account given by PW2 Gopi Bai, who alone was produced as the eye-witness to the occurrence.PW2 Gopi Bai has stated in the Court that on the fateful evening, a huge crowd of rioters armed with swords and lathis etc. visited their house No.32/82, Trilokpuri, Delhi.Accused Rampal Saroj (since expired) was leading the pack.The rioters dragged her husband Badshah Singh and nephew Hakam Singh out of the house and killed them.They sprinkled some powder on their dead bodies and set them on fire.She also stated that when she requested Rampal Saroj to spare the life of her husband and nephew, he struck her with a lathi, resulting in the fracture Crl.A.No.26/1997 Page 5 of 16 of her hand.According to her, the appellant Kaushalya @ Tilla, Draupadi (since deceased) and one Jagdish @ Jagga (since deceased) were also in the mob and she recognized them because they were the residents of same block No.32, Trilokpuri.During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that in her statement given to the police she did not name the appellant, Jagdish @ Jagga and Draupadi as the members of the group of rioters involved in the killing of her husband and nephew.She also denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that the rioters were a group of Muslim persons who had attacked their house.She was also confronted with her statement made to the police Ex.PW2/DA, wherein she had not stated that when she requested the accused Rampal Saroj to spare the lives of her husband and nephew, he struck her with a lathi, resulting in fracture of her hand, which was later on put under plaster.If aforesaid version of PW2, Gopi Bai is to be believed, then the police had not been honest in recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.A.No.26/1997 Page 5 of 169. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment, firstly, on the ground that the learned trial Court, while appreciating the evidence has given a complete go-by to the settled principles of appreciation of evidence.He totally ignored that the testimony of PW2 Gopi Bai against the appellant made in the Court is an improvement upon her earlier version Ex.It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the trial Court did not even consider that the alleged incident took place in November, 1984 and the name of the appellant as a part of the unlawful assembly surfaced for the first time almost 12 years later in the testimony of PW2 Gopi Bai given in the Court on 02.02.96 during the trial of Ram Pal Saroj.That fact by itself, according to learned counsel for the appellant, entitles the appellant at least to the benefit of doubt.It was further submitted, no doubt the police administration in Delhi had almost failed during first few days after the assassination of the Prime Minister Smt.Indira Gandhi, but the fact remains that thereafter several NGOs and public spirited groups became active to ensure justice to the victims of riots.This possibility cannot be ruled out that because of persuasion of some over-zealous activists, the witness might have falsely named the appellant as one of the rioters.Thus, it was contended that it is not safe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of PW2 Gopi Bai.A.No.26/1997 Page 6 of 16Secondly, it was argued that there was no basis for convicting the appellant under Section 148 IPC or for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, because in order to invoke Section 148 or Section 149 IPC the prosecution was required to prove beyond doubt that the appellant was a member of the unlawful assembly.The prosecution, Crl.A.No.26/1997 Page 7 of 16 according to learned counsel for the appellant, has failed to adduce evidence to establish that the appellant committed any overt or covert act during the occurrence which could justify the inference that she was a member of the unlawful assembly involved in killing of Badshah Khan and Hakam Singh or the looting of the house of PW2, Gopi Bai.A.No.26/1997 Page 7 of 16Thirdly, it was submitted that there was no basis for conviction of the appellant under Section 148 IPC as there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant, even if it is assumed that she participated in the riot, was armed with a deadly weapon or anything, which if used as a weapon of offence, would have caused death.Fourthly, it was argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his anxiety to do justice to the victims, has ignored the law of evidence and he brought in his personal information derived from extraneous sources to conclude that appellant Kaushalya @ Tilla was a known history-sheeter of Police Station Kalyan Puri, Trilok Puri and Farsh Bazar.In effect, the argument of the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant and she is entitled to the acquittal.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has canvassed in support of the impugned judgment.A.No.26/1997 Page 8 of 16 machinery during the anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of the assassination of the Prime Minister Smt.Indira Gandhi had failed and the police authorities, instead of coming to the rescue of the unfortunate Sikh families, encouraged the rioters either by their inaction to prevent the crime or by failing to conduct proper investigation, and in the context of such background atmosphere, rightly relied upon the testimony of PW2 Gopi Bai, who had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.A.No.26/1997 Page 8 of 16We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and gone through the evidence on record.At the outset, we are constrained to note, though the appellant was also tried for the charges under Section 188 IPC and 397 IPC, the trial Judge has not returned any finding one way or the other on those charges.It appears that while recording the judgment, aforesaid two charges escaped the attention of the trial Judge.Be that as it may, considering the fact that the incident took place 25 years ago, we do not deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the trial Court for returning the finding on those charges.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW2, Gopi Bai is not a reliable witness because she has made substantial improvement in her testimony in Court over her earlier statement Ex.PW2/DA made to the police during investigation by introducing the name of the appellant Crl.Thus, he has urged us to reject her testimony against the appellant as unreliable and set aside the order of conviction.She has not stated that the appellant actually took active part in killing of Badshah Singh and Hakam Singh or the looting of her house.There is not even a whisper in the testimony of PW2 that the appellant was carrying any deadly weapon or an implement, which if used as a weapon would have caused death.Thus, the sole question for determination is whether or not appellant Kaushalya Devi was present at the time of occurrence? And if so, whether she was only a curious onlooker or she actually was the member of the unlawful assembly indulging in murder and arson?Under these circumstances, learned trial Judge drew an inference that the statement of Gopi Bai Ex.PW2/DA was not correctly recorded by the police.In support, the learned trial Judge highlighted in the impugned judgment that the recording of statement of the witness was entrusted to a trainee officer Inspector Rajender Prasad, which reflects upon the seriousness of the investigation.Learned trial Court also made a reference to the report of Rangnath Mishra Commission and Justice Jain and Aggarwal Committee, which were constituted to conduct inquiry into the riot cases and the role of the police and observed that following conclusions were arrived at by the Commission and the Committee:"(1) That the Admn.No recovery of arms was made from any of the accused persons.The recovery of looted articles was shown as abandoned articles on the roads and announcements were made that those who have looted the articles should deposit the same on the roads and police would pick them up as abandoned articles and would not say anything to the looters.(4) FIRs were not regd.on the basis of statements of victims where there should have been more than 100 FIRs of the separate incidents of rioting having taken place in different blocks and different places within the blocks of Trilok Puri.Only one FIR was regd.A.No.26/1997 Page 11 of 16(5) Whenever the name of any influential person or police person was taken by the victims either the statement was not at all recorded or the statement was distorted and the names of such persons would be dropped.was to linger and prolong the trial as far as possible."Section 149 IPC can be invoked only if the accused is proved to be one of the members of the unlawful assembly.A.No.26/1997 Page 15 of 16In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the consequent order on sentence.The appellant is acquitted of charges under Section 148 IPC and for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, giving her benefit of doubt. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,270,202 | MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)Present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgement dated 21st May, 2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, acquitting the respondent-accused in FIR No. 76/2017 registered with Police Station Kashmere Gate, Delhi under Section 307 IPC.The relevant facts as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-Accused Akash has faced trial for offence u/s 307 IPC on the accusation that on 13.03.2017 at about 3.50 pm near iron stairs, Sanitary Deport, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi he caused grievous injury on the neck of the Preet S/o Sh.Lalla Ram with the intention and the knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he had caused h is death, he would have been guilty of murder.L.P. 522/2019 Page 1 of 9Present case came to be registered on the statement of injured - victim to the effect that on 13.03.2017 at about 3.30 pm, he was playing holi with some of the boys of the locality and he had engaged in a verbal duel with accused Akash regarding playing of holi and that after playing Holi, he started returning to his house and when he had reached near the iron stairs then suddenly Akash accused came from behind and hit his hand on his (victim) back.When injured turned, accused Akash inflicted injury on the neck of the victim with broken glass bottle and blood started oozing from the injury, and while proclaiming that he (accused) will kill him (victim) today, again tried to inflict injury on the person of victim but he managed to escape and raised alarm on which accused ran away from the spot.One Johny friend of the victim removed him to the Hindu Rao Hospital.ASI Gajender reached the hospital and recorded statement of injured and present case got registered against the accused.Prima facie case having been made out, charge for an offence under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused.Since accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP states that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the injured-victim Preet (PW-1) had fully supported the prosecution's case and explained how he was attacked and how he was taken to the hospital.In support of her contention, learned APP relies upon Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the injured-victim Preet (PW-1).She states that the MLC by the Casualty Medical Officer records two injuries on the victim namely:- (i) Lacerated wound on neck left side measuring 1 cm x 6 cm and (ii) Lacerated wound on the left Pinna and the injuries were found to be of blunt nature.L.P. 522/2019 Page 2 of 9She points out that after recording the disclosure statement of the respondent-accused, the investigating officer had obtained a subsequent opinion (Ex.PW4/B) as to the nature of the weapon of offence, wherein it has been stated, As per the seized broken glass bottle, it can cause the injury as per the MLC.Seized glass has been sealed again by Hindu Rao Hospital.She emphasises that as the bottle had been resealed by the Hindu Rao Hospital, the bottle ultimately bore the seal of HRH.Having heard the learned APP for the State and having perused the leave petition as well as accompanying documents, this Court finds that the prosecution had failed to prove the place of occurrence as there are material contradictions between the testimony of victim Preet (PW-1) and his friend Johny (PW-5), who had taken the injured to the hospital.As per the victim Preet (PW-1) he had been attacked near the iron staircase leading to his house and thereafter, he had fallen unconscious.However, Johny (PW-5) deposed that he had found victim Preet (PW-1) near an iron foot over bridge.The finding of the Trial Court on this aspect is reproduced hereinbelow:-10. .....In the Court, he deposes that he was ascending and had climbed a few steps of the iron staircase to his house and became giddy and unconscious due to the assault and fell down the stairs and PW5 has deposed that he found the injured near the iron footover bridge.If PW1 was yet to climb the staircase, there would have been some eye witness to the assault, even if he had ascended a few steps, someone should have seen the assailant coming or running away.Though a crowd gathered when PW1 got injured but no one saw the accused near the iron staircase and running away.PW5 has further CRL.L.P. 522/2019 Page 3 of 9 confounded the confabulation when he states that he found the injured near the iron footover bridge.In the site map prepared by the IO at the pointing out of PW1, there is no such iron footover bridge indicated, there is only an iron staircase shown leading upto the rooms.....L.P. 522/2019 Page 3 of 9The victim Preet (PW-1) had deposed that after being attacked, he had become unconscious and fallen down and he regained consciousness in the hospital.The Trial Court has correctly observed that the victim Preet (PW-1) could not have travelled as the pillion rider, while he was unconscious.8..... Preet and Johny live in the same building, Preet on the ground floor and Johny on the second floor of the same.Firstly, in the CRL.The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,296,630 | L.P.524/2011 Page 5JANUARY 19, 2012 Crl. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,301,248 | The Court : An Appellate Court order of July 26, 2010 was brought to the notice of this Court on August 3, 2010 when the matters were mentioned for being taken up on urgent basis.The matters have appeared today and have been heard out pursuant to the direction of the Appellate Court.G.A. No. 2867 of 2009 is the plaintiffs' principal interlocutory application in this suit complaining of defamation.G.A. No. 3390 of 2009 2 is the first defendant's application for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.G.A. No. 1367 of 2010 is the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.Since the authority of the Court to receive the action has been questioned, such matter has to be addressed first.The cause title shows that the first and second defendants carry on business both within and outside the jurisdiction.It is, in a sense, an unusual cause title since once it is stated that a defendant carries on business or works for gain or resides within jurisdiction, as to whether the defendant also carries on business outside jurisdiction may not be relevant.The third defendant is not said to carry on business within jurisdiction.On the basis of the cause title alone, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was necessary only in so far as the third defendant was concerned.But it is not necessary to engage any more on such issue since the plaint does not specify that the leave was confined to the third defendant and since the challenge would otherwise fail on merits.The plaintiffs have relied on a document which has been appended to the first defendant's affidavit in the injunction application. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,301,811 | The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 4th of March, 2005 around 4.00 pm.Ida (PW-1), resident of village-Dhodsa, Police Station- Alirajpur, found some foul smell coming out from 'Kotha' (a place to keep cattles) belonging to Budhibai (DW-1), who was residing nearby his house with her sole daughter Appellant Idlibai.Ida (PW-1) thereupon went inside the 'Kotha' with his wife Vesti Bai (PW-2) and found dead body of a new born child lying there in a corner.He noticed that right hand and left leg of the dead body was eaten away by dogs etc., the face was crushed and a rope had been tied around the neck.Ida (PW/1) informed Keshar Singh (PW/4), Vesta (PW-5), and Madhav Singh (PW/8) and village Chowkidar Nansingh (PW/3) about this.Thereafter they all went inside the 'Kotha' and saw the dead body lying there.As per prosecution, Ida (PW-1) and the aforesaid witnesses thereafter enquired from Budhibai (DW-1)-: 3 :- Criminal Appeal No.502/2006 and her daughter Idlibai (the Appellant) about the child, whereupon Appellant Idlibai disclosed that she had illicit relations with her distant relative Dhan Singh @ Nan Singh (PW/12), and had conceived from him and ultimately delivered a child on Monday (28/02/2005) at around 8-9 PM.That apprehending social stigma she strangulated the newly born child by tying rope around his neck and thereafter disposed of the dead body by burring the same inside the 'Kotha'.Next day i.e. on 05/03/2005, around 08.30 AM Ida (PW/1) lodged First Information Report (Ex.P/1) regarding this incident at Police Station-Alirajpur, on the basis of which a case under Section 302 and 201 of IPC was registered against the Appellant.An inquest under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was carried out on the dead body, as per Panchnama Ex.P/12-A, which revealed that a new born child was put to death by strangulation.The investigation ensued.(Delivered on 18th day of April, 2016) Per : Ved Prakash Sharma, J.This appeal has been preferred against judgment and Order dated 21/02/2006 passed by ASJ (Fast Track), District Alirajpur in S.T. No.114/2005 whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 302, 318, 201 of IPC and sentenced as under :-B.L.Solanki (PW/10), ASI, Police Station-Alirajpur inspected the spot and prepared spot map Ex.The dead body was sent for postmortem.Vide report Ex.P/9 he found that right upper limb from shoulder-: 4 :- Criminal Appeal No.502/2006 joint and left lower limb from hip joint were missing.Normal structure of face including eyes, ears etc. were eaten away by insects etc. A ligature mark was found around the neck.Dr. N.S. Dabar (PW/7) opined that the new born male child had died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and that the death was homicidal in nature caused within 5 days of the examination.During the course of investigation Ida (PW/1), Vesti Bai (PW-2), Nansingh (PW/3), Keshar Singh (PW/4), Vesta (PW/5) and Madho Singh (PW/8) were interrogated and their statement were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The Appellant was arrested and on completion of the investigation a charge-sheet for offences under Section 302, 318, 201 of IPC was filed against her before the concerned Court.In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Appellant was charged for offences under Section 302, 318 and 201 of IPC.She abjured the guilt.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges had examined as many as 12 witnesses.In defense, the Appellant examined her mother/Budhibai (DW/1).On conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant-: 5 :- Criminal Appeal No.502/2006 on all counts as mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.Challenging the findings regarding conviction, Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that conviction was not warranted in view of the fact that the alleged extra judicial confession has not been proved and that there are no other incriminating circumstances forming a complete chain so as to draw an inference of guilt.Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.Per contra, Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that it is fully established from the prosecution evidence that 5 to 7 days prior to the recovery of dead body of the new born child, the Appellant delivered a child and that these two circumstances taken together indicate towards the guilt of the Appellant.We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The point for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the learned ASJ convicting the Appellant for offences under Section 302, 318, 201 of IPC are sustainable ?-: 6 :- Criminal Appeal No.502/2006The prosecution case primarily depends upon the confessional statement said to have been made by the Appellant to Ida (PW/1), Vesti Bai (PW-2), Nansingh (PW/3), Keshar Singh (PW/4), Vesta (PW/5), Madho Singh (PW/8) and of course Budhibai (DW-1), the mother of Appellant. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,303,236 | O.P.(MD)No.4221 of 2020 06.03.2020 4/4http://www.judis.nic.inThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in S.C.No.136 of 2017 on the file of the learned Mahila Court Thoothukudi District for the offences under Sections 376 of IPC read with 511 and 506(ii) of IPC.2.The petitioners are present in person before me.Likewise, the second respondent as well the victim and also Thiru.Sekar, the husband of the second respondent/ father of the victim are present.3.On carefully going through the enclosed materials, I am of the view that it is not a case that will attract the offence under Sectoin 376 of IPC.It would attract under Section 354 of IPC that is outraging of modesty.The victim is a deaf and dumb woman.The father of the victim as well as the mother of the victim clearly state that on the ground of the pendency of the criminal case, they are not able to finalize the marriage alliance of their daughter.They, therefore want this case to be given a quietus.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4221 of 20204.I wanted to know the response of the victim.The victim in her sign language communicated to me that the case can be closed.From this one can note that the principal witnesses for the prosecution are not likely to support the prosecution case, when it is taken up for trial.One can be certain that this case will end in acquittal.In fact the victim as well as the defacto complainant themselves do not want to pursue this matter.Therefore, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in keeping the prosecution alive.5.Inorder to secure the ends of justice, the impugned prosecution stands quashed and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.06.03.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No pnn To1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tuticorin District.2.Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4221 of 2020 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.pnn Crl. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,350,415 | Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet No.13 of 2016 arising out case crime no. 125 of 2015 under sections 323 and 504 IPC and section 3(1) X SC/ST Act, P.S. Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri, cognizance order dated 12.9.2016 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri and also non bail warrant dated 1.1.2020 issued by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 32 of 2016 .Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioners on the basis of false story. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,350,978 | (Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) The detenu himself is the petitioner herein and challenging the impugned order of detention dated 21.01.2019 passed by the second respondent, branding him as a Goodna under the provisions of Section 3[1] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), he has filed the present habeas corpus petition.2.A perusal of the grounds of detention dated 21.01.2019, passed by the second respondent herein, would disclose that the detenu, viz., Antony Babu came to the adverse notice to the Suthamalai Police Station in Crime No.348 of 2018, which has been registered for the offence under Sections 341, 294 (b), 307 and 506 (ii) IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 H.C.P(MD)No.132 of 2019The grounds on which the detenu was detained are that on 05.01.2019 at about 8.00 hours at Suthamalai Bazar, while the complainant Vasantha was going by walk, the detenu waylaid her, scolded her in filthy language and also humiliated her.The complainant out of fear shouted and on hearing the noise, the public who were standing near by rushed to the spot.The detenu threatened the public by brandishing a knife over his head and on seeing this act, the public got panic and the shop owners closed the shop and due to this incident, the normal traffic and routine life of the common public came to a standstill.However, in similar such offence, the bail was granted and considering the same, the detaining authority has rightly invoked the order of detention.He would further submit that the representation sent by the petitioner dated 28.01.2019 was also duly forwarded to the Government on 12.02.2019 and on the same day, the said representation was rejected.9.As per the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority as well as the performa filed by the Under Secretary to Government, the representation was made on 28.01.2019 through Central Prison and the same was received by the detaining authority on 29.01.2019, within 12 days from the date of detention i.e., on 21.01.2019.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 H.C.P(MD)No.132 of 20192.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvlei.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 H.C.P(MD)No.132 of 2019 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,363,108 | In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 07/11/2019 by Police Station- Kachnar, District- Ashoknagar in connection with Crime No.192/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B and 326/34 of IPC.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 10/08/2019 at about 7:00 PM, complainant's cousin had gone to attend the call of nature.When he did not return for a long time, complainant went in search of him 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-12921-2020 (Chandresh Yadav Vs.State of M.P.) towards the field where he heard the cries of his cousin- Kalla.As he reached the spot, he saw that co-accused- Ranveer had caught hold of Kalla and co-accused- Bhura assaulted Kalla by means of Pharsa causing injury and amputation of upper part of little finger.When complainant tried to save him, co-accused persons started abusing filthily and the present applicant- Chandresh assaulted the complainant by means of stick, due to which, the complainant received injuries below right knee.Co-accused- Pappu also assaulted him by means of stick on head.State of M.P.) No.5688/2020 and the applicant claims parity with the co-accused.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.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 bail is made out.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant volunteered to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with Prime Minister Citizen Assistance and relief in Emergency Situation Fund (PM Cares Fund).However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant namely - Chandresh Yadav be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-12921-2020 (Chandresh Yadav Vs.The applicant shall submit an attested photocopy of such receipt before the concerned court for placing the same on record.The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking before the concerned court that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant shall install Aarogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,367,783 | Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant/ State.Arguments heard.Perused case diary and material on record.This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as they apprehend their arrest in connection with crime No. 160/2015, registered at Police Station- Chourai, District- Chhindwara against them for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 34 of the IPC.Prosecution allegations are that deceased Santosh and the applicants are neighbours in village-Devri Kala.Applicants Babita and Arif @ Sarju are the children of applicant Prema.The applicants got constructed their house in place of old one.On 21/02/2015, the deceased objected to the applicants that they have built their house encroaching upon 3 ft. land of his ownership.Thereafter, an altercation broke out between them and the applicants committed marpeet with him.Feeling humiliated thereby, the deceased committed suicide in his house by hanging himself.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per the postmortem report of the deceased, there is no anti-mortem injury on his person except a ligature mark around his neck which he sustained on account of commission of suicide.It is, therefore, falsely mentioned in the FIR that the applicants committed marpeet with him before he committed suicide.Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.The applicants are directed to join the investiga tion immediately and to co-operate with the investiga ting agency.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE MISHRA | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,370,602 | After mutual discussions both the parties have reached at an amicable settlement on the following terms and condition:(1) That the respondent is owner of flat in question i.e. B-403, Plot No.4 and 6, Sector 17, Sampada, Sea Wood Garden, Navi Mumbai.It is agreed between both the parties that one key of the flat would be remained with plaintiff and one key with defendant.This Application, under Section 482 / 483 Cr.P.C., has been filed by applicant with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 01.08.2009, passed in Criminal Case No. 987 of 2009, State Vs.Manish Jain, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 408 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hathras Gata, District Mahamayanagar.2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that there had been a mediation in between, wherein Delhi High Court passed following order:-In respect of the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc., she submits that the petition had been drafted and had been provided to the petitioner.The petitioner submits that he has filed his own petition before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being Crl.A copy of the order dated 10.2.2012 passed in those proceedings has been shown to the Court.It appears that the Court has directed the listing of the case after the expiry of four weeks time which was granted for filing of the counter affidavits.Since the period has expired, it appears that it is open to the parties to now again approach the Allahabad High Court to have the F.I.R. quashed.The parties agree that they would jointly move an application before the Allahabad for that purpose without any delay.The respondent states that she is willing to accompany the petitioner in the next week itself for moving the said application...."It appears that this matrimonial dispute has been taken to mediation centre, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi wherein following compromise was filed:-"The present suit for performance injunction has been referred by referral judge Shri Rakesh Kumar-I, CJ, Delhi and assigned to me for mediation.Process of Mediation explained.Matter discussed in joint session.(2) That the Plaintiff can live in the above mentioned flat with her children and respondent can visit and see her children any time as and when he wishes and also he can live with their children and wife but for the first yer only wife will live with her children.(5) After getting job the respondent will give Rs.25,000/-to 30,000/- to the petitioner towards maintenance of wife and children.(6) That the parties will withdraw the following cases:(a) Complaint under sections 498-A, 406, 34 I.P.c.(d) Above mentioned suit on date fixed i.e.23.01.2010(7) That both the parties will live happily from today and will not file any case/complaint against each other.This is the full and final settlement between the parties and all the above mentioned cases will be withdrawn on the date fixed in the concerned court."Despite this order, opposite party no. 2 has not filed joint affidavit before trial court.Applicant has given an accommodation for residence, in view of above mediation agreement, wherein she is residing.But, in disregard of above settlement, entered in between, opposite party no. 2 is making hindrance in disposal of this case, whereas in a proceeding, in between, High Court of Delhi, has passed order on 06.09.2012 that respondent was present in Court and submitted that she is ready and willing to withdraw all pending cases in respect of F.I.R. lodged against petitioner under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc. She had submitted that mediation had been drafted and had been provided to the petitioner.The petitioner submitted that he had filed his own application before Allahabad High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc.Meaning thereby, there had been mediation.Terms were agreed.It was there that this criminal proceeding shall be withdrawn.Opposite party no. 2 had made settlement before Delhi High Court in CONT.The apex court vide order dated 21st February, 2017, passed in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 45 of 2016; Shikha Jain Vs.Munish Jain and another, has dismissed the transfer application with an option to the petitioner to approach this High Court for expeditious hearing of matter.Smt. Shikha Jain, in person, argued that mediation proceeding was taken at Delhi High Court.Therein agreement was there.The same were accepted before Delhi High Court, in above alleged proceeding.But this agreement was to reunite the family.It was very well written in mediation proceeding that husband will unite with his family and he will live together and on this assurance, above mediation agreement was occurred.A divorce petition by husband has been filed before Delhi High Court.Hence, mediation was denied by husband himself and in this criminal proceeding, no compromise was entered, in view of above defiance.Hence, this petition be dismissed.Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,637,360 | as (Allowed).C.R.M. 4432 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.04.2019 in connection with Dhaniakhali P. S. Case No.22 of 2019 under Sections 448/326/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Md. Alauddin & Ors.... Petitioners.Ms. Payel Shome, Ms. P. Saha, Mr. S. Das....for the Petitioners.Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Sujata Das......for the State.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,376,337 | A.(MD).No.162 of 2018 has been filed by A1 and Crl.The appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows:The deceased Pitchaimuthu and the accused persons were living in the same village and he was doing masonry work.On 06.12.2006, the deceased had gone to the house of the accused persons for doing masonry work.At about 12.00 noon, on 3/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 06.12.2006, the deceased is said to have requested A3 to give his daughter for marriage to his son Jeganathan.This was heard by A1, who is the son of A3 and he is said to have abused the deceased saying that he cannot ask for the marriage of the daughter of A3 and there was a quarrel.A1 is said to have attacked the deceased with an Aruval (M.O.1) on the left side of the head of the deceased and also on his left side upper limb.Thereafter, A2 has attacked the deceased with the very same Aruval on the left side neck and the left side ear.The deceased and P.W.3 were taken to the hospital by P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased died on the way to the hospital.The death intimation (Ex.P.12) was sent to Sempatty Police Station and the Head Constable had come to the Dindigul Government Hospital at about 4.00 p.m. The statement was recorded from P.W.1 and it was reduced into a complaint (Ex.P.1).Thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P.13) was registered at about 4.30 p.m., in Crime No.324 of 2006, for an offence under Sections 341, 307 and 302 of IPC.The express FIR was sent through the Head Constable (P.W.10) to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and it 4/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 reached the Court at 8.00 p.m.The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.16) and he went to the scene of occurrence at about 5 p.m. He prepared the observation mahazer (Ex.P.2) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.14) in the presence of the witnesses(P.W.6).He also recovered the material objects from the scene of occurrence (M.Os. 2 &3).He thereafter proceeded to the Dindigul Government Hospital and conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased from 6.00 p.m., to 10.00 p.m., in the presence of panchayatars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.15).He thereafter gave a requisition through the Head Constable (P.W.9) for conducting postmortem of the deceased.He also recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.The investigation officer arrested all the three accused persons on 07.12.2006, at about 1.30 p.m. Based on the voluntary confession given by A1, Aruval (M.O.1) was recovered in the presence of the witness (P.W.7).The accused persons were thereafter brought to the police station and the blood stained dress was recovered from them.The recovered material objects were sent 5/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 to the Court under Form-95 and thereafter, they were sent to the Court and were remanded to judicial custody.He thereafter made a requisition for chemical analysis and all the material objects were sent to the Forensic Science Department.The Postmortem Certificate (Ex.He has stated in his evidence as follows:“Rkhh; 4 ½ tUlq;fSf;F Kd;dhy; Rkhh; 11.00 kzpf;F tPjpapy; utp tPl;L gf;fk; ehDk;> Kdpahz;b> kzpAk; Ngrpf;nfhz;bUe;Njhk;.mg;NghJ gpr;irKj;Jtpd; kidtp nghd;Dj;jhAk;> mtuJ kUkfs; jpUg;gjpnry;tpAk; ntl;lhjPq;f> ntl;lhjPq;f vd;W rj;jk; Nghl;lhh;fs;.ehq;fs; XbNdhk;.Kjypy; ehd; kl;Lk; NghNdd;.mg;NghJ ,sq;Nfh gpr;irKj;Jit mUthshy; ntl;bf;nfhz;bUe;jhh;.AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.The appellants, aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Dindigul, made in S.C.No.253 of 2010, dated 11.05.2011, have filed these criminal appeals.P.7), Chemical Examiner Report (Ex.P.9) and the Serological Report (Ex.P.11) were collected.On completion of the investigation, the final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons as follows:Rank of Offence for which charges framed No. the Accused1. A1 Under Sections 302 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC2. A2 Under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC 6/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 A3, who is the father of A1 and A2 died in the meantime and therefore, the charges as against A3 abated.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.16, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.The trial Court questioned the accused persons under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting all the incriminating materials before them, collected during the course of trial and they denied the same as false.The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused persons in the manner stated supra.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the motive behind the crime was not 7/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.8/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018In fact, P.W.3 is an injured witness in this case.The learned counsel submitted that the arrest and recovery has also been proved and the serological report clearly shows the presence of blood in the weapon, which coincides with the blood group of the deceased.Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor concluded his arguments by submitting that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and there are absolutely, no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court and the present Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.9/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and has assessed the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Court.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very essential, since these witnesses are eyewitnesses to the incident.She has stated in her evidence as follows:“vjphp fe;jrhkpaplk; vd; khkdhh; mth; kfis vd; kfd; n[fehjDf;F ngz; nfhL ehq;fs; nghz;z ey;yh tr;rpf;fpNwhk; vd;W nrhd;dhh;.mg;NghJ 1tJ vjphp ,sq;Nfh Vd;lh guNjrp gaNy ehd; Vw;fdNt xU nfhiy nra;J ,Uf;fpNwd;.cdf;F vd;d ,J ,Ue;jh vd; tPl;bNyNa ngz; Nfl;gha; vd;W nrhy;yp tPl;bw;Fs; Ngha; mUthis vLj;J te;J vd; khkdhhpd; jiyapy; ,lJ gf;fKk;> ,lJ Nky;ifapy; mUthshy; ntl;bdhh;.,sq;NfhtplkpUe;J mUthis 2tJ vjphp =jh; gpLq;fp mNj mUthshs; vd; khkdhhpd; ,lJ gf;f fOj;jpy; xU ntl;Lk;> ,lJ gf;f fhNjhuk; xU ntl;Lk;ntl;bdhh;.ehDk;> vdJ khkpahUk; rj;jk;Nghl;L fj;jpNdhk;.vq;fs; rj;jk;Nfl;L> kzp> $y;ghz;b vd;w khhpag;gd; MfpNahh; epd;wpUe;jth;fs; khhpag;gd; Ntfkhf mq;F te;jhh;.gpr;irKj;Jit ,g;gb ntl;btpl;Bh;fNs vd;W khhpag;gd; nrhd;dhh;.mg;NghJ 3tJ vjphp fe;jrhkp 10/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 mtDf;F rg;Nghh;l;Lf;F tUfpwtdh vd;W ,tidAk; ntl;Lq;flh vd;W nrhy;y =jud; mUthshy; khhpag;gdpd; tyJ ifKd;dq;ifapYk;> ,lJ gf;f jiyapYk; xU ntl;Lk; ntl;bdhh;.kzp> Kdpahz;b tuTk; vjphpfs; %tUk; njw;Fgf;fk; mUthSld; Xbtpl;ldh;.” This evidence of P.W.1 has not been discredited in the cross- examination.20. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased and her evidence is also in line with the evidence of P.W.1 Her evidence has also not been discredited in the cross-examination.21. P.W.3 is the injured eyewitness in this case.mNj mUthis thq;fp =jh;gpr;irKj;Jit ntl;bdhh;.ehd; XlTNk fe;jrhkp 11/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 vd;gth; ,tidAk; ntl;bg;NghLq;flh vd;whh;. =jh; mNj mUthshy; ,lJ gf;f jiyapy; ,uz;L ntl;Lk;> tyJ gf;f Kd;dq;ifapy; xU ntl;Lk;> tyJ gf;f Ml;fhl;btpuy;> Nkhjpu tpuypy; Nrh;j;J xU ntl;Lk;> ntl;bdhh;.kzp> Kdpahz;b XbtuTk;> vjphpfs; %tUk; mUthSld; njw;F gf;fk; Xbtpl;ldh;.vd;idAk;> gpr;irKj;JitAk; M];gj;jphpf;F Mk;Gyd;rpy; Vw;wp nghd;Dj;jha;> jpUg;gjp> kzp MfpNahh; M];gj;jphpf;F mioj;Jr; nrd;wdh;.vd;id M];gj;jphpapy; Nrh;j;jdh;.tUk; topapNyNa gpr;irKj;J ,we;J tpl;lhh;.” The evidence of this injured witness has not been discredited in the cross-examination.The next important witness in this case is P.W.8, who is the ambulance driver.He specifically states in his evidence that he got a phone call at about 1.15 p.m. on 06.12.2006 and he went to the place of occurrence with the ambulance and he took the deceased and P.W.3 to Dindigul Government Hospital.The other evidence which can be relied upon in this case is the evidence of P.W.14, who was the Doctor, who intially gave 12/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The arrest, confession and recovery has been proved by the prosecution and P.W.7, who was a witness clearly explains the arrest of the accused persons and the confession of A1, which lead to the discovery of the Aruval(M.O.1).The weapon was sent along with the material objects to the Forensic Science Department and it is seen from the Serological Report (Ex.P.11) that the weapon had blood stains and it was identified as human blood and the group was identified as B-group, which coincided with the blood group of the deceased.The next evidence that has to be taken into consideration is the evidence of the postmortem Doctor (P.W.13).He has categorically stated that the injuries that has been recorded in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.7) can be inflicted with the Aruval (M.O.1).It will be relevant to extract the injuries as found in the postmortem certificate.13/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 “ External Injuries:10cms x 1 x bone deep cut injury in the left upper arm 4 cms below from superior aspect of shoulder joint.Cut injury just above the medial end of (L) collar bone 2 x 2 x 1 cms.Cut injury caused by the tip of Aruval 14 cms below from armpit at the level of posterior axillary's line 2 x 1 x 1 cms in the chest.4.Cut injury 14 x 3 cms x bone depth in the head of both parietal bones starting 9 cms above left ear ending 3 cms above (R) ear.Cut injury 9 cms x 2 cms x bone depth 2 cms above left ear - parallel to sagital axis of ear in the temporal bone (L) side.”The injuries that have spoken by the postmortem Doctor and the postmortem certificate, corroborates the evidence of the eyewitnesses.The Doctor has opined that the deceased had died 14/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of multiple injuries sustained to the vital organs.In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the evidence of the witnesses, which have been discussed supra, clearly support the case of the prosecution.It is made clear that the punishment imposed against the appellants shall run concurrently and they shall be entitled for set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period of sentencne already undergone by them, before they were convicted and sentenced in this case.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants will be entitled to be considered for the 15/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 premature release under G.O.(Ms)No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018 and requested this Court to give a direction to the concerned authority to consider the representation made by the appellants, in this regard.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the appellants can make their representation to the concerned authorities and the same will be considered strictly in accordance with the parameters that has been stipulated in the Government Order referred to supra.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9, to consider the representations given by the appellants/life convicts, under G.O(Ms)No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of 16/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 the representation made by the appellants, along with a copy of this judgment and the decision taken shall be communicated to the appellants within the time stipulated by this Court.These Criminal Appeals are disposed of accordingly.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Dindigul.The Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.17/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.18/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 19/20http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.162 & 169 of 2018 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,384,006 | 2.The prosecution case is that owing to the previous enmity between thefamily members of A2 to A4 and one Arunachalathevar, on 23.09.2010, at 3.00p.m., at the instigation of A2 to A4, A1 attempted to murder P.W.4 -Thirugnanam @ Thirugnanamoorthy S/o.Arunachalathevar, by cutting him on his left head and murdered Dharmalingam S/o.Arunachalathevar, by attacking him on the back side of head using a sharpedged weapon, apart from criminallyintimidating them.3.P.W.1, cousin brother of the deceased, preferred a complaint beforeSpecial Sub Inspector of Police at kadaladi Police Station on 23.09.2010.P.W.13, Special Sub Inspector of Police registered the complaint in CrimeNo.78 of 2010 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and preparedEx.P.6 FIR.He took up the investigation, went to the scene, preparedobservation mahazar Ex.P.7, as also rough sketch Ex.P.8, examined witnesses and deceased and recorded their statements.Since, Dharmalingam died on 27.09.2010, he submitted the file to Inspector of Police for alteration ofF.I.R. P.W.14 - Inspector of Police took up the investigation, he conductedinquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.10 - Inquest Reportand sent the body for post-mortem.The Post-mortem Report is Ex.He examined the witnessed and recorded their statements.After his transfer, P.W.15 - Inspector of Police,took up the case for further investigation, examined the witnesses andrecorded their statements.4.5. P.W.5 - Dr.Bhagath Singh, spoke to examination of P.W.4 and ofissuing Ex.P.2 - Wound Certificate.4.6. P.W.6 - Jeyanthinathan, owner of the tea shop, in front of whichdeceased and P.W.4 was attacked, was examined to speak about the occurrence.He turned hostile.He also turned hostile.P.W.8 - Ramasubramanian, Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court,Muthukulathur, spoke to receipt of material objects of this case fromInvestigating Officer.P.W.9 - K.Chellachamy, Head Constable, spoke to handing over the body of deceased to Doctor for post-mortem and on completion thereof, handingover the body to the relatives.P.W.10 - P.Sasivarnam @ Sasi was examined to speak about knowing of the occurrence.He turned hostile.P.W.11 - Dr.Saravanan, who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.P.W.12 - Thomas Victor, Grade - I Police Constable spoke tohanding over the Alteration Report to Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur.P.W.13 - Murugan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police spoke toregistration of case in Crime No.77 of 2010 u/s. 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii)I.P.C., forwarding Ex.P.6, Original First Information Report to JudicialMagistrate, Muthukulathur, visiting the place of occurrence, preparation ofmahazars, examination of witnesses and of submitting the file to Inspector ofPolice for alteration of F.I.R.P.W.14 - Rajkumar, Inspector of Police, spoke to conducting ofinquest, taking accused to police custody, recording of confession statement,recovery of Material Objects, examination of witnesses and of alteringF.I.R.P.W.15 - A.Kannan, Inspector of Police, spoke to examination ofwitnesses, alteration of F.I.R. and upon completion of investigation filingof charge sheet informing commission of offences under Sections 307, 302 r/w34 I.P.C.5.When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials against them, they denied their complicity and statedthat they had been falsely implicated in the case.7.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned SeniorCounsel would submit that though P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 6 are stated to be eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 and 6 turned hostile.The alleged occurrence is also saidto have taken place in front of the Tea shop of P.W.6. P.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that he has not seen the occurrence.According to theprosecution, they were taken to such hospital by an Ambulance.No materialwhatsoever has been produced on how the Ambulance came to the scene of crime or how P.W.4 and the deceased reached Kaladali Government Hospital, as no Ambulance driver has been examined.P.W.4 has spoken to having fainted, immediately after suffering injury and that he was taken to hospital atMadurai.No records whatsoever of the admission into Kadaladi Government Hospital of P.W.4 and the deceased, nor the treatment given to them there,have been produced nor has any Doctor, who was a staff of such hospital beenexamined.The occurrence allegedly had taken place on 23.09.2010 and the deceased had been transferred from Kadaladi Government Hospital to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital.There is absolutely, no records, regarding theadmission and the treatment received by P.W.4 and the deceased at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital.The prosecution case is mired in haziness.The laziness, withwhich the Investigating Officer has gone about his job is evident from hisanswers in cross examination, which are to the following effect:-(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.T.SELVAM, J.) Appellant/Accused No.1 has filed the Criminal Appeal, challenging thejudgment, dated 19.06.2017, in S.C.No.1 of 2013, on the file of learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Paramakudi, in andby which, the other accused were acquitted and appellant was convicted foroffences under Sections 506(ii), 307 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, 1 month S.I. for theoffence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., sentenced to undergo 7 year R.I. and topay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, 6 months R.I. as also sentenced toundergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, one yearR.I.Then he altered the F.I.R. from 294(b), 324, 323,506(ii) and 302 I.P.C. to Sections 120-B, 294(b), 324, 326, 323, 506(ii) and302 I.P.C. and prepared alteration report Ex.Upon completion ofinvestigation, P.W.15 filed a charge sheet informing commission of offencesunder Sections 307 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. On committal, the case was tried inS.C.No.1 of 2013 on the file of learned Additional District and SessionsJudge (Fast Track Court), Paramakudi.Before trial Court, prosecutionexamined 15 witnesses and marked 15 exhibits and one material object.None were examined on behalf of defence nor were any exhibits marked.4.1. P.W.1 ? Mookuran, cousin brother of the deceased was examined to speak about the occurrence and of lodging the complaint.He turned hostile.P.W.2 - Govindan, an eyewitness, spoke to attack made by A1 on deceased Dharmalingam and Thirugnanam and of taking the injured to hospital.4.3. P.W.3 - Nagajothi, sister of deceased spoke to the conspiracy ofthe accused to murder deceased Dharmalingam and Thirugnanam.4.4. P.W.4 ? Thirugnanamoorthy, injured eyewitness spoke to attack made by A1 on his deceased brother and on him.9.We have considered the rival submissions.?After taking charge of investigation, I went through the medicalrecords register, maintained at Kadaladi Police Station.It is true that, inrespect of P.W.4 and the deceased, medical record No.28/ML/F5 was registered.As per the said record, the injured persons were sent to Kadaladi GovernmentHospital.No Accident Register copy was received from the Kadaladi Government Hospital for the injured persons.I came to know that the injured personswere transferred from Kadaladi Government Hospital to Madurai RajajiGovernment Hospital.No accident register copy was received from the RajajiGovernment Hospital.There is no entry in the case file on what time on23.09.2010, the injured were sent to Kadaladi Government Hospital fortreatment.Likewise, it is true that there is no entry in the case file, asto what date, the injured persons were admitted in Madurai Rajaji GovernmentHospital.After taking the case for investigation, I have perused thecomplaint of P.W.1-Mukkooran.In the complaint it is stated that the injuredpersons were taking to Kadaladi Government Hospital through an ambulance.There is no information as to who called for ambulance and at what time, theambulance came to the scene of occurrence.I have not examined the ambulance driver.During investigation, I came to know that on 02.10.2010, the injuredThirugnanam was admitted in Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital for treatment.It was mentioned in the case file that the injured persons were takingtreatment from 23.09.2010 to 02.10.2010 at Madurai Rajaji GovernmentHospital.I had not examined anyone in this regard.I had perused the inquestreport.As per rough sketch, the occurrence had taken place atthe rear side of the house of one Jeyamani Thevar, which is situate at thesouthern side of East-West street.At the same time, it was mentioned thatthe tea shop owned by one Jeyanthinathan, is situate at eastern side ofSouth-North street, facing the west.I examined persons living near the sceneof occurrence but they had not come forward to give evidence.I have notexamined witnesses, who were present in Arunagiri Kottaigai, when thedeceased Krishnan was taken from Trichy to Arunagiri Kottaigai.I came toknow that there was a land dispute for a long time, between the family of thedeceased Darmalingam and the accused.I have not enquired about as to what land and what period, the dispute was existing.The fact that while P.W.4 speaks to,both he and his brother having suffered one injury each to the head, hiswound certificate-Ex.P2 reflects that he has suffered one simple injury andfour grievous injuries i.e. four fractures to the head, while post-mortemreport in Ex.P5 would reveal atleast five fractures to the head suffered bythe deceased, as follows:-2.Multiple fractures of skull involving the midfrontal, left parietal,mid parietal and left occipital regions.Haemotoma brain 7 cms x 6 cms notedover the left parietal region.Haematoma brain 5 cms x 4 cms noted over leftoccipital region.Haematoma brain 4 cms x 4 cms noted over right occipitalregion.Diffuse subdural hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage noted over both cerebral hemispheres.?The position is suggestive of P.W.4 not knowing how he and the deceased came to be attacked.In all probability, on P.W.4 fainting, the assailantshad left him for dead.Given the above infirmities in the prosecution case,it becomes necessary not to delve further thereon.The prosecution hasfailed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.The appellant is entitledto acquittal.12.In the result, the Criminal Appeals is allowed.The conviction andsentence imposed on the appellant/A1 by learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Paramakudi in S.C.No.1 of 2013, dated 19.06.2017, are setaside.The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.Fineamount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.Bail bondsexecuted by the accused shall stand cancelled.1.The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Judge), Paramakudi.2.The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Copy to The Section Officer,V.R. Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,638,919 | Present Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 1st October, 2003, and order on Sentence dated 13th October, 2003, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 304B/498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of ` 1,000/-.After her death, her brother Ved Prakash, PW-2 gave a statement to SDM that he had visited Janki's house on 23rd February, 2001 and found her in a sad mood.She told him that her in- laws were asking for ` 50,000/- and a scooter as they wanted to open a shop and the scooter was required for roaming around.Ved Prakash stated that thereafter he talked to in-laws of her sister and told them that he would respond after thinking over.He asked them to send Janki with him.On this, he was told that they would take her to his house after 2-3 days.After that he received information that Janki had died.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 1 of 8 He expressed his doubt that his sister had been killed by her husband, parents of her husband and husband's sister Kiran.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 1 of 8In the name of investigation, police took photographs of deceased, recorded statement of brothers of Janki, collected postmortem report about the cause of her death, and FSL report of viscera.Even the site plan of the place of suicide and of the house was not prepared.The postmortem report shows that there was no external injury on the body of Janki.The cause of death was given due to asphyxia.It is seen that the Appellant herein belonged to a very poor family of vegetable seller.She had three young daughters and two sons.She herself was a house-wife and not working and that seems to be reason that during trial she and her husband and son could not engage a counsel with some experience who could have done justice to the brief.Ligature mark present on the neck showed that there was no ligature mark on left side of neck showing that ligature was caused due to hanging.FSL report showed presence of insecticide in the body.No investigation was done by the police on the aspect of purchase of insecticide or administration of insecticide etc. Charges against the accused persons were framed under Section 304B read with Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.Prime witnesses in this case are PW-2 Ved Prakash and PW-7 Jai Prakash, the two brothers of the deceased Janki.Ved Prakash is the one who claimed to have visited Janki on 23rd February, 2001 and stated that Janki was in sad mood and she complained that her in-laws were demanding ` 50,000/- and a scooter.PW-7 Jai Prakash stated that Janki had come to his house in the village after about a week of her marriage and had told him that her in laws were demanding scooter and ` 50,000/-.He then sent his brother Jaidev @ Ali to the house of his sister Janki and this demand was repeated to him and Jaidev informed him about the demand.PW-4 Laxman is 3rd brother of Janki.He testified that he had visited his sister at her matrimonial house after about a month of her marriage.He stayed there for few moments and at that time he had no talks with his sister.Thus, as per his Crl.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 2 of 8 testimony, no complaint was made to him by his sister about demand of ` 50,000/- and a scooter.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 2 of 8These three witnesses were practically not cross examined on the charges framed against the accused persons.The only cross examination done by the defence counsel was putting to the witnesses statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and giving suggestion regarding denial of the demand.On the basis of the testimony of two brothers i.e. PW-2 and PW-7, the appellant and other two accused persons were convicted under Section 304B/ 498- A/34 IPC.It is apparent that the allegations were very vague in nature.Who demanded ` 50,000/- and scooter, whether it was the demand of husband or of mother-in-law or of father-in-law, when was it made - answers to all these questions are absent.Even if it is presumed that demand was made, the ingredients of Section 304B IPC were totally absent in this case as there was no evidence on record to show that cruelty of any kind was perpetuated on Janki for this demand.Section 304B IPC reads as under:"(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less Crl.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 3 of 8 than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 3 of 8The prosecution was thus supposed to prove that the demand made by the accused was coupled with a harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand.Unnatural death can be called a dowry death only if, after making a demand of dowry, the accused perpetuates cruelty on the victim so that the demand made by him is got fulfilled by perpetuation of cruelty on the victim.The conviction seems to be the result of a callous criminal justice system where neither the defence counsel prepared the case nor the prosecutor discharged his duty in an impartial manner nor the Judge considered it as his duty to see what offence was made out and everyone acted in a mechanical manner.The other question arises whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 306 IPC i.e. for the offence of abetment of suicide, since the deceased committed suicide within three months of her marriage.In order to convict a person for abetment of suicide, apart from proving suicide, it has to be proved that the appellant or accused was instrumental in commission of suicide.Section 113A of Crl.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 4 of 8 Evidence Act which raises a presumption regarding abetment of suicide in respect of a married woman reads as under:Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 4 of 8"113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women - When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a women had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband."The witnesses were not cross-examined in a proper manner and cross-examination done to the witness was only to confront them with their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Along with the Appellant, her husband and her son were also convicted.Even during Appeals, this family could not engage an efficient counsel and that is why her husband and son remained in JC during entire Crl.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 5 of 8 Appeal period.After undergoing entire sentence, they appeared in the court and stated that they do not wish to pursue their Appeals, so, the Appeals were dismissed.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 5 of 8A perusal of record shows that the deceased's brother had made application before the Court for return of dowry articles and Istridhan during trial and gave a list of the articles given at the time of engagement ceremony (sagai) and marriage.The list reads as under;(i) One Silver Coin, (ii) One Three Piece Suit for Boy, (iii) One Gold Ring, (iv) 51 Utensils, (v) Fruits and Dry Fruits,(vi) Nine Sarees, (vii) Nine Gents Shirts, (viii) Four Pairs of Clothes for Children and (ix) ` 501/-.At marriage the dowry list is as under;(i) One Silver Coin, (ii) 5 Units of Clothes for Boy, (iii) One HMT Wrist Watch, (iv) 27 Utensils (of Steel and Brass), (v) Ear-ring (Kundal) + LONG of Gold for Girl, (vi) A set of Silver pajeb + Key Ring, (vii) One Double-Bed with Matress, Quilt and Pillow, (viii) One Chair, One Table, One Stool, One Dressing Table, One Cooler, One Godrej Almirah and One Small Box.This list, prepared at the time of marriage was duly signed by husband Raju.The list would show that both parties belonged to poor strata of society and except ` 501/-, there was no cash transaction as dowry between the parties and the parties knew each-other's financial position well.No question was asked about the list nor the investigating agency made the list as a part of their investigation nor the dowry list attracted attention of the Judge concerned.Where the parties knew that the status of girl was such that even at marriage and engagement ceremonies only ` 501/- cash was given, the husband of relatives would not have thought of Crl.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 6 of 8 demanding ` 50,000/- and scooter within few days of marriage.The most disturbing factor is that no evidence, whatsoever, was collected by the police about the real facts.No effort was made by learned Public Prosecutor or by Trial Judge to even go through the evidence and consider what charges were made out.Charges seemed to have been framed in a mechanical manner.No effort is seem to have been made by the Trial Judge either at the time of framing charge or later on as to what offence was made out.In matrimonial offences, it is the accused and his family members who know what transpired within the family and they should always volunteer themselves as witnesses in the Court so that the Court gets their side of the version by way of evidence and testimony.Under Section 106 of Evidence Act, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.When a death takes place within the four walls of matrimonial home, the husband and in-laws should come forward and depose as to what was the real cause of death.The criminal practice in India has been on the lines of old track that accused must not speak and he should not be examined as a witness.I do not know why this practice developed but in all matrimonial offences, this practice is shutting the doors of the Court, to the version of the other side, by their advocates.Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 7 of 8Appeal No. 93 of 2004 Page 7 of 8In this case the High Court did not find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants, who continued to remain in jail during trial period as well as appeal period for no crime.In all such cases where appellants are in jail and sentence is not suspended, the High Court should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals.Neither the criminal should be let off by default as High Court has no time to hear appeals nor should the innocents rot in jail by default.The appeal is allowed. | ['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. |
196,447,184 | More over, the petitioners are habitual offenders by committing this kind of crimes.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.30018 of 2019M.P.No.16209 of 2019 16.03.2020This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.2522 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C., as against the petitioners.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2017, around 4.15 p.m., the petitioners assembled near the Thiruvalluvar Bus Stand, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore to protest the implementation of some schemes of the BJP Government in Tamil Nadu, without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.On the basis of the above said allegation, the first respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet 2/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the first respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioners.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners staged protest and there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the trial.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Therefore, the first respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.30018 of 2019In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.2522 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.16.03.2020 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no dm 11/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.30018 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, dm To1.Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.30018 of 2019 and Crl. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,447,788 | Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties.This revision petition under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against acquittal of the respondents No.1 and 2 of offence under sections 452 and 506 part-II of I.P.C. from the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Electricity), Gwalior while dismissing Cri.Appeal No.57/13 was preferred by the accused- respondents No.1 and 2 herein against their conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. which was partly allowed by the appellate court after modification in their sentence for offence under section 323 of I.P.C. whereas Cri.As per prosecution case, on 6/12/2014 at 4 p.m. when the complainant/petitioner reached her house after completing her routing work, she found that the present accused Rahees and Hafeez Khan from before were present on the roof of the house 2 Crr.450/14 Bitti Bai Vs.Rahees Khan of the complainant.They were drying their clothes after fixing the wire by the side of the walls.When the complainant objected, the accused abused her and pushed her down, resulting she received injuries.On the report, FIR was lodged and crime was registered against the accused/respondent No. 1 and 2 for the alleged offences.The contention put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in this case the evidence of the prosecution has proved the fact beyond all reasonable doubts that accused has committed the alleged offence still the learned lower appellate court on the basis of minor contradictions/omissions discarded the whole evidence and recorded acquittal of the present accused which is against the recognized principles of law.Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the petition, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent No.1 and 2 be set aside.Having regard to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, entire record of the case and the reasonings basing upon the acquittal of the respondents No.1 and 2 have been examined.After critical evaluation of the evidence of complainant Bitti Bai (PW-1), Kadir Khan (PW-2), Banti (PW-3) and Dr.Rahees Khan the conviction of the accused, however, as regards sentence the accused-respondents No. 1 and 2 have been given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3-3 months.For other offences under sections 452 and 506 part-II of I.P.C. the appellate court did not find any sufficient material in evidence so as to attract the ingredients under these offences, hence recorded acquittal of the accused. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,448,971 | This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the sister of the detenu, namely, Surya @ Kathiravan, Son of Munusamy, aged 23 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.886/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 04.08.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.However, he has not refuted that the copies of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13843/2009 in respect of Crime No.301/2009 on the file of R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station for the offence under sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC and by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.12888/2011 in respect of Crime No.1025/2011 on the file of P-4, Basin Bridge Police Station for the offence under sections 341, 392 r/w 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copies of the said bail applications in similar cases.The said bail applications filed in similar cases were the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.Admittedly, those documents have not been supplied to the detenu, as they did not form part of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,449,989 | a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 255 of 2016 pending on the file of the learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/12 CRL.O.P.No.19257 of 2016 Judicial Magistrate No.Morehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/12 CRL.O.P.No. 19257 of 2016 over, the petitioner is an habitual offender by committing this kind of crimes.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.5.Heard Mr.J. Mathesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police.6.On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the election flying squad officials have found that the petitioner was having a sum of Rs.10,500/- and a small bit paper which contained the names of 39 members.Therefore, the respondent police levelled the charges under Section 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.g) No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Section 188 ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/12 CRL.O.P.No. 19257 of 2016 I.P.C. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. 255 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.09.10.2020 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order ksahttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/12 CRL.O.P.No.19257 of 2016The Inspector of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai City, Madeira.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 11/12 CRL.O.P.No.19257 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa CRL.O.P.No.19257 of 2016 09.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 12/12 | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,454,163 | This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 15 of 2018 registered by the respondent police for offences under Sections of 498A, 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 498A, 506(i) IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police has only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2015, the fourth respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No. 15 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of 12 weeks (3 months) from the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P. No. 30265 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.arb receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.10.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order arb/drl ToInspector of Police, W-29, All Women Police Station, Avadi, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P. No. 30265 of 2018 and Crl.No. 17788 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,454,722 | They are identified by the IO-Jagdish Chander.It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of the complainant on Crl.M.C. No.3963/2014 Page 1 of 7 the ground of matrimonial disputes arising between the complainant and the petitioners.A copy of the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre has been annexed to the petition.M.A.13588/2014(Delay) For the reasons stated in the application the delay in re-filing the petition is condoned.The application stands disposed off.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been moved by petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.27/2012 under section 498A/406/34 IPC dated 10.2.2012 registered at Police Station Palam Village on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Counsel for the State as well counsel for complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.2, enter appearance and accepts notice.The complainant - Deepti Verma as well as the petitioners are present in person.It is also stated that in terms of the agreement between the parties, the first petitioner was to pay Rs.3,10,000/- to complainant as full and final settlement of all claims and dues.M.C. No.3963/2014 Page 5 of 7I am of the opinion that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and where the complainant and the first petitioner have jointly obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served and it is best to give a quietus to the matter.Consequently, the FIR No.27/2012 IPC under section 498A/406/34 dated 10.2.2012 registered at Police Station Palam Village and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.M.C. No.3963/2014 Page 6 of 7The petition stands disposed off. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,964,628 | There are six adverse cases and one ground case as against the detenu.The details of the adverse cases are as under:-Sl.Police Station Section of LawNo.and Crime No.Kurangani Police Station 379 IPC.Crime No.41 of 2004Perungudi Police Station 379 IPC.(Order of the Court was made byP.MURGESEN, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, who has been detained underSection 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 by order of the secondrespondent in No.10/2009 dated 04.08.2009 by branding him as a 'GOONDA'.Crime No.155 of 2007Thirumangalam P.S. 379 IPC.Crime No.307 of 2008Sivagangai Police Station 366(A) and 506(ii) IPC.Crime No.499 of 2007Bodinayakanur Town P.S. 324, 307, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC.Crime No.853 of 2008Karimedu Police Station 341, 302, 506(ii) IPC.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order ofdetention passed by the second respondent is vitiated on two grounds; firstly,the detaining authority had not satisfied itself as to the real possibility ofthe detenu coming out on bail and secondly, there was delay in considering therepresentation of the detenu.We have perused the materials on record carefully and meticulously.In thisconnection, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of therespondents, has submitted a Proforma.In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theorder of detention in No.10/2009 dated 04.08.2009 passed by the secondrespondent is set aside.2.The District Collector and District Magisrate, Theni District, Theni. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,964,736 | ORDER Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.M.B. No. 991/2006This application under Section 389, Cr.P.C. read with Section 482, Cr.P.C, has been preferred by the appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during pendency of the instant appeal.The appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years under Section 304B, IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a terms of 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 498A of IPC.The testimony of parents of the deceased, given during trial and to the SDM, would show that the deceased was being harassed by her mother-in-law and devar on account of dowry.However, the deceased had also made a statement to the Investigating Officer, in the hospital, after doctor had opined her fit to make statement, that she caught fire accidentally and her husband had tried to save her.This dying declaration was disbelieved by the trial Court. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,964,756 | The case of the prosecution is as under:-P.W.1-Sivakami is the sister of the deceased Jayalakshmi.P.W.3-Kasimayan is the relative of the deceased.P.W.4-Ponnaiah Thevar and P.W.5-Chellathammal are the father and mother of thedeceased.On 23.10.2006 at 10.00 p.m., the deceased Jayalakshmi was admitted tothe Government Hospital, Cumbum with burn injuries.She was treated by P.W.8-Dr.Sakthivel in the hospital.He examined the deceased and found that shesustained 75% burn injuries.After examining her, he issued Ex.P3-AccidentRegister Copy.On 24.10.2006, she was treated by P.W.9-Dr.He sent anintimation to the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam to record the statement ofthe deceased.On receipt of a message from the hospital, one Kayalvizhi, who was theSub-Inspector of Police in the Rayappanpatti Police Station at that time, wentto the Government Hospital, Cumbum on 24.10.2006 at 8.30 a.m., obtained thestatement from the deceased as a complaint and registered the same under Section307 IPC in Crime No.268 of 2006 and prepared Ex.P18-First Information Report.Thereafter, P.W.17-Inspector of Police, received the F.I.R. prepared by the saidKayalvizhi on 24.10.2006 at 12.00 noon.He visited the scene of occurrence at12.30 hours on that day and recorded the statements of witnessesDharmarajpillai, Pichaipillai and prepared Ex.P1-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P19-Rough Sketch.Thereafter at 13.00 hours, he recovered the M.Os.1 to 3, namelyhalf-burnt Saree, petticoat and match box from the place of occurrence underEx.The accused gave confession statement.On the basisof the confession statement given by the accused, P.W.17 recovered M.O.4-Can,under Ex.P12 is the signature of P.W.13 in the Athakshi.Thereafter he sent the accused to judicial custody and recorded the statementsof witnesses.Then, he went for training.On 28.10.2006 the deceased was shifted from the Government Hospital,Cumbum to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Theni.On that day, at7.20 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Suresh gave treatment to the deceased.On 07.11.2006 at04.10 a.m., the deceased died.At 9.40 a.m. on that day, P.W.14 received thedeath intimation of the deceased.Based on the intimation, he went to thehospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and preparedEx.The post mortem wasconducted by P.W.15-Dr.She wastreated by P.W.8-Dr.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byP.MURGESEN, J.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.07.2008made in S.C. No.95 of 2007 on the file of the District Principal Sessions Court,Theni.The appellant is the accused and the respondent is the complainant.Hence, the investigation wastaken over by P.W.14 who took charge of the additional responsibility of theInspector of Police in the Rayappanpatti Police Station.P.W.16-Singaraj was looking after the additional charge of the JudicialMagistrate, Uthamapalayam at that time.On 24.10.2006 at about 2.15 p.m., hereceived a message from the Government Hospital, Cumbum to record the dyingdeclaration of the deceased.Thereafter, he went to the hospital and afterobserving all the formalities, he found that the deceased was in a fit state ofmind to give dying declaration.The Duty Doctor also certified that the deceasedwas in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration at that time.ThereafterP.W.16 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P6 and afterreading it to the deceased, he got the left thumb impression of the deceased.Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the remarks made by the Doctor in Ex.P6-Dying declaration.After conducting post mortem, he issuedEx.P15-Post Mortem Report.It is stated in the Post Mortem Report as under:-"Appearances found at the Post Mortem:- Moderately nourished body of a femaleaged about 28 years.Finger and toe nails are blue.Following antemortem injuries are noted on the body:- Extensive superficial infected burns involving right side of face, frontsides and back of neck, front and back of chest and back of abdomen, whole ofboth upper limbs, and front and back of both thighs and back of both legs.The infected area is covered withfoul smelling pus material in a patchy manner.Evidence of singeing of eyebrows,eyelashes, armpit and pubic hair noted.I.V. Drip wound noted in the inneraspect of right ankle.Peritoneal cavity and pleural cavities - empty, pericardium contains 15mlof straw coloured fluid; Heart-right side fluid blood.Left side - empty;coronaries-patent.Lungs-cut section congested with bilateral basalconsolidation.Liver, Spleen and Kidneys-cut section congested.Larynx andtrachea-normal; Hyoid bone-intact.Stomach-contains 100ml.of mucosal fluid, nilspecific smell, mucosa-normal.Small intestine-contains 20ml.of bile stainedfluid, nil specific smell, mucosa-normal.Bladder-empty.Uterus-normal size.Cutsection-empty; brain-surface vessels and cut section congested.The deceased would appear to have died of extensive superficial burns ofabout 70% and its complications thereof."Thereafter, P.W.14 altered the Section from 307 IPC to 302 IPC and tothis effect, he sent Ex.P14-Express F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate,Uthamapalayam.Thereafter on 08.11.2006, he recorded the statements of Shoba,Mathiyazhagan, Ayyathurai, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11 and also the HeadConstable Azhagarsamy.Thereafter he handed over the file to P.W.17 who hadreturned from the training.On 19.12.2006, P.W.17 completed the investigationand filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC.Before the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P1 to P21and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked.On consideration of the evidence adduced on record,the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced toundergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo6 months R.I. The accused was also convicted under Section 4 of the Tamil NaduProhibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998, but no sentence was awarded tothis offence.Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, thepresent Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant / accused.The appellant / accused is the husband of the deceased.P.W.1-Sivakamiis the sister of the deceased Jayalakshmi.P.W.2-Karnan is the husband of P.W.1and brother-in-law of the deceased.P.W.3-Kasimayan is the relative of thedeceased.P.W.4-Ponnaiah Thevar and P.W.5-Chellathammal are the father andmother of the deceased.On 23.10.2006 at 10.00 p.m., the deceased Jayalakshmiwas admitted to the Government Hospital, Cumbum with burn injuries.Sakthivel and then by P.W.9-Dr.At the time of giving complaint, she was in a fit condition togive the complaint.Her mental condition was also certified by the Doctor.Inthis case, admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 6 have turned hostile.Therefore, the onlyevidence against the accused is the dying declaration given by the victim.P.W.16, on receipt of Ex.P17-Requisition letter from the Doctor, went to thehospital and recorded the dying declaration after obtaining the certificate fromthe Doctor.Ponnarasan stated that the deceased was in a fit mentalcondition to give dying declaration and gave his remarks under Exs.TheJudicial Magistrate had taken all precautions before recording the dyingdeclaration of the deceased.He also recorded the condition of the victim beforerecording the statement.In the dying declaration, the victim had stated thather husband asked her what she was doing and asked her to give hot water; shereplied to him that after finishing the cooking work, she would provide him withhot water; at that time, the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused has stated thatthe dying declaration is not of any value, as she had already given adeclaration to P.W.8 at the time of admission in the Government Hospital, Cumbumthat she herself poured kerosene on her and set fire.Therefore, according tothe learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused, the occurrence isonly an accident.To strengthen his case, the learned counsel relied on thefollowing decisions:-On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guaranteestruth.(ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in afit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medicalopinion.But where the eye-witness said that the deceased was in a fit andconscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannotprevail.In the case of Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR1982 SUPREME COURT 839), the dying declaration given by the victim was rejectedby the Hon'ble Supreme Court, because the victim had stated that he wasassaulted by one Tiny.The evidence and the materialsavailable on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at a properconclusion.The Court must satisfy to itself that the person making the dyingdeclaration was conscious and fit to make statement for which purposes not onlythe evidence of persons recording dying declaration but also cumulative effectof the other evidence including the medical evidence and the circumstances mustbe taken into consideration.P.W.1-Sister of the deceased said that the victim told her that she herself set fireon her since she was suffering from stomach pain.The victim was taken to thehospital by P.W.1 and she turned hostile.The victim had clearly spoken in the dying declaration that herhusband asked her hot water and she replied that after finishing the cookingwork, she would provide hot water and subsequently, the accused poured keroseneon her and set fire.On consideration of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation tohold that this cannot be a case of suicide.In this case, we find that thekerosene was splashed on her by her husband due to anger.Further, the conductof the accused has also to be taken into consideration.The occurrence tookplace in the house.It is seen that after the occurrence, the accused locked thedoor and ran away and the accused was arrested only on the next day.The accuseddid not take any steps to rescue his wife.Even during the questioning under 313Cr.Admittedly, the children are living with the accused and inorder to save the accused, the witnesses went to the extent of speaking againstthe prosecution.The Trial Court has also convicted the accused under Section 4of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 ("Act" in short),even though o sentence has been awarded to this offence.Section 4 of the Actdeals with eve-teasing.This is not a case of eve-teasing, but the Trial Courtfound the accused guilty under Section 4 of the Act, which is not correct.Hencethe conviction of the accused under Section 4 of the Act, is liable to be setaside.In the result, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC ismodified to one under Section 304(ii) IPC and the sentence of life imprisonmentis reduced to 5 years R.I. The payment of fine amount of Rs.1,000/- in defaultto undergo 6 months R.I. is confirmed.The conviction of the accused underSection 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 is setaside.The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.1.The District Principal Sessions Court, Theni.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,478,341 | P.C has been filed for transfer of Criminal Case No.429/2008 from the Court of CJM Sheopur to any other Court.During the course of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that respondent No.1 has expired.In view of this, the petition has rendered infructuous. | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,481,051 | L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.This Appeal is filed against an order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna allowing the application filed under Section 482 Cr.It was stated inSignature Not Verified the said complaint that the Appellant was married toDigitally signed byCHARANJEET KAUR Santosh Kumar Tiwari son of Shivdhyan Tiwari onDate: 2017.08.2416:53:48 ISTReason:She complained of ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and the other members of his family.She mentioned about the demand of a car.She further stated in the complaint that her father had already given a dowry of Rs.4 lakhs besides gifts like motor-cycle, T.V. fridge, cooler, washing machine, sofa, bed, almirah, five suit cases, one big box and gold ornaments in which necklace, chain, 6 pieces bangles, ear rings, jhumka, tops, ring and silver ornaments in which two payals, bichiyas and other things, the price of which was around Rs.5 lakhs.The Appellant’s husband was working in the Air Force and he was threatening that she would be killed if the demand of additional dowry was not met.She also complained of attempted rape by her father-in-law.Allegations were made by the Appellant in her complaint against ill-treatment by the Respondents.On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 11.10.2010 against Santosh Kumar Tiwari.By an order dated 20.01.2014, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while taking note of the fact that the names of Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Respondent Nos. 6 to 2 12 were mentioned in column No.11 of the charge-sheet, issued summons to Respondent Nos.2 to 11 along with Santosh Kumar Tiwari.The Respondents filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings which was allowed by an order dated 22.09.2014 by the High Court, the legality of which is assailed in this appeal. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,964,831 | The Courtheard the learned counsel for the petitioner.According to him, firstly, the detenu was involved in one adverse caseand one ground case and the detaining authority, before recording hissubjective satisfaction as to the necessity of detaining the detenu underpreventive detention, should apply his mind to record so and in the instant casethe admitted position is that the detenu has not moved any bail applicationbefore any court of criminal law but, the detaining authority, while recordinghis subjective satisfaction, has not even stated that there was any likelihoodor real possibility or imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail andthis would be indicative of the fact that the authority could not have arrivedat the subjective satisfaction proper.Secondly, there was delay in theconsideration and disposal of the representation made by the detenu.Accordingto the counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 02.03.2010, wasreceived by the Government on 05.03.2010 and though remarks were called for fromthe detaining authority on 08.03.2010, such remarks were received by theGovernment only on 17.03.2010, after a delay of nine days and the said delayremains explained and this unexplained delay of nine days has caused prejudiceto the interest of the detenu.Therefore, according to the learned counsel, onthe above two grounds the order of detention has got to be set aside.5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor forthe State on the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.As could be seen from the material supplied by thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the representationdated 02.03.2010 had been received by the Government on 05.03.2010 and thoughremarks were called for from the detaining authority on 08.03.2010, suchremarks were received by the Government only on 17.03.2010, after a delay ofnine days.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of theCourt that in between 08.03.2010 and 17.03.2010, there were three holidays.Even assuming to be so, there were six clear working days which remainunexplained.10.Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and theimpugned order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.14/2010, dated 21.02.2010, passedby the 1st respondent is quashed.The detenu Navaneethakrishnan,S/o.gbTo The District Collector and, District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['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. |
19,649,551 | 1 Sl.112 October 5, 2016 C.R.M. 7178 of 2016 s.d.rejected In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 2, 2016 in connection with Pandua P. S. Case No. 486 of 2016 dated 14.08.2016 under Sections 147/148/149/324/325/326/333/332/353/307/186/427/ 506of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Palash Banerjee....petitioner.Mr. A. K. Addhya ...... for the petitioner.The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected and the 2 application is dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,496,088 | [Order of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] Petitioner is the detenu viz. Murugan, aged 32, S/o.The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.942 of 2019 on the file of T-13 Kundrathur Police Station for offences u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.Perused the materials on record.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the case cited as similar, the offence alleged was under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, whereas the ground case has been registered against the detenu under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.The non-consideration of such aspect 2/4http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2259 of 2019 reflects non-application of mind.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner,the similar case referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority to infer that the detenu would be granted bail in the ground case, is not a similar case.Hence, we find that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu viz., Murugan, aged 35 years, S/o.Murugesan, in No.50/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 19.08.2019, is quashed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.2259 of 2019 20.01.2020 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,496,356 | P.W.1 Antony Sagayanathan is the General Manager of Ideal Beach Resort, Mamallapuram in which the accused herein was working as a Cook.On 23.11.2006 at about 10:45 a.m, P.W.2, Mohan informed to P.W.1 about the quarrel happened between the deceased and the appellant.On seeing the appellant/accused he assaulted the deceased on his cheek, P.W.1 went to the scene of occurrence and warned both the appellant and the deceased to go to their department in which they are working.P.W.6, Kumari who was working as sweeper witnessed the said occurrence.After ten minutes, it was informed to P.W.1 over phone that the deceased fell unconscious due to the chest pain in the rest room, thereby P.W.1 arranged a vehicle through P.W.4, Boopalan and sent the deceased along with P.W.7 to Srudeep Hospital in which the deceased was given first aid.However, P.W.8, Dr.Indiragandhi, Doctor attached to Srudeep Hospital treated the deceased and advised them to go to some other reputed Hospital.3.2. P.W.7, Elumalai informed P.W.1 over phone that deceased was referred to some reputed hospital and P.W.1 instructed P.W.7 to go to Chettinad Hospital and then frequently questioned over phone about the condition of the deceased for which P.W.7 replied that the deceased was unconscious.After few minutes, Doctor declared that deceased brought dead.Immediately, P.W.1 preferred a Complaint to Mahabalipuram Police Station under Ex.3.3. P.W.12, then Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabalipuram registered the case in Crime No.598 of 2006 under Section 302 of I.P.C. Ex.P.7 is the First Information Report (FIR).After the registration of the case, P.W.12 handed over the case records to P.W.13, Gunasekaran, Inspector of Police, Mamallapuram Police Station for further investigation.P.W.13 took the same for investigation and rushed to scene of occurrence.In the presence of one Natarajan and P.W.5, Yesuraj, he prepared the Observation Mahazar under Ex.P.9 and the Rough Sketch under Ex.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.Thereafter, P.W.13 went to the Chettinad Hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Muruganandham in the presence of the witnesses.P.10 is the Inquest Report.Great Vessels Intact.Skull - Intact.Brain-NAD Stomach-Empty.Nil Specific smell.Nuecissa NAD All other internal Organs NAD, C/S-pale-Bladder-Empty Viscaner-Presceid for chemical analysis and blood for grouping opinion-Reserved Pending Chemical analytic Report, Death would have occurred 26 30 hours prior to postmortem.P.W.9 preserved the viscera and sent the same for chemical examination.After receiving the Chemical Examination Report, P.W.9 gave an opinion that the deceased would have died due to the impact of the injury sustained by him on his neck and chest.She issued the Postmortem Report under Ex.P.3 and the Opinion Report given by P.W.9 was accepted as Ex.The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.142 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.The appellant/accused was charged for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. By judgment dated 05.04.2010, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.After completing the above formalities, he made arrangements for sending the dead body to Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital for conducting postmortem, for which P.w.13 directed P.W.10 Arumugam, Head Constable.On 24.11.2006, P.W.9, Dr.During the time of postmortem, he found the following injuries:1)Abrasions seen on back of Right shoulder 2 cm x 1 cm, left temple 1 x 0.5 cm left mandible 5 cm x 1 cm2)Contusion seen on front of left side of neck measuring 6 cm x 4 cm O/D Underlying areas found Congested3)Diffuse Contusion seen On front of Left Chest 7 cm x 3 cm O/D Fracture seen on 2nd to 4th ribs along its lateral Geenateue with surrounding areas of contusions Pevi cerebral Cavity contained 50 ml of fluid blood.Heart chambers contained few CC of fluid blood.In continuation of the investigation, on 25.11.2006, at about 05:00 a.m, P.W.13 arrested the accused at Kovalam Bus Stand and send him for remand.On the same day, P.W.13 enquired the Doctor who gave first aid treatment to the deceased at Srudeep Hospital, Mamallapuram.Further, on 08.12.2006, P.W.13 enquired the Doctor who conducted autopsy and recorded his statement.After the receipt of chemical examination report, he had completed investigation and laid a Charge Sheet against the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case on the side of prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked.O.P.No.1272 of 2006 dated 20.12.2006, was accepted as Ex.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 stated in his evidence about the information given by P.W.2 and with regard to the quarrel between the deceased and the accused/appellant and also about the arrangement of the vehicle for sending the deceased to the Hospital and also stated about the instruction given to P.W.7 for admitting in the reputed hospital.6. P.W.2 is a sweeper in the same Hotel stated in his evidence as on 23.11.2006, at about 10:30 to 10:45 a.m, the appellant/accused assaulted the deceased on his cheek.P.W.3 is also a staff in the said Hotel who heard the news about the death of the deceased.P.W.4, Travel Manager in the Ideal Beach Resort gave evidence with regard to the arrangement of vehicle for sending the deceased to the hospital.P.W.5 is the witness present at the time of preparing the Observation Mahazar by the P.W.13 but he had not supported the case of prosecution in the trial Court.P.W.6, Staff in the same Hotel heard about the death of deceased.Further he stated in his evidence that when the deceased and the appellant are quarreled with each other, P.W.1 is also present.The next witness P.W.7 is a person accompanying the deceased at the time of getting first aid in Srudeep Hospital situated in Mamallapuram and as per the instructions given by P.W.1, P.W.7 admitted the deceased in the Chettinad Hospital.P.Ws.8 & 11 were stated in their evidence with regard to the treatment given to the deceased.P.W.9 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave opinion that death had been occurred due to the injury sustained by the deceased in his neck and chest.Thereafter, P.Ws.12 & 13 gave evidence with regard to the manner of investigation viz., preparation of Observation Mahazar, Recovery of M.Os and laying of Charge Sheet.The learned Trial Judge with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution witnesses, accusation to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and for which he pleaded not guilty.Further, he did not just examined any witnesses except to mark Ex.The learned trial Judge on perusal of the materials placed and considering the arguments advanced in this case convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated supra.Challenging the same, the present Appeal has been filed.9. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and perused the records carefully.In otherwords, merely based on the surmises and conjectures and without any legal evidences, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the minor contradictions arising between the evidences of eyewitnesses cannot be looked into for deciding the case of prosecution.Based on the information given by P.W.2, P.W.1 went to the scene of occurrence.However, P.W.1 instructed the appellant to go to his room.In the said circumstances, it is an admitted fact that if the appellant is assaulted as stated by P.Ws. 1 & 2, there could not be a chance of sustaining injury in the chest.In this regard, Doctor who gave treatment in the Chettinad Hospital clearly stated in his evidence, during the time of treatment in CPR (Cardio Pulmonary Resurrection) method, there may be the possibility of fracture.With regard to the presence of P.W.2 in the occurrence place, it relate the elements given by P.W.2 who have admitted in the cross-examination that in the morning, he went to the Koyambedu Market for purchasing the vegetables.Further, basically P.W.2 is a Sweeper, so he is having the liability to perform his duty only on the instructions given by his Superior Officers.In the said circumstances, the above evidence alone is not sufficient to hold that it is not probable for P.W.2 is present at the time of occurrence even assume that P.W.2 is not present at the time of occurrence, the evidence given by P.W.1 alone sufficient to hold before the death of the deceased, the appellant/accused assaulted the deceased by using his hands. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,964,987 | However, it is alleged that thereafter unlawful demand of amount of Rs. 5,000/-, allegedly unpaid balance amount of dowry, was made to her by the accused persons, along with one tola gold, to be brought by her from her parental house, and she was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the said demand.It is also alleged that PW3 Prakash Gadekar i.e. victim's maternal uncle and PW4 Mohan Jagtap ie.4 It is further the case of prosecution that PW3 Prakash brought Sunita to the house of her father, but her father-in-law took her back to matrimonial home.After lapse of about 8 days, father-in-law of victim Sunita came to the house of the complainant i.e. father of Sunita and informed that Sunita was sick and she was required to be taken to the hospital.Thereupon the complainant i.e. father of Sunita stated that he had no money, and therefore, her father-in-law went back and on the next day brought Sunita to the house of the complainant.In the said context, coming to the deposition of the complainant PW2 Digambar Jagtap, wherein he stated that Sunita was his daughter, who married with the appellant Jaihind on 14.5.1993, but Sunita expired on 31.8.1993 i.e. hardly within the span of 3½ years of their marriage.He also stated that after the marriage, Sunita went to her matrimonial home and she was treated well there for initial period of two months.However, when PW3 Prakash i.e. maternal uncle of Sunita went to Sunita's house, he was informed to bring Rs. 5,000/- and one tola gold by the accused persons, otherwise they would not allow Sunita for cohabitation.It is also alleged that accused demanded the said amount since they received lesser dowry in the marriage.12 It is further alleged by PW2 Digamar that when his nephew, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 8 namely PW4 Mohan went to the house of accused, Sunita informed him that accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- and one tola gold and she was subjected to cruelty by the accused.13 Thereafter PW2 Digambar stated that PW2 Prakash brought Sunita to the house of Digambar, and at that time she informed PW2 Digambar and his wife that accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- and one tola gold and she was subjected to cruelty by the accused.He also stated that Sunita informed him that she was not provided food and accused no.1 used to assault her and accused nos. 2 and 3 used to illtreat her.She further stated to PW2 Digambar that accused would not allow Sunita to cohabit, unless their demands are complied with.He also deposed that at his residence, he found Sunita sustained attacks of epilepsy.Hence, she was taken to a mantrik, but he was out of station, and therefore, they started returning to his house, however, during said return journey, his daughter Sunita expired at S.T. stand Kaij.Thereafter the dead body of Sunita was taken for autopsy at the Government Hospital i.e. Primary Health Centre, Belkund.As regards the delay in lodging the first information report, PW2 Digambar stated that he had been to the police station in the evening, but since nobody was present there, he lodged the report on the next day morning.He denied that Sunita was suffering from epilepsy prior to her marriage.Suggestion was given to him that accused treated Sunita well, but same was denied by him.15 That takes me to the evidence of PW3 Prakash Gadekar, maternal uncle of victim, who deposed that Sunita was his niece and he had been to her matrimonial house to bring her for Nagpanchami festival.At that time, all the accused asked him that they would not send Sunita unless their demand for Rs.5,000/- and one tola gold was fulfilled by them.He also stated that while coming to village Kawali, Sunita informed him that she has been subjected to cruelty by the accused because of non-compliance of said demand and she has been subjected to cruelty of unbearable nature.She further stated that accused used to tell her that she was of black mouth and she was not auspicious.Thereafter the father-in-law of Sunita took her back to her matrimonial home and PW3 Prakash again went to the house of accused while retuning from other village and found that Sunita was sick.Then her father-in-law demanded money, but PW3 Prakash stated that he did not have money and returned to village.DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 9.6.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 18.6.2010 J U D G M E N T :-1 The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by judgment and order dated 2.4.1998, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 69 of 1995, thereby convicting the appellant/accused no.1 herein under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-with default condition for non-payment of fine amount to suffer further ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 2 Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::2 At this juncture, it is to be noted that the appellant/accused no.1-Jaihind Sitaram Khale, and accused no.2-Sitaram Maruti Khale and accused no.3-Padmawati Sitaram Khale faced the trial under Sessions Case No. 69 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant/accused no.1 as well as accused nos. 2 and 3 were not found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code; as well as accused nos. 2 and 3 were not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, accused nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the said offence, but the appellant/accused no.1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced thereunder as afore said and the said conviction and sentence has been assailed by accused no.1 i.e. appellant in the present appeal.3 The factual matrix of the prosecution case, can be summarized as under :-The appellant/accused no.1 Jaihind is the son of acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3 and appellant herein married with deceased Sunita on 14.5.1993 and after marriage Sunita went to her matrimonial home i.e. the house of the accused for cohabitation.Initially, she was treated well for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 3 the period of two months.cousin brother of victim Sunita had visited the matrimonial home of deceased Sunita on different times and at that time PW3 Prakash was informed to bring Rs.5,000/- and one tola gold, otherwise Sunita would not be sent for cohabitation purpose and PW4 Mohan visited the house of Sunita, she informed him that accused demanded Rs.5,000/- and one tola gold and she was subjected to cruelty on that count.It is also alleged that PW3 Prakash went to the house of Sunita to bring her for Nagpanchami festival and at that time also accused asked for Rs.5,000/- and one tola gold.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::Thereafter when ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 4 Sunita was residing with the complainant, she informed him about the assault to her at the hands of the appellant herein and also threats to her that she would not be permitted to cohabit with the appellant unless demand is complied with.It is also alleged that Sunita was suffering from attacks of epilepsy, and therefore, the complainant took her to a mantrik at village Kaij in District Beed and while they were returning from Kaij, Sunita died at the S.T. stand Kaij, and hence, the complainant brought dead body of Sunita in the jeep to his house, and thereafter lodged the complaint (Exh.43) with police station Bhada.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::PW5 PSI Abdul Hamid Khan Pathan also received the inquest panchanama Exh. 35 and provisional certificate of death and statements recorded.Accordingly he prepared the spot panchanama Exh. 36 and recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused.6 It is also the case of prosecution that PW1 Dr. Santosh Vedpathak was attached to the Primary Health Centre at Belkund, Taluka ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 5 Ausa on 1.9.1993 and he received the dead body of deceased Sunita with report of police.He preserved the viscera for examination and same was sent to the office of Chemical Analyser and after receipt of report (Exh.40) from the Chemical Analyser and on going through the postmortem report, he gave the cause of death of Sunita as death due to epilepsy.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::It is further the case of prosecution that as it transpired during investigation that Sunita was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons, statements of several witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation.Accordingly, after completion of investigation, PW5 PSI Abdul Hamid Khan Pathan forwarded the chargesheet to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga and since the offence was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the said case was committed to the court of Sessions at Osmanabad.8 Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad framed the charge (Exh.29) against the appellant and acquitted accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant/accused no.1 and acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3 faced the trial for the said charges under Sessions Case No. 69 of 1995 and to substantiate the said charges, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses as mentioned below :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::(1) PW1 Dr. Santosh Dattatraya Vedpathak, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Sunita.(2) PW2 Digambar Kundlik Jagtap, complainant, father of victim Sunita (3) PW3 Prakash Gyanba Gadekar, maternal uncle of victim Sunita (4) PW4 Mohan Bhimrao Jagtap, cousin brother of deceased Sunita (5) PW5 PSI Abdul Hamid Khan Pathan, investigating officer 9 The defence of the accused persons was of total denial and according to their defence, the death of Sunita was natural death and she has not committed suicide, and therefore, according to the defence, they have not committed any offence as alleged and they have been implicated in this case falsely, and therefore, they claimed to be innocent.10 After scrutinizing and alalysing the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad convicted the appellant/accused no.1 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month; whereas the learned Trial Judge acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3 of the said offence.Learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 7 Trial Judge acquitted the appellant nos. 1 to 3 of the offence punishable under Sections 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.However, since the appellant/accused no.1 was convicted and sentenced as afore said under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and since the appellant/accused no.1 was aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of conviction and sentence, he filed the present appeal challenging the same and requesting for quashment thereof.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::To enable to advert to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to deal with the material evidence adduced/produced by the prosecution on record.PW2 Digambar stated that both the said incidents were narrated to him by PW3 Prakash and PW4 Mohan respectively.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::He also stated that he does not know whether accused came for her funeral.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::Then Sunita came to his house and she was sick and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 10 suffering from epilepsy.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::16 During cross-examination, PW3 Prakash denied that he took Sunita to his village while returning from other village.A contradiction was brought in the cross-examination in that respect.He stated that he did not state before police in respect of bringing Sunita while returning from other village.He also denied that Sunita was suffering from epilepsy prior to her marriage.He further denied that accused treated her medically.An omission was brought in the cross-examination of PW3 Prakash that accused told him to pay Rs. 5,000/- and one tola gold and then to take Sunita to her parents' house, amounting to improvement in his deposition and omission in his police statement, and the said omission is fatal and goes to the root of the matter in respect of alleged demand of Rs. 5,000/-and one tola gold by the accused persons from PW3 Prakash.Another omission was brought on record in the cross-examination in respect of bringing Sunita to village Kawali by her father-in-law, but apparently same is a minor omission.17 Coming to the deposition of PW4 Mohan Jagtap, wherein he stated that Sunita was his cousin and he had been to her house.He also stated that Sunita told him that all the accused were demanding Rs.5,000/- and one tola gold and Sunita requested him to inform the said aspect to her father.Accordingly, he stated that he informed the said fact to the father of Sunita.He further stated that accused told Sunita that she ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 11 would not be allowed to cohabit unless said demands are complied with.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::He further stated that she was subjected to cruelty on that count.Then he persuaded Sunita.He further deposed that Sunita was not provided food, and therefore, became weak.An omission was bought in the cross-examination of PW4 Mohan in respect of not providing food to Sunita and thereby she became weak and same also is a material omission.He also stated in the cross-examination that he had been to the house of Sunita and she narrated him about the said demands and cruelty.Suggestion was given to him that they decided to lodge the complaint against the accused, as Sunita died at Kaij, to avoid the complications, but same was denied by him.He further stated that there was no discussion before lodging the complaint.18 Turning to the testimony of PW1 Dr. Santosh Vedpathak, who conducted the postmortem, he stated that on 1.9.1993 he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre at Belkund, Taluka Ausa and on 1.9.1993 he received dead body of Sunita Jaihind Rawale with report of police.He reserved the opinion regarding death of Sunita till the chemical analysis report was received, since she had preserved viscera.Accordingly, he stated that he received the report from the Chemical Analyser at Exh. 40 and on going through the said report, he opined the cause of death of Sunita as, "Sunita died due to epilepsy " .::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::19 On the background of the afore said evidence, adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the evidence led by the prosecution is not legal evidence and the testimonies of PW3 Prakash and PW4 Mohan are the testimonies amounting to hearsay evidence.He further submitted that victim Sunita died in the custody of the complainant and the appellant cannot be held responsible therefor, nor any cruelty/illtreatment to deceased Sunita can be attributed towards the appellant.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the contents of the first information report were dictated to the complainant by another person and the first information report is not the complainant's own statement.20 As regards alleged illtreatment by the appellant to deceased Sunita, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the allegations regarding not providing food to Sunita are baseless, since the complainant himself stated in his deposition that Sunita was having good health.Moreover, it is also submitted that no specific instances of cruelty were cited by the prosecution witnesses to show the type of cruelty, physical or mental, that was alleged to have been extended to the victim Sunita, and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 13 therefore, it is canvassed that there is no legal evidence in respect of alleged cruelty to which victim Sunita was allegedly subjected to by the appellant herein.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::21 According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution failed to adduce/produce the evidence in respect of cruelty sustained by victim Sunita at the hands of appellant and even no neibhbourers were examined as witnesses in that respect.It is also canvassed that there are no specific allegations, nor there is direct evidence of cruelty adduced/produced against the appellant by the prosecution, and hence, there is no reliable legal evidence regarding the alleged cruelty on record.22 Learned counsel for the appellant also canvassed that the appellant was admittedly acquitted from the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly subjecting his wife i.e. Sunita to cruelty and causing her dowry death.However, admittedly the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for want of acceptable evidence, but convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and his acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was not reportedly further challenged, but his conviction for the offence ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 14 punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged by way of present appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were not based on legal evidence.It is also canvassed that the concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual and depends upon social and economic status to which the parties belong.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under Section ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 15 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has to be termed as being only a hearsay evidence.Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::14 It follows, therefore, that there was no legal evidence tendered in the case which could be made the basis for returning a finding with respect to the alleged cruelty of the accused with the deceased............. ............ ............... ............ ........... "24 Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the observations made in the case of Deepak s/o Bhimrao Bharne and ors.Vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 987, which are as follows :-".......... ............ ............... ............ ............14 There is no doubt that; the concept of cruelty ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 16 and its effect varies from individual to individual and it also depends on the social and economic status to which the parties belong.It is also true that cruelty may not be physical and even mental torture and abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty, in the instant case, the father of deceased has spoken of complaint; of beating by Sunita.However, as observed above, his evidence is found to be exaggerating and contradictory to the seizure memo.PW5 Baby speaks bare minimum on the point of alleged cruelty.Moreover, she is a married sister of deceased Sunita and is not expected to possess knowledge in respect of alleged harassment to Sunita.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::On the point of cruelty, evidence of PW6 Vimal can also not be accepted.In answer to a question, she has deposed in cross-examination that Sunita had gone to Ghatanji prior to 2-3 days of the incident.However, according to PW 4 Narayan, father of the deceased, the incident occurred on the day on which Sunita returned from Ghatanji place of her husband.Thus, in absence of direct oral or documentary evidence, the prosecution case cannot be accepted on the basis of hear-say evidence............ ............ ............... ............ ...........17 It shall not be necessary to dilate upon this question in view of the fact that the very proof of cruelty either by primary or direct evidence has come forward in this case.In view of the discussion that I have made about type and quality of evidence that has come on record, I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the evidence as to ill-treatment or cruelty brought by the prosecution is not based on direct evidence.The nature of evidence is hearsay.It shall be unsafe to rely upon such evidence to base and uphold the conviction.There is absence of proof of cruelty due to dowry demand.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::............ ............ ............... ............ ............19 In view of what is stated above, prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased Sunita was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and the accused/appellant abetted the commission of suicide............ ............ ............... ............ ........... "Learned Additional Public Prosecution Smt. B.R.Khekale for the respondent countered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently and submitted that Sunita married with the appellant on 14.5.1993 and her death took place within a span of about 3½ months i.e. on 31.8.1993, which itself indicates the gravity of illtreatment and harassment, to which deceased Sunita was subjected to.As regards the alleged demand, as per the first information report, the complainant stated that Sunita expired on 31.8.1993 at about 2.00 p.m. and the first information report came to be lodged on the next day i.e. on 1.9.1993 at 8.00 p.m. and considering the mental condition of the complainant, who is father of victim Sunita, after death of his daughter at S.T. stand Kaij, it is submitted that there is apparently no delay in lodging the first information report.Besides that, it is canvassed that the complainant has given explanation in his deposition in respect of the said delay that he had been to the concerned police station to lodge the first information report on the same day i.e on 31.8.1993, but nobody was present there to take his complaint.It is further submitted that even if it is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 18 considered that there is delay of one day in lodging the first information report, same is not fatal to the case of prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::26 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there are no material contradictions/omissions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to discard their depositions and the prosecution witnesses have withstood to the cross-examination and categorically stated that victim Sunita was subjected to the cruelty by the appellant.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further stated that PW3 Prakash and PW4 Mohan had personally visited the house of victim Sunita and witnessed the illtreatment sustained by Sunita at her matrimonial home.Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant thereunder is appropriate and proper and no interference therein is warranted in the present appeal, and hence same is dismissed.27 With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, I have perused the impugned judgment dated 2.4.1998 convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence on record.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent anxiously, I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, since "cruelty" as defined under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 19 Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is mentioned below :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::" Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation :- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means :-(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. "28 Keeping in mind the definition of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and explanation thereto and applying the parameters thereof to the evidence on record i.e. the testimonies of PW2 complainant Digambar Jagtap, PW3 Prakash Gadekar, maternal uncle of deceased Sunita, and PW4 Mohan Jagtap, cousin brother of victim Sunita, it does not appear that victim Sunita was subjected to cruelty by the appellant amounting to willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive Sunita to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of deceased Sunita, as well as it does not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 20 appear that harassment allegedly caused to Sunita by the appellant was with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::Moreover, the afore said witnesses have made general and omnibus allegations in respect of harassment and illtreatment given to deceased Sunita by the accused persons, but there are no specific instances of cruelty sustained by deceased Sunita at the hands of appellant narrated by the said witnesses, which comes within the four corners of the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, as referred in afore said both the Explanations thereunder.Besides that, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness nor even neighbourer to substantiate the allegations in respect of cruelty at the hands of appellant to deceased Sunita and no explanation has been given in that respect.29 Apart from that the concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual and depends upon social and economic status to which the parties belong and reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gananath Pattnaik (cited supra).Moreover, it is also material to note that since the prosecution evidence did not constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, as he is acquitted thereunder, it is under suspicion whether same set of circumstances would ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: 21 constitute offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::30 In the circumstances, it is amply clear that there is no legal evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged crime under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt, and hence, the conviction and sentence, awarded to the appellant by the learned Trial Judge, shall not sustain and same deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present appeal.31 In the result, present appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by way of judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 69 of 1995, dated 2.4.1998 stands quashed and set aside.The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted.Fine, if any paid by the appellant, be refunded to him.The appellant is on bail.His bail bond shall stand cancelled.(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE.dbm/cra128.98 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:02 ::: | ['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. |
196,505,247 | Perused the case-diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.306/2018 registered at Police Station Pipalrawan, District Dewas for committing the offence under Sections 394, 294, 34 and 120-B of IPC.As per the prosecution case, the complainant while riding his motorcycle was stopped on way by co-accused lady who was given lift by the complainant but after some time the complainant was stopped on way by other co- accused persons.The complainant was taken to an isolated spot by the co-accused persons and was assaulted and his motorcycle was snatched along with Rs.3,000-00 which he was having at that point of time.FIR was lodged by the complainant.Investigation perused and in the memo of the lady, namely Mamta @ Monika it was revealed that she had committed this offence as per well defined conspiracy designed by the present applicant Popsingh who had deputed other three co-accused persons to commit the offence.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no record to connect the crime with the applicant and the charge-sheet has been filed.He also submits that the -: 2 :- applicant did not himself cause any assault on the complainant and he was not present on the spot.He also pointed out discrepancy in the investigation process as in the memorandum of applicant as well as that of another co- accused Rajesh, identical statements have been written as per which both the persons have stated to have obtained the ID Card of Hero Life Company.-: 2 :-Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant was master mind of whole conspiracy and the alleged offence has been committed at his behest.The applicant be denied bail.Perused the case-diary.Considered the rival contentions.Charge-sheet has been filed and there is no criminal antecedents against the present applicant.As per the prosecution story itself the assault was caused by other co-accused person and the only evidence against the present applicant is memorandum of other co-accused persons.Considering these aspects, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 [One Lac Rupees] with local solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Cc as per rules. | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 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. |
196,576,382 | This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary condition prevailing now a days.Sri Karunkar Singh, learned AGA has filed written objection, which is taken on record.The applicant is facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 51 of 2020, under Sections 316, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal.The allegations are that both the contesting parties are co-villagers and there is some dispute regarding the landed property, It is alleged that named accused person wanted to grab the property, then there was minor scuffle between informant and the applicant.The informant's wife Manju tried to save her husband during this process she was also pushed and assaulted.It is alleged that named accused persons has assaulted his wife by hitting on her abdomen.She was in family way and carrying a foetus of four months.Consequently on account of this she was aborted.Let the applicant- Hukum Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 51 of 2020, under Sections 316, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Since the bail application has been decided under extra ordinary circumstance, thus in the interest of justice, following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith.Needles to mention, that these additional condition are imposed to cope up with the emergent condition:- | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits