id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
313,382 |
The prosecution case is as under :-Most of the accused in this case are residents of village Naigaon, Taluka Babhulgaon, District : Yavatmal, while some of them are from the neighbouring villages.The date of incident is dated 6-6-1990 at about 12 Noon.Chandabai Kambale (PW 4) lodged report against accused Ayyub (A-1) in Police Station Babhulgaon at about 2.00 p.m., alleging that accused Ayyub tried to molest her, abused her in filthy language and gave threats.Shri Deshmukh, the Police Sub-Inspector of Babhulgaon Police Station, was not present at that time in the Police Station.PW 4 Chandabai met P.S.I. Deshmukh and informed him about the incident.P.S.I. Deshmukh alongwith two head constables Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3) and Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) and one Police Constable Ramchandra Ingole left the police station for Naigaon.At about 2.30 p.m., they reached the Babhulgaon bus stand and since no bus was available, they went to Naigaon in an auto-rikshaw No. MTV 6706 driven by Ravi Markand (PW 5).P.S.I. Deshmukh and policemen got down from the auto near the school of Naigaon.Accused Ayyub was reluctant to accompany the policemen.However, policemen caught accused Ayyub and made him sit on the passenger seat in the auto.At that time, A-22 Afsanabi, the wife of accused Ayyub, came in front of the auto-rickshaw and asked P.S.I. Deshmukh as to why her husband was being taken.There was marriage in the house of accused Chhotushaha (A-17) and number of persons had gathered in the said marriage.There was a marriage pendal.Afasanabi told the persons gathered in the marriage pendal that her husband was being taken by policemen without any reason.Accused Kayyum (A-2), accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) and accused Chhotushaha (A-17) and other persons started running behind the auto.The auto-rikshaw came in a square and from there proceeded towards Naigaon S.T. stand.It was chased by the persons who were running behind the auto pelting stones and shouting.On seeing the mob behind the auto-rikshaw, accused Babarao Bobade (A-11), who was driving his harrow, all of a sudden, put the harrow on the road as an obstacle and thereby the auto-rikshaw was stopped near the tamarind tree which was towards West of the approach road of Naigaon.P.S.I. Deshmukh and police constable Ingole got down from the auto.Accused Ayyub was taken away from the auto by two accused persons.Two head constables were caught by four accused.At that time, accused Kayyum (A-2) went near P.S.I. Deshmukh and asked him not to take his brother Ayyub (A-1).P.S.I. Deshmukh told him that he has arrested the accused Ayyub under section 151, Cr.P.C. and he will be released on bail from Tahsil Office, Babhulgaon.Noor (A-3), all of a sudden, caught the waist of P.S.I. Deshmukh from back side and Mohabbatkhan (A-23) caught the right hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh.As soon as accused Ayyub was taken away from the auto-rickshaw, he immediately rushed towards P.S.I. Deshmukh and asked him why he was being taken on the report of prostitute.He snatched the revolver from the holster which was tucked to the leather belt worned by P.S.I. Deshmukh.At that time, police constable Ingole came near P.S.I. Deshmukh in order to rescue him.Accused Ayyub (A-1) fired one bullet of revolver which hit police constable Ingole and he fell down.Accused Ayyub fired second bullet towards P.S.I. Deshmukh.He missed it so it was hit to accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23).Mohabbhatkhan sustained injury and he sat down.As soon as the right hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh was released, he tried to release his left hand.In the meanwhile, accused Ayyub fired third bullet on the right side head portion of P.S.I. Deshmukh, as a result of which he immediately fell down.After firing third bullet, the two head constables Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3) and Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) were released by the accused persons and accused ran away towards village Naigaon.Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) asked Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3) to go to police station, Babhulgaon to lodge report.One Mini bus came there from Kalamb side which was stopped by PW 7 Babarao and he asked the driver of that Mini bus, namely, one Gawande, to take the injured.At that time, injured Mohabbatkhan (A-23) alongwith him relatives boarded the Minihus and asked the driver not to take the policemen.However, PW 3 Ramprasad Shrivas managed to go in that Mini bus to Babhulgaon.He went to Police Station and lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 145) at about 4.00 p.m. to Shri Vithal Mandaokar (PW 16), A.S.I. On this report, Crime No. 96 of 1990 under sections 307, 147, 148, 353 and 333 of Indian Penal Code was registered.Vithal Mandaokar (PW 16) communicated the information to his superior officers, Yavatmal by wireless message.He gave requisition letter (Exhibit 225) to the photographer Shri Kale requesting him to go to Naigaon immediately with his camera and to take photographs.The Tahsildar and Naib Tahsildar of Babhulgaon, on receiving information about the so-called firing, came on the spot with the Medical Officer Dr. Kadukar.Dr. Kadukar examined P.S.I. Deshmukh and police constable Ingole and declared them dead.Shri Ashok Thorat (PW 19), who was Circle Police Inspector, received the wireless massage at Yavatmal at about 4.00 p.m. He immediately went to Police Station, Yavatmal with four police constables with guns and came to Naigaon at about 4.50 p.m. Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) was present on the spot.Ashok Thorat (PW 19) took investigation in his hands and drew inquest panchanama (Exhibit 169) over the dead body of P.S.I. Deshmukh and seized the articles which were lying near the dead body of P.S.I. Deshmukh under seizure memo (Exhibit 178).He also effected inquest panchanama (Exhibit 170) over the dead body of police constable Ingole and seized the articles which were lying near the dead body of P.C. Ingole vide seizure panchanama (Exhibit 179).Circle Police Inspector Shri Thorat (PW 19) sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination to the Medical Officer, Yavatmal.He drew spot panchanama (Exhibit 168) where the dead bodies were lying and also took measurements.Some cash was found near the dead bodies which was attached under the panchanama (Exhibit 180).C.P.I. Thorat then went to village Naigaon and drew the panchanama (Exhibit 168) of the place where the accused Ayyub (A-1) was caught by policemen.He took search of the house of accused Ayyub and seized blood-stained Paijama and Bangali Shirt under the panchanama (Exhibit 172).He recorded the statements of some villagers, arrested some accused persons in the night itself and on 7-6-1990 he recorded the statements of witnesses Ramrao Khandare (PW 6), Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7), Ramesh Bawane, Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3) and others.Ravi Markand (PW 5) had brought the auto-rickshaw which was damaged condition and C.P.I. Thorat (PW 19) effected the panchanama (Exhibit 263).Accused Kayyum (A-2), Sk.Noor (A-3) and Sk.Rustam (A-4) were also arrested on that very day.The Medical Officer Dr. Ashok Chaudhari (PW 14) conducted the autopsy over the dead bodies of P.S.I. Deshmukh and police constable Ingole.Mohabbatkhan (A-23) was admitted in Yavatmal Hospital.Dr. Sunil Sargar (PW 15) examined him and gave the injury report (Exhibit 234).The dying declaration (Exhibit 235) was recorded.On 8-6-1990, C.P.I. Thorat (PW 19) arrested the accused Ayyub (A-1) at about 9.55 a.m. The seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser for analysis.PW 4 Chandabai was residing at village Naigaon with her husband Subhash Kambale in a hut near the house of accused Ayyub.Her husband Subhash Kambale and accused Ayyub were dealing in illicit distillation of liquor.She has stated that at about 12 Noon on the date of incident 6-6-1990, accused Ayyub came to her hut in a drunken condition and demanded liquor from her.She was alone in the house.Seeing her alone, accused Ayyub abused her in filthy language and caught her right hand.She gave a jerk, rescued herself and came in open Court-yard of her house.It is suggested to this witness that accused Ayyub had not gone to her house at the relevant time which she denied.It is true that on her own saying she was not married to Subhash Kambale or to Bhimrao or with one Madhu.It appears that she is a woman of easy virtue.Her version that at the relevant time accused Ayyub had gone to her house, abused her and threatened her is supported by her report (Exhibit 148).It has also come in her evidence that she insisted that P.S.I. Deshmukh should himself go to Naigaon to make enquiry in this case.It is mentioned in the report (Exhibit 148) that by consuming liquor, accused No. 1 Ayyub hurled abuses at the neighbours and at the relevant time accused Ayyub, on consuming liquor, hurled filthy abuses and gave threats to her.She has not stated in the report that Accused No. 1 abused her in filthy language, entered in her house and caught her right hand, as she is deposing in Court at the instance of Subhash Kambale and her explanation is also not acceptable about omission of the aforesaid facts in her report (Exhibit 148).But from her evidence, it is proved that accused Ayyub by consuming liquor abused her in filthy language and threatened her.PW 1 Abhiman resides near the school of Naigaon.He has stated that on the date of marriage of the sister of Chootushaha (A-17), there was marriage pendal in front of the house of Chhotushaha.At about 2.00 p.m., he saw that two police constables (Shipayee) forcibly made accused Ayyub sit in the auto-rikshaw.He also noticed that two policemen sat near the driver of the auto and two policemen sat on the passengers seat near the accused Ayyub.When the driver was about to start the auto, Afasanabi the wife of accused No. 1 Ayyub came near the auto and asked policemen not to beat her husband.The driver of the auto went ahead and it went towards S.T. stand.He further stated that some of the accused persons who had gathered for the marriage started running behind the auto and he saw accused Kayyum (A-2), Mohabbatkhan (A-23) and Chhotushaha (A-17) and other persons running behind the auto.In cross-examination, he was contradicted with portions marked 'A' to 'F' in respect of his police statement.As regards portion marked 'E' he denied that "accused Ayyub (A-1) was saying that Chandabai was a loafer and I will not come on her report then police Jamadar and police were forcibly making him sit in the auto-rikshaw".From the evidence of this witness, it is established that near the school police have arrested A-1 and they made him sit in the auto and the persons who had gathered in the marriage pendal, including Kayyum (A-2) Mohabbatkhan (A-23) and Chhotushaha (A-17), ran after the auto.There is evidence of four eye-witnesses on the actual incident of firing near S.T. Bus-stand of Naigaon.Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3) and Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) are the two head constables, PW 5 Ravi Markand - the auto driver and PW 6 Ramrao Khandare who was running a hotel and panthela near the S.T. Bus-stand are these eye-witnesses.He further stated that he returned to police station on 6-6-1990 from Pahur at about 11.00 a.m. P.S.I. Deshmukh told him to come again in the police station for a duty of station diary from 14 hours to 20 hours.Therefore, he came in the police station at about 2.00 p.m. At about 2.00 p.m. the Police Jamadar Shri Rane took the station diary charge from the police head constable Shri Pawasekar (PW 7).At that time, PW 4 Chandabai came in the police station and lodged her report against accused Ayyub (A-1).He has further stated that PW 4 Chandabai told P.S.I. Shri Deshmukh that accused Ayyub was abusing her and P.S.I. Deshmukh said that there was a possibility of riot (communal) in the village Naigaon and hence he asked him, PW 7 Babarao and police constable Ingole to accompany him for going to Naigaon.Then he has narrated that in the auto-rickshaw of PW 5, they went to Naigaon.P.S.I. Deshmukh caught hold the accused Ayyub near the school, but Ayyub rescued himself from his hand.He has further stated that, therefore, all four policemen caught hold accused Ayyub (A-1).Accused Ayyub questioned the policemen for what offence he was being arrested.Thereon, P.S.I. Deshmukh told him that he received a report against him from PW 4 Chandabai and, therefore, he wanted to arrest him to start proceedings against him under section 151, Cr.P.C. Then they made him sit in the auto-rikshaw.When the auto was about to start, the wife of accused Ayyub asked the policemen as to why her husband was arrested and she was saying to the persons who were present there that why they were only seeing when her husband is being taken by police.The wife of accused Ayyub came in front of it.P.S.I. Deshmukh asked the auto-driver to start the auto immediately, so the rikshaw proceeded ahead.He has given the sitting position of policemen and accused Ayyub in the auto-rikshaw.P.S.I. Deshmukh was sitting on the right side of the driver and police constable Ingole was sitting on the left side while others were sitting on the passengers' seats.He has further narrated that when rikshaw was proceeding ahead, the persons gathered near the rikshaw were saying to beat policemen and they were running behind the auto.They were pelting stones.When the auto arrived just near the S.T. stand, where there was one tamarined tree, the persons who were running after the auto were shouting and asking the person, who was ahead of the auto driving the harrow yoked with bullocks and going towards S.T. stand, to stop the rikshaw.Because of the obstacle, the auto-rikshaw was stopped.P.S.I. Deshmukh got down from right side and police constable Ingole from the left side of the rikshaw.The police constable Ingole went near P.S.I. Deshmukh.The persons, who were chasing the auto, came near the auto and started beating with the help of sticks to the top of the auto.He has further stated that from the mob Kayyum (A-2) went near the P.S.I. Deshmukh and asked him not to take his brother.P.S.I. Deshmukh told him that he has arrested accused Ayyub under section 151, Cr.P.C. and he would be released on bail in Tahsil Office.The accused Sk.Noor (A-3), all of a sudden, caught the waist of P.S.I. Deshmukh from the back side and Mohabbatkhan (A-23) caught the right hand of Shri Deshmukh.Mohabbatkhan turned the hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh back side and twisted it.He has further stated that by this time, the accused Daudshaha (A-12) and Hakimshaha (A-13) pulled him from the rikshaw.Then two other persons from the mob caught Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) and dragged him out of the auto.The accused Kadarkha and Yusufkha dragged accused Ayyub from the auto-rikshaw.The accused Daudshaha and Hakinshaha took this witness near the tamarined tree which was at a distance of 5 to 6 feet from the rikshaw and firmly held him by the hands.Similarly, Babarao (PW 7) was taken by two accused persons near the board or "Shetkari Sanghatana" and caught hold him there.He has further stated that accused Ayyub became angry and rushed upon P.S.I. Deshmukh and asked the P.S.I. as to why he was taking him on the report of prostitute.Accused Ayyub took out the revolver from the holster.By that time, the police constable Ingole was trying to rescue P.S.I. Deshmukh, accused Ayyub fired one bullet of revolver from a distance of 3 to 4 inches.Police constable Ingole fell down immediately.Then accused Ayyub tried to fire a bullet to the right side chest of P.S.I. Deshmukh, but he missed it and the bullet struck to accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23).Accused Mohabbatkhan sat down and the right hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh was freed.P.S.I. Deshmukh then tried to give a fist blow by turning to left to the persons who had caught his left hand.Accused Ayyub put the revolver on the right side of the head portion of P.S.I. Deshmukh and fired the bullet.P.S.I. Deshmukh fell down.Similarly, the revolver also fell down from the hands of accused Ayyub.The accused then started running towards the village Naigaon.He has stated that he then went near P.S.I. Deshmukh and police constable Ingole, who had fallen down on the ground near each other.In the meanwhile, the auot-rikshaw driver PW 5 Ravi immediately started the auto and left the place.He has given the distance of the tamarined tree and the place of incident which is 7 to 8 feet away from where he was caught hold.The board of Shetkari Sanghatana was also at a distance of 7-8 feet on the eastern side from the place of incident.He stated that he was frightened.PW 7 Bababrao asked him to go to Police Station for giving information.He started going to police station, Babhulgaon and crossed about 1 km. distance.One mini-bus was coming from Kalamb side going towards Babhulgaon.He gave a signal.The bus stopped.The driver of the mini-bus one Gawande was knowing him.He requested him to take him to Babhulgaon, but accused Kayyum (A-2) told the driver Gawande not to take him in the bus.However, the driver allowed him to sit near him and he went to police station, Babhulgaon.He then narrated the incident to A.S.I. Mandaokar (PW 16) and lodged his report (Exhibit 145).A.S.I. Mandaokar informed this incident to higher authorities by wireless.Then he alongwith police staff 4-5 in number, went to Naigaon by auto-rikshaw.At that time, P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole had already died.The superior officers came there.C.P.I. Thorat took the investigation in his hand.After post-mortem examination, the Medical Officer gave the bundle of clothes of deceased in sealed condition and he deposited the bundle in police station, Babhulgaon.He has further stated that on 30-8-1990, he was called in Tahsil office, Babhulgaon for identifying the accused persons in identification parade.He has stated that he identified 16 to 18 persons.He denied the suggestion that Police Constable Ingole died because of firing the bullet of the revolver by P.S.I. Deshmukh.He also denied the suggestion that Mohabbatkhan (A-23) had received the bullet injury as a result of the bullet fired by P.S.I. Deshmukh.He said that on 30th August, 1990, he identified the accused Sk.The only thing is that he cannot tell the exact dates.He states that he did not see accused Yusufkhan, Hasankha, Noorkha and Mohabbatkha in the bazar, but he saw them in police station.He has given the sequence how the persons from the auto were dragged.Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) was dragged first from the auto, then this witness was dragged and, thereafter, accused Ayyub was dragged.He has admitted that it is not in his police statement that accused Mohabbatkhan took the right hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh towards back side and twisted it.Similarly, he did not state specifically before the police that accused Noorkha and Kayyum caught the left hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh.He also did not state in his police statement that after firing three cartridges by accused Ayyub, the revolver fell down from his hand.He denied the suggestion that the revolver was not in the hand of accused Ayyub.He has further stated that he had gone to Naigaon number of times prior to the incident.The report lodged by this witness in police station is reproduced below :"I have presented myself to the Police Station and on being questioned, I lodged the report in writing as follow:-I am attached to Police Station, Babhulgaon, as Head Constable.Shri Deshmukh, Police Station Officer arrested the non-applicant Ayyubkha, Mohammedan from village Naigaon under section 151 of Criminal Procedure Code, and we came to the Naigaon S.T. Stand.This day, 6-6-90, at 14.40 hours many persons had gathered at the stand.The accused Ayyubkha avoided his arrest by the Police Station Officer Deshmukh and committed an attack.He was accompanied by 10-12 persons.Ayyubkhan snatched away the loaded revolver from the possession of police station officer, Deshmukh with which he opened fire at Deshmukh Saheb and Police Constable Ramchandra Ingole.The bullet hit the head of Deshmukh Saheb and the face of Ramchandra and thereby both of them got injured grievously.Their condition is critical and many people from the village gathered there.They know the incident.I have presented myself to lodge the report of the incident.My oral report has been read over to me.It has been recorded correctly as per my version.(Sd.) Ramprasad Shrivas, H.C. B. No. 319 Dated 6th June, 1990."H.C. B. No. 319Perusal of the report shows that P.S.I. Deshmukh and police staff had gone to village Naigaon.Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) is another Head Constable of Babhulgaon Police Station examined in this case.He has narrated the incident in the similar fashion as narrated by PW 3 Ramprasad Shrivas.This witness has given all the details about the incident and moreover, he was knowing the accused by their names.He has stated that he had gone to village Naigaon about 25 to 30 times prior to the incident.In Court, he has stated the names of accused who had caught hold the P.S.I. Deshmukh, the names of accused who had caught hold of police Head Constable Ramprasad and this witness and also the names of accused who had taken away accused Ayyub from the auto-rickshaw.After the incident, he remained on the spot.He also denied the suggestion that on seeing the anger of Shri Deshmukh, the persons of that mob were perturbed and rushed on Shri Deshmukh.He further denied that P.S.I. Deshmukh fired one bullet of revolver towards accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) and further after firing one bullet the persons of that mob came near Shri Deshmukh and one of it fired the bullets.This suggestion definitely shows that one of the accused fired bullets.The driver of the auto-rikshaw PW 5 Ravi Markand was not knowing accused No. 1 Ayyub prior to the incident.The auto-rikshaw belonged to his brother Sanjay Markand.He was unemployed and, therefore, he was driving the auto-rickshaw of his brother.On the date of incident, he carried the policemen in his rickshaw to village Naigaon.He has deposed that when his auto-rikshaw stopped near the school of Naigaon, accused Ayyub was sitting near the school.P.S.I. Deshmukh asked accused Ayyub to accompany with him because he was charged under section 151, Cri.P.C. Accused Ayyub was reluctant to come with P.S.I. Deshmukh.Therefore, P.S.I. and other policemen made him sit forcibly in the auto-rickshaw.He has narrated the sitting position of the policemen and accused Ayyub in his auto-rickshaw.When he started the rickshaw for going to Babhulgaon, wife of accused Ayyub came there and asked policemen as to why her husband was being taken by them.He has stated that he started the auto by giving dodge to her and proceeded ahead.Some persons were pelting stones behind the back of auto and when the auto arrived just near S.T. stand of Naigaon, because of the obstacle of the harrow, his auto-rickshaw came to an halt.P.S.I. Deshmukh was sitting near him on his right side and Police Constable Ingole was sitting on his left side.He has stated that other accused at first dragged Babarao (PW 7).Similarly, some have dragged accused Ayyub from the rickshaw.He also heard shouts of the mob to release accused Ayyub.He further stated that P.S.I. Deshmukh was caught hold by three persons by their hands and Mohabbatkhan (A-23) had caught the right hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh.The person, who had caught the left hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh, was saying to release accused Ayyub.P.S.I. Deshmukh told them that accused Ayyub was being arrested under section 151, Cr.P.C. and that he would be released from the Tahsil Office on bail.But the persons in the mob insisted to set free accused Ayyub there only.Police Constable Ingole was trying to rescue P.S.I. Deshmukh from the hands of those persons who had caught hold of him, but he could not succeed.Then accused Ayyub rushed towards P.S.I. Deshmukh and took out the revolver from the holster which was with P.S.I. Deshmukh.Accused Ayyub fired one bullet towards Police Constable Ingole.It was hit to right side of his face and thereby Ingole fell down.Accused Ayyub fired second bullet of the revolver towards P.S.I. Deshmukh, but it missed and hit to Mohabbatkhan (A-23).Mohabbatkhan sat down.Then accused Ayyub fired third bullet towards right side head portion of P.S.I. Deshmukh and due to it P.S.I. Deshmukh fell down.He has stated that the cord of the revolver was not taken from the shoulder of P.S.I. Deshmukh.As P.S.I. Deshmukh fell down, so the revolver had also fallen down from the hand of accused Ayyub.After the incident, the accused persons ran away.PW 3 Ramprasad and PW 7 Babarao ramained there.This witness then saw the mini-bus coming from Kalamb side and Mohabbatkhan (A-23) was put in that mini-bus.PW 7 Babarao Pawasekar had requested the driver of that mini-bus to take P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole in that mini-bus, but the persons who accompanied Mohabbatkhan (A-23) told the driver not to take the injured policemen into his bus and one of them was saying "let the policemen die".He has stated that since 2-3 persons standing near the spot were saying to set the fire to the auto, hence he started the auto and went to his village Kopra-Jankar as it was at a distance of about 31/2 kms.from Babhulgaon S.T. Stand.He halted in his village for the night and next day he went to Police Station, Babhulgaon with the articles i.e. one cap, stick and one bag of policemen which were lying in his auto-rickshaw and deposited the said articles in the Police Station.His auto-rickshaw was damaged.The top of the auto-rickshaw was torn due to hitting by sticks and by stones.The side mirror was broken.The panchanama of the auto-rickshaw was drawn in the police station.He had also identified the accusd in identification parade.He has also stated that accused Sk.This witness was shown the photographs of the spot showing his hotel and the hotel of Ramesh Bawane and he identified the same.The incident took place towards west-south corner of his hotel and at that time he was sitting in his hotel.At that time, there was no customer.He has denied the suggestion that for running his hotel business, he demanded some money to Mohabbatkhan (A-23), Noorkha (A-14) and Hasankha (A-6).From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that he was running the hotel on the bus stand of Naigaon.He is not at all shattered in cross-examination.He was running a hotel there is also corroborated by the photographs and the spot panchanama (Exhibit 151).This witness has given the entire picture of the incident in detail with names of the accused persons, the acts they had done as also the acts of policemen.Vithalrao Mandaokar (PW 16) was Assistant Sub-Inspector in Police Station, Babhulgaon on the day of incident.PW 3 Head Constable Ramprasad came in the police station at about 4.00 p.m. in a frightened condition.On enquiry, PW 3 told him about the incident.He recorded his First Information Report (Exhibit 145) and communicated the information to his superior officers at Yavatmal.He also gave a requisition letter (Exhibit 225) to Shri Kale for immediately going to Naigaon and taking photographs.Thereafter, he went to the spot at about 5.00 or 5.15 p.m. Deputy Superintendent of Police and Circle Police Inspector had already come there.He handed over the copy of F.I.R. to C.P.I. Shri Thorat.Tarachand Rane (PW 18) was working as Head Constable in police station, Babhulgaon on the relevant date of incident.He has proved the station diary entries which were taken in the Station Diary Register.The copy of the said station diary entry is at Exhibit 252 showing the departure of the policemen with handcuff and there is endorsement of taking preventive action and it is also mentioned that there was possibility of commission of communal riot.Dr. Ashok Chaudhari (PW 14) has performed post-mortem examination over the dead body of Police Constable Ingole.He found the external injuries as under :Circular wound of size 3/4 cms.in diameter, site 5 cms.away from rt.angle of mouth, and 4 cms.away from rt.Edges of the injury were inverted, with blackening of 2 cms.around the injury.No obvious tattooing.Irregular wound of the size 3/4 cms.diameter situated 6 cms.away from mastoid tip.8 cms.away from mandible, edges of the injury were everted.No blackening seen but oozing of blood was seen.I have marked these injuries by A and B.Fracture was palpable at the site of wounds A and B. At site 'A' fracture was seen irregular of mandible middle 1/3 verticle ramus.At site 'B' the fracture was seen at occipital region of skull."multiple chips of bones was seen.Meninges at wound 'X' irregular inverted margines and at 'Y' - irregular everted margines.On internal examination of brain-shows, Medulla and pons were lacerated 50 cc.clotted blood was seen under meninges.The 'X' and 'Y' are the counter parts of injuries 'A' and 'B'."He has also taken out the skin from the injuries 'A' and 'B' for examination of Expert.He has opined that the cause of death was shock due to injury to vital organ brain.He has proved his P.M. Report (Exhibit 231).He stated that the injuries were fire arm injuries and they were caused by one bullet and the bullet was fired at a distance of 2 ft.The blood stained clothes of the dead body were taken out and were handed over in a sealed condition to Police.On the same day, he performed autopsy over the dead body of P.S.I. Deshmukh.He found the following external injuries :"A. Wound circular shaped diameter 3/4 cm.site situated on temporal region of skull, 4 cms.away from outer canthus of right eye 5 cms.away from tragus right ear.B. Irregular wound diameter approximately 3/4 cm.site-fronto pariatal region of skull 41/2 cms.away from midline.6 cms.above left eyebrow, edges were everted.No blackening seen.Oozing of blood present.C. Lacerated wound fronto pariatal region verticle, 2 cms.X 11/2 X 1/4 cms.situated at 4 cms.away from mid-line."On internal examination, he noticed the following injuries :Internal examination of head :-"(i) Haematoma formation with muscle laceration at the site of wound 'A'.(ii) Bursting fracture with multiple bone chips with haematoma corresponding to wound 'B'."Internal examination of the skull :-He has opined that the cause of death was shock due to extensive intra-cranial haemorrhage and injury to vital organ brain.He proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit 232).He further stated that injuries 'A' and 'B' were caused by one bullet.In his opinion, the bullet was fired at a distance of 2 to 5 inches and after firing the bullet the death was caused immediately.Similar was the opinion given in respect of Police Constable Ingole.The clothes of the dead bodies were seized and handed over to Police.He has stated that according to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, the charring is visible if the bullet is fired within 18 inches ranges from a revolver.In cross-examination, he has admitted that he is not a Ballistic Expert, but he was firm that blackening is deposition of carbon particles on that particular skin and he had seen the black deposits at the time of his post-mortem examination.Alongwith charring, there was blackening also.He admitted that he did not find charring and scorching while conducting post-mortem examination over the dead body of Police Constable Ingole.Margins are charred, fresh bleeding present.(iii) Bullet injury over left upper arm posterio lateral aspect, 5 cms.away from injury No. 1 of the size 1/2 X 1/2 cms., margines are charred, fresh bleeding present."He had done pobing through injury Nos. 2 and 3 and it passed easily through and through.He stated that all the injuries were fresh and they could be caused by bullet.As per his advise.X-rays were taken.According to him, the injuries were caused by one bullet.He also opined that in revolver firing cases, the charring is to be found when it was used at a distance of 11/2 to 2 ft.He read the X-ray plates and gave his report (Exh. 221).He had also seen the X-ray report.The clothes of accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) were seized in General Hospital, Yavatmal.The blood group of accused Ayyub (A-1) is 'B' positive.At Exhibit 283, there is report of Ballistic Expert which is an admitted document.This report shows that Exhibit 1 revolver was a six chambered .38" caliber revolver in working order.Residue of fired ammunition-nitrite was detected in the barrel washings of Exhibit 1, showing that revolver Exhibit 1 was used for firing prior to its receipt in the laboratory.At the instance of accused, Ravi Markand (PW 5) was asked to identify the accused again after changing their standing order in the row.Ravi Markand (PW 5) has identified the accused persons even after this change.Then there is evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e Circle Police Inspector Shri Thorat (PW 19).In the month of June 1990, he was working as Circle Police Inspector at Yavatmal.Babhulgaon, Wadgaon, Kalamb and Yavatmal (rural) police stations were under his jurisdiction.His duty as C.P.I. was to supervise on the working of the aforesaid four police stations.On 6-6-1990, he had an additional charge as a Police Inspector, City Police Station, Yavatmal.At about 4.00 p.m., when he was patrolling in a police vehicle in Yavatmal town, he received a wireless message that P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole were injured due to revolver firing by accused Ayyub (A-1) and they were lying at Naigaon.Therefore, he immediately went to City Police Station, Yavatmal, took staff of four constables with guns and went to Naigaon.He reached Naigaon at about 4.50 p.m. and saw the bodies of P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole lying on the approach road of Naigaon near S.T. bus stop, just near the hotel of Ramrao Khandare (PW 6).He saw that Police Head Constable Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) was standing near those bodies.He made enquiry with PW 7 Babarao and started the work of inquest panchanama at first over the dead body of P.S.I. Deshmukh (Exhibit 169).Immediately after this witness reached the spot, A.S.I. Shri Mandaokar (PW 16) brought the FIR.This witness seized the articles which were found on the person of P.S.I. Deshmukh vide seizure panchanama (Exhibit 178).He gave requisition letter for conducting post-mortem examination (Exhibit 258).Similarly, he has drawn the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 170) over the dead body of Police Constable Ingole and seized the articles vide seizure panchanama (Exhibit 179) and gave requisition letter (Exhibit 259) for post-mortem examination.He has drawn these panchanamas in the presence of panchas.Then he found notes of Rs. 77/- near the dead body of P.S.I. Deshmukh.He seized them under seizure panchanama (Exhibit 180).Then he went to village Naigaon and drew panchanama (Exhibit 168) of the place near the school where accused Ayyub (A-1) was arrested.Then he took house search of accused Ayyub (A-1) in presence of his wife and seized the Kurta and pyjama from his house vide panchnama (Exh. 172).He thereafter sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination with Police Constable Shamrao and Head Constable Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3).In the same night, he recorded the statements of witnesses including Abhiman (PW 1) and arrested some of the accused.He left Naigaon at about 5.00 a.m. and came to Babhulgaon Rest House at about 5.30 a.m. On 7-6-1990, in between 7.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m., he recorded the statements of witnesses - Ramrao Khandare (PW 6), Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7), Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3) and some other persons.On the same day, he arrested accused Kayyum (A-2), accused Sk.Noor (A-3) and Sk.Rustam (A-4).On 8-6-1990 he arrested accused Ayyub (A-1) at about 9.55 a.m., recorded the statements of the witnesses Ravi Markand (PW 5) and five others and then made interrogation to accused persons.On 9-6-1990, he arrested some of the accused.On 10-6-1990, he seized the mirror box i.e. holder and top of auto-rikshaw.Then he interrogated the accused.On interrogation, the accused were willing to show the sticks.On their memorandum, the sticks were recovered.Number of panchanamas were prepared.He sent the seized property to Chemical Analyser and on 21.6.1990 he sent the revolver, three live cartiridges, three empty cartridges, blackened skin of Shri Deshmukh and Ingole, the bullet taken out from the body of Mohabbatkhan (A-23), through the Constable Vithal, to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bombay.On 22-6-1990, he arrested accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23).On 23-6-1990, he sent a letter to Taluka Executive Magistrate, Babhulgaon for holding the identification parade.He received the viscera reports from the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur (Exhibit 280) and (Exhibit 281) in pursuance to his letter dated 16-6-1990 by which he had sent the viscera, in sealed bottles, taken out from the dead bodies of P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole.On 3-9-1990, he recorded the statement of A.S.I. Vithalrao Mandaokar (PW 16) and on that very day, he prepared the charge-sheet of accused Ayyub (A-1) and 22 others.He is definite that as soon as he came to Naigaon, he came to know that the accused Ayyub (A-1) had fired bullets.He denied the suggestion that he was knowing the accused Ayyub who had fired bullets till the drawing of spot panchanama (Exhibit 167).He has stated that the auto-rickshaw was in a damaged condition.On the very day, he came to know that accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) received bullet injuries.In further cross-examination, he has stated that he conducted the identification parade for ascertaining the full names of the accused though the witnesses had given the first name only of the accused.He has also stated that the articles which were lying in the auto-rickshaw and the handcuff were deposited in Police Station, Babhulgaon.On 6-6-1990, he was attached to Civil Hospital, Yavatmal.On the date of incident, he went to the spot of incident at Naigaon in ambulance and reached there at about 5 p.m. He noticed dead bodies of policemen and Deputy Superintedent of Police has asked him to examine the bodies.He knew Circle Police Inspector Shri Thorat.Accused Nos. 3, 12 and 13 have examined Manikrao Yende (D.W. No. 1 (v.o.)) as a witness in their defence.He has maintained the Muster Roll Register.On 6th June, 1990, he was not in Naigaon because he had gone at Sawargaon for training.In his absence, he gave the register to the peon Baba Doma Kamble."Two Policemen caught me and put handcuff in my both the hands.They dragged me and made me sleep in the auto-rickshaw near the passenger seat.Two Policemen who were sitting in the passenger seat, put their legs on my person.Two policemen sat near the Auto-rickshaw driver.JUDGMENT M.B. Ghodeswar, J.In Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1991, out of 25 accused who were tried for committing murders of two policemen, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal (Shri S.S. Sawargaonkar), vide his Judgment and Order dated 15th & 16th December, 1992, convicted 9 accused, out of whom, accused No. 1 Sk.Ayyub Sk.Abdul was sentenced to death, subject to the confirmation of the sentence by this Court and accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6, 12 to 14 and 23 were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.The State of Maharashtra has filed Reference under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence imposed upon accused No. 1 Sk.Ayyub Sk.Abdul and has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1993 for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused Nos. 2, 3, 14 and 23 to capital punishment by modifying the impugned judgment and order suitably.The convicted accused have also filed Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1993 praying for acquittal.Since all these cases arise out of the same incident, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.On seeing accused Ayyub (A-1), P.S.I. Deshmukh told him to accompany with him as he was charged under section 151, Cr.P.C. on the report of PW 4 Chandabai.Similarly, the revolver, 3 live cartridges, 3 empty cartridges, blackened skin of Shri Deshmukh and Ingole, empty bullet taken out from the body of accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) were sent to Ballastic expert for examination.After completion of necessary investigation, C.P.I. Thorat filed charge-sheet.The prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses The accused have examined three witnesses in their defence.PW 3, 5, 6 and 7 are the eye-witnesses.PW 1 Abhiman is examined as an eye-witness when Ayyub was caught by policemen near the school of Naigaon.The reports of the Chemical Analyser and Ballistic expert are admitted documents.Village Naigaon is about five kilometres away from Babhulgaon and the S.T. stand of Naigaon is on the Babhulgaon-Kalamb tar road.The incident of firing has taken place near the S.T. stand of Naigaon.From this S.T. stand, there is a small Kachha road going to village Naigaon.The distance from Naigaon S.T. stand to the school of village Naigaon is about 500 feet.The learned trial Judge has visited the spot of incident and his spot inspection note is on record.The defence of the accused is firstly of total denial.Secondly, in order to control the unruly mob, P.S.I. Deshmukh fired bullets-one hit to Mohabbatkhan (A-23), another to police constable Ingole and, therefore, he committed suicide by firing third bullet on his head.The learned trial Court framed the charges as under :(i) Accused Nos. 1 to 25 - under section 147, I.P.C.(iii) Accused Nos. 2 to 25 - under section 342/149, I.P.C.(iv) Accused No. 1 Sk.Ayyub Sk.The accused No. 3 Sk.Noor has taken the defence of alibi.Though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of State has objected to the consideration of this defence, in our view, the accused are entitled to take this defence in the present case.On behalf of accused, the learned Counsel raised the following points:(i) There is no evidence of communal riot;(ii) The evidence of Chandabai Kamble (PW 4) about the cause of incident is not reliable;(iii) The eye-witnesses examined by prosecution are not trustworthy;(iv) The identification parade is merely a farse;(v) The medical evidence about the distance from which the bullets are fired is not proved;(vi) There was no unlawful assembly.(vii) The accused have not committed any offence and at the most the case of accused Ayyub (A-1) falls under Exception 1 to section 300 of Indian Penal Code.On behalf of State, it is submitted that firstly the assembly was 'unlawful assembly' and two policemen are killed in furtherance of the common object of assembly to kill P.S.I. Deshmukh.The learned Counsel have taken us through the entire record of the case.To appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to look into the cause of incident.Accused Ayyub went back to his house still abusing her.When her husband came, she narrated the incident to him and her husband asked her to go to police station, Babhulgaon to lodge report alongwith Sanjay Khobragade.She lodged the report (Exhibit 148).Meanwhile, P.S.I. Deshmukh came there.P.S.I. Deshmukh told her that he would send Police Jamadar, but she requested him to go to Naigaon.She has also seen the policemen going in an auto-rickshaw towards Naigaon.When bus was available at S.T. Bus stand, Babhulgaon, she boarded the bus, got down at Naigaon S.T. stand and noticed policemen lying near Neem tree which was near the panthela of one Khandare.She has further stated that when she went to her house, her husband told her not to reside with him at Naigaon.She has further stated that she went to the house of the maternal uncle of her husband, but he also told her not to live at his house.Then she went to Weni and from there to Kalamb and ultimately to village Taroda where her brother resides.This witness is cross-examined at length by the accused.She has admitted that though she was not married with Subhash Kambale, she was living with him because of love.Subhash was not married.She further admitted that she was residing with one Bhimrao Lohekar previously as his wife, but she was not married with him.She has further admitted that on the say of Madhu, the father of Bhimrao, she had filed false report that she remained preganant from Bhimrao.She, however, did not tell this to the police to save her reputation.She got frightened and therefore, lodged oral report.This report was treated for non-cognizable offence and PW 4 was advised to lodge complaint directly in the Court.The evidence of PW 4 is criticised on the ground that she lodged false report against accused No. 1 and moreover there is absolutely no mention of communal riot or any apprehension about communal riot.Evidence of PW 4 Chandabai that accused No. 1 Ayyub was distilling liquor is not challenged in the cross-examination.It appears that there was business rivalry between Subhash Kambale and accused Ayyub (A-1).On the basis of this report and the information given by PW 4 Chandabai, P.S.I. Deshmukh and his staff went to Naigaon.He also identified the clothes of deceased and other articles.He has stated in cross-examination that he had gone to Naigaon 2 to 4 times for prohibition raids.He was knowing accused Ayyub prior to this incident and had seen the faces of other accused persons but he was not knowing them by names.He had seen 7 to 8 persons prior to this incident in the bazar as they were coming with other persons who were prosecuted in criminal cases.He has further clarified that he was knowing the name of accused Ayyub, but was not knowing the names of other accused persons while lodging the report (Exh. 145).His statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on the next day of the incident and he disclosed the names of other accused persons.He denied the suggestion that the names of other accused persons, were disclosed by him at the instance of C.P.I. Thorat.It has further come in his cross-examination that when PW 4 Chandabai was sitting in front of the room near the door of P.S.O. P.S.I. Deshmukh told him that PW 4 Chandabai had submitted her report against accused Ayyub and there was a possibility of communal riot between Muslim and Boudha and, therefore, P.S.I. Deshmukh asked him to accompany him.He has admitted that they had not received information about the so-called communal riot from others, but he clarified that P.S.I. Deshmukh took him and other staff for controlling the situation.He is further corss-examined in respect of the procedure to be adopted by police in respect of station diary register entries regarding revolver and handcuff.He has further admitted that when they reached Naigaon, nobody informed them about the possibility of communal riot.He has stated that the handcuff was with him and accused Ayyub was giving jerk and therefore, he could not put handcuff to his hand.He and PW 7 Babarao Pawasekar tried to put the handcuff but accused Ayyub was resisting and they were trying to put the handcuff as per the order of P.S.I. Deshmukh.It has further come in his evidence that accused Ayyub resisted about 15 to 20 minutes and thereafter they succeeded in controlling him.Even though accused Ayyub was made to sit by these policemen, still he was trying to run away.Accused Ayyub was made to sit in an auto-rikshaw in between the driver's seat and passenger seat.This witness and PW 7 Babarao had caught hold the hands of accused Ayyub in the auto-rikshaw.He was having a bag in his left hand.He denied the suggestion that accused Ayyub was handcuffed immediately on the spot.From the auto-rikshaw, he saw some 20 to 25 persons came behind the auto.He is definite that police constable Ingole was not caught by any person.He has stated that he learnt later on that Mahabbatkhan (A-23) was admitted in Yavatmal hospital.He has further stated that when C.P.I. Thorat came there on the spot, the photographer had taken the photos of the dead bodies.Noor and Daudshaha.The persons in the mob were pelting stones when the auto was in motion and not only this when the auto was stopped, they pelted stones and also beat by sticks on the top of the auto.But the persons were not pelting the stones towards the auto-rikshaw and were not piercing the sticks inside the auto.When P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole were standing in front of it, they were not moving their sticks but they were convincing the persons of the mob.Some persons in the mob were raising hue and cry and were also abusing.He has stated that after the police custody remand, the accused were remanded in magisterial custody and they were sent in Jail and he did not know whether the accused persons were brought in the Police Station for identification parade.Similarly, he had no idea whether the permission of Judicial Magistrate was obtained for producing the accused for identification parade.He admitted that at the time of writing report, he did not mention that accused Ayyub was arrested near the school.They were taking him in auto-rikshaw.Similarly, the wife of accused Ayyub Afasanabi raised a cry when policemen caught Ayyub and the persons who pelted stones, hit the sticks on the top of the auto.P.S.I. Deshmukh then arrested Ayyubkha (A-1).It is to be noted here that PW Ramprasad Shrivas left the scene of offence immediately after the incident.He was under the impression that after receipt of the bullet injuries, P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole were alive and to get immediate help from the police station, he rushed to Babhulgaon Police Station.Therefore, the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered at the first instance.Since PW 3 Ramprasad was frightened, he was sent to Babhulgaon Police Station.He has further stated that on receiving information, the Tahsildar, the Naib Tahsildar with Dr. Kadukar arrived on the spot.In his presence, Dr. Kadukar has examined P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole.Dr. Kadukar has, after examination, certified that P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole were dead.C.P.I. Shri Thorat alongwith his staff also reached the spot.Similarly, he has drawn the inquest panchanamas (Exhibits 169 and 170) over the dead bodies.He had also accompanied C.P.I. Thorat to the place where accused Ayyub was arrested.The panchanama of that place was also drawn in his presence.His statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded by C.P.I. Thorat on the next day.He has also given the distance from the place from which he has seen the actual incident of firing.In the trial, he was very definite that he was knowing the names of accused persons and, therefore, there was no necessity to tell that he was knowing the accused persons by names in his police statement.The accused have suggested the defence which he has denied.It is, however, necessary to state the suggestions given by the accused.In para 32, he has stated that P.S.I. Deshmukh had tried to pacify the mob.He denied the suggestion that instead of pacifying the matter, Shri Deshmukh started abusing and some sort of beating with the help of cane.Noor caught P.S.I. from back side, Mohabbatkhan, Kayyum and Noorkha caught his hands and the name of the person who was saying to release Ayyub was Kayyum (A-2).In cross-examination, he has admitted that there was a marriage at the house of accused Chhotushaha (A-17).There is one omission that when his auto-rickshaw started towards Naigaon S.T. Stand, so many persons were running behind the auto.They were pelting stones and hitting at the top of the auto with the help of sticks.He has admitted that after obstruction to his auto when 10-12 persons came there they encircled the auto but they were not possessing sticks and they were not possessing stones also.It is confirmed in cross-examination that he was knowing the accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) prior to the incident and he was also knowing accused Ayyub (A-1) and other three persons scuffling with P.S.I. Deshmukh.He has admitted that the scuffle ended within 2-3 minutes and within that period no bullets were fired and that thereafter the bullets were fired.Further there is evidence of Ramrao Khandare (PW 6).This witness was residing at Naigaon 14 years prior to the incident.He has stated that there were about 150 houses in village Naigaon and at the time of incident he was running one hotel and panthela near S.T. bus stand of Naigaon.His hotel was made of dry stems.It was temporary structure and he was running that hotel there for about 3-4 years prior to the incident.He also stated that there was one hotel of Ramesh Bawane.He saw one auto-rickshaw coming and heard shouts of many persons.He stood near the kud wall corner of his hotel and through the gap in wall, he saw one harrow driver stopped there and stood on the road with a stick.Some persons were running behind the auto and they reached near the same.He has stated that accused Kayyum (A-2) came in front of the auto and started talking with P.S.I. Deshmukh and asked P.S.I. to release accused Ayyub (A-1).He has stated that accused Kayyum (A-2) is the brother of accused Ayyub (A-1).P.S.I. Deshmukh told the accused Kayyum (A-2) that he has arrested accused Ayyub under section 151, Cr.P.C. and he would be released from the Tahsil Office, Babhulgaon.In the meanwhile, accused Sk.Noor (A-3) came there from the mob and stood in front of the auto and gave the call to release accused Ayyub (A-1).Immediately thereafter, he caught the waist of P.S.I. Deshmukh.Then accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) came in front of the auto from the mob and caught one of the hands of P.S.I. Deshmukh.Kayyum (A-2) and Sk.Noor (A-3) came there and they caught the other hand of P.S.I.. He has further stated that accused Rustamkha (A-4) and Hasankha (A-6) came near the auto and dragged Police Head Constable Pawasekar (PW 7) from eastern side.They took him at a distance of 5-6 feet from the auto near the board of "Shetkari Sanghatana".Then accused Yusufkhan (A-5) and Kadarkhan (A-18) help the accused Ayyub (A-1) for coming out from the auto-rickshaw.Accused Ayyub came out and he immediately rushed towards P.S.I.. He asked P.S.I. why he was taking him on the report of prostitute "Randi ke report par mereko leke jate kya" and by uttering these words, accused Ayyub (A-1) snatched the revolver from the holster of P.S.I. Deshmukh.At that time, one police constable (sipoy) went behind P.S.I. and tried to rescue him and on seeing this accused Ayyub (A-1) fired first bullet and it hit on the face of police constable and he fell down.Accused Ayyub fired second bullet of revolver towards P.S.I., but it missed and hit to accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23).Due to this, the hands of accused Mohbbatkhan were freed and he raised a cry "Are bap-re" and then he sat down.In the meanwhile, P.S.I. tried to rescue his left hand.Accused Ayyub fired third bullet on the right side head portion of P.S.I.. P.S.I. Deshmukh immediately fell down.Other persons then started running.Police Head Constable Babarao (PW 7) asked another policeman to go to Police Station.Babarao (PW 7) came near P.S.I. Deshmukh and saw that P.S.I. was dead.After some time, one mini-bus came there and accused Kayyum (A-2) and Kadarkhan (A-18) put accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) in that bus.This witness further states that he then closed his shop and went to his house.Next day, his statement was recorded by police.After 8-9 days, police took the photographs as he has shown the place where he was standing at the time of incident.The panchanama (Exhibit 151) was also prepared in his presence.This witness is cross-examined at length.The cross-examination is directed to show that his hotel was not in existence near the bus stand of Naigaon at the time of incident and that he is a got-up witness.It is confirmed in the cross-examination that he was present at the time when photographs of his hotel were taken.He denied that he was doing the business of illicit distillation of liquor.He has given the distance of the hotel of Ramesh Bawane which is at 40 feet from his hotel.He has also stated that some persons Ramesh, Haribhau and Vithal were present in the hotel of Bawane at that time.He has further stated that after departure of mini-bus, the Police Patil of village Naigaon and one Pashamiya (DW 2) had come.He heard the sound of vehicles coming when he started going to his house.It is confirmed in his cross-examination that there was no crowd of accused persons.He stated that he closed his hotel one or two minutes after the incident.He has stated that though the revolver's cord was tied to the belt, after snatching the cord as well as the belt were not broken.He further stated that P.S.I. Deshmukh did not raise cry when his revolver was snatched.The other persons did not free the waist of P.S.I. Deshmukh even though the revolver was snatched.He has denied the suggestions given by the defence.He has also denied that accused Sk.Noor (A-3) was on duty at the time of incident.He has denied the suggestion that accused Ayyub was handcuffed.He has stated that he has narrated the incident to his wife.He has also shown the diagram on page No. 4 of his P.M. report which shows that 'A' injury is entrance injury on right side and 'B' injury is exit injury on left side.On internal examination, he found the following injuries :Haematoma formation with muscle laceration at site of injury 'A' mandible fracture of verticle ramus in middle 1/3rd was seen.2. Haematoma with muscle laceration at the site of injury 'B' occipital region left side.Skull examination shows a regular circular 1/2 cm.diameter aparture on rt.occipital region.An irregular fracture of skull on left occipital region of size 2cms X 11/2 cms.Edges of the wound charred and inverted.Surrounding blackening of 1/2 cm.diameter, tattooing present 1 cm.away from centre of the wound.Collar of wound was abraded."(i) A circular hole of half cm.diamater on skull corresponding to injury 'A'(ii) Bursting fracture, irregular (multiple chips) of size 21/3 X 2 cms.at the site of wound 'B'.Brain matter was coming out."Examination of brain :-"(i) Irregular rent with inverted margine on menninges corresponding to wound 'A'.(ii) Irregular rent of size 2 X 1 cms.approximately in menninges correspondings to wound 'B' Multiple clots with oozing of blood from corresponding to the injuries A and B huge haematoma collected in brain matter.Brain was congested and lacerated."Dr. Sunil Sargar (PW 15) was the Casualty Medical Officer on the date of incident at General Hospital, Yavatmal.At about 4.30 p.m., Mohabbatkhan (A-23) was admitted in the hospital for bullet injury to his left arm axilla back.After examination, he found the following injuries :"(i) Bullet injury over left-auxiliary fold over anterio lateral aspect of size 1/2 X 1/2 cm.margins are charred, fresh bleeding oozing out depth could not confirmed.The Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 284) shows blood stains on the clothes of deceased P.S.I., Police Constable, accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) and accused Ayyub (A-1).On the Kurta of accused Ayyub, the stains of blood group 'O' are detected.On the clothes of accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23), blood stains of 'O' Group are detected.Similarly, the blood group 'O' is detected on the clothes of P.S.I. Deshmukh as well as Police Constable Ingole.Two of the randomly selected .38" revolver cartridges from Exhibit 2 were successfully test fired from revolver Exhibit 1.The empties in Exhibits 3-A to 3-C are fired .38" caliber revolver cartridge cases.The bullet in Exhibit 4, which was taken out from the body of accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23), is a fired .38" caliber copper jacketed revolver bullet.Detection of metallic lead and copper around the periphery of encircled shot holes on skin pieces in Exhibit 3-A. Exhibit 5-B, Exhibit 6-A and Exhibit 6-B are consistent with the passage wipe of fired jacketed bullets.This report clearly shows that three bullets were fired from the revolver seized in this case.There is evidence of Shri Govind Badhiye (PW 11), the Naib Tahsildar, Babhulgaon on test identification parade.Ramprasad Shrivas (PW 3), Ravi Markand (PW 5) and Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) were the identifying witnesses.On 30-8-1990, the identification parade was held in respect of ten accused and on the next day the identification parade was held in respect of rest of the accused.He says that the identifying witnesses have identified the accused in his presence.He proved documents (Exhibits 187 to 196).On 30-8-1990, he has mixed ten persons with ten accused.Similarly, on 31-8-1990, he mixed 12 other persons with 12 accused and made them stand in a row.The defence has examined three witnesses first D.W. 1 Dr. Rangrao Ade.He examined the dead bodies and issued Certificates (Exhibits 290 and 291).He also deposed that in his presence one photographer was taking the photographs.He was shown the certificate on the document (Exhibit 235).He had examined Mohabbatkhan (A-23) before his statement in the form of dying declaration which was being recorded by Shri A.T. Samarth in Civil Hospital, Yavatmal at about 7.55 p.m. and after the dying declaration was recorded, he again certified at about 8.10 p.m. He has stated that some other persons who were on plain clothes had also come with Mohabbatkhan (A-23) in hospital.He also stated that there was one hotel made of dry stems on the spot where dead bodies were lying.Pashamiya Razak (DW 2) has stated that after the incident.Police Patil Mohanrao Kapse asked him to accompany to S.T. Stand, Naigaon.Therefore, they proceeded to go to S.T. stand.On the way, he saw, some persons were coming from the bus stand side.He has stated that he saw accused Ayyub who was also running and coming towards Naigaon village.The handcuffs were in his both hands and rope was attached to it.When this witness and Police Patil had tried to talk with him, he ran away as he was frightened.He saw the dead bodies of P.S.I. Deshmukh and P.C. Ingole lying near the Neem-tree and he also saw accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) who was sitting near the hotel of one Ramesh.He has stated that Babarao Pawasekar (PW 7) was present near the dead bodies and he told him that P.S.I. Deshmukh fired first bullet to accused Mohabbatkhan, second bullet to P.C. Ingole and third bullet he at himself fired.Then he narrates about the coming of the mini-bus from Kalamb side and accused Kayyum (A-2), accused Hasankha (A-6) and accused Yusufkha (A-5) put accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) in that mini-bus and that bus went towards Babhulgaon.In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not informed about the important things i.e about the handcuffs of accused Ayyub who was running away and about the talks between PW 7 Babarao and himself in writing, though he is matriculate.Though the C.P.I. Shri Thorat (PW 19) has pasted notice in Gram Panchayat Office in connection with this incident, this witness did not see C.P.I. Thorat nor did he send any complaint to higher authorities.He further admitted that there was one hotel which was constructed of dry stems (Kud walls), but he states that that hotel was belonging to one Deshmukh and dead body of P.S.I. Deshmukh was lying near the western corner of that hotel.He has given the working hours of employees from 7.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. He was not in a position to tell whether on 6-6-1990 accused Sk.Noor (A-3) did the work in the Nursery and morever he could not tell its timings.In the attendance register, a cross (x) is shown for showing the presence of Sk.Having stated the entire prosecution and defence evidence, we now proceed to deal with several contentions raised by the learned Counsel for both sides - one by one.The learned Counsel for the accused has urged that there is absolutely no evidence about the commission of communal riot or possibility of a communal riot at village Naigaon when the policemen had proceeded to village Naigaon on the date of incident.In this regard, there is report of PW 4 Chandabai Kambale (Exhibit 148) and two Station Diary Entries Nos. 26 and 28 of 1990 of Police Station, Babhulgaon.P.S.I. Deshmukh was present in the police station when PW 4 Chandabai had lodged her report with Police Head Constable.It has also come in the evidence of PW 3 Ramprasad Shrivas and PW 7 Babarao Pawasekar as well as in the evidence of PW 4 Chandabai Kambale that PW 4 Chandabai has talked with P.S.I. Deshmukh and she has insisted that P.S.I. Deshmukh himself should go to Naigaon.PWs 3 and 7 have stated that P.S.I. Deshmukh has asked them to accompany him and told them that there is a possibility of communal riot.On the report of PW 4 Chandabai, there is an endorsement "Beat Head Constable to take preventive action against the Non-applicant i.e. accused Ayyub" and in Station Diary No. 28 of 1990, it is clearly mentioned that police staff is despatched alongwith P.S.I. to village Naigaon in view of the possibility of communal riot.It is also mentioned in the evidence that P.S.I. Deshmukh, after his joining Police Station, Babhulgaon, had visited village Naigaon 3-4 times prior to the incident.The report of PW 4 Chandabai shows that she belongs to Bouddha caste.Accused Ayyub is Muslim.There was business rivalry between accused Ayyub and the husband of PW 4 Chandabai and, therefore, P.S.I. Deshmukh must have thought that there was some possibility of communal riot.P.S.I. Deshmukh was the Police Station Officer of Babhulgaon and it can be said that he was knowing the situation of village Naigaon very well and, therefore, P.S.I. Deshmukh had taken this decision and armed with revolver and police staff he proceeded to village Naigaon.On behalf of accused, it is contended that the evidence of PW 4 Chandabai about the cause of incident is totally unreliable.Though her statement in Court that accused Ayyub (A-1) had tried to molest her cannot be accepted because of the important omissions in her police statement, still her report (Exhibit 148) clearly shows the abuses and threatening given by accused Ayyub to her.She has also deposed about the business rivalry between her husband and accused Ayyub.In this regard, the learned Counsel has stated that the evidence of PW 4 Chandabai is totally unreliable and her report (Exhibit 148) is false.The learned Counsel for accused has urged that in the report (Exhibit 148) there is no mention of communal riot or any apprehension about communal riot.According to him, there was no basis for taking station Diary Entry on this report and mentioning therein about possibility of communal riot when PW 4 Chandabai has not stated so before the police.In this regard, it is also submitted that police have concocted the station diary entries in the Police Station Register.The fact remains that PW 4 Chandabai has lodged report (Exhibit 148) in Police Station against accused Ayyub.The Station Diary Entries No. 26 of 1990 and 28 of 1990 are proved by bringing the original Diary Register in Court.Therefore, there is no substance in this contention that police have concocted the entries in Station Diary Register.Considering this evidence, it is proved that there was some possibility of communal riot when P.S.I. Deshmukh and police staff left the Police Station, Babhulgaon.In respect of eye-witness account, it is contended on behalf of accused that two Police Head Constables namely PW 3 Ramprasad and PW 7 Babarao have not identified any accused in Court.The learned Counsel for the accused has urged that the substantial evidence of identification of accused is the identification in Court and as the witnesses have not identified the accused in Court, the evidence of the eye-witnesses about accused is not trustworthy and is unreliable.In this regard, it is to be noted here that PWs 3 and 7, the two Head Constables, were attached to Babhulgaon Police Station prior to the date of incident.It has come in evidence that they had number of occasions to see the accused persons of village Naigaon and Mendhala in the bazar of Babhulgaon and some times in Police Station.It has further come in their evidence that they were knowing most of the accused persons by their faces and accused Ayyub by his name.PW 7 Babarao is very specific that he was knowing the names of all the accused persons and the evidence which is given in trial about the accused by their names and the defence has also cross-examined these witnesses not challenging their evidence and, therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence of PWs 3 and 7 about identification of accused in Court is not a substantive evidence.PW 5 Ravi Markand was driving auto-rickshaw.He has categorically stated that he was not knowing accused Ayyub prior to the incident.But when his auto-rickshaw was taken to Naigaon near the school and accused Ayyub was arrested by police, he knew him by name and face.He has also identified all the accused persons.Ravi is an independent person and at the time of incident he had an opportunity to see the accused persons because the incident had taken place in broad day light and it must have lasted about ten minutes at the S.T. Bus stand and, therefore, he has identified the accused persons by naming them.PW 6 Ramrao Khandare was the resident of village Naigaon.He was knowing all the accused persons by their names and faces.Similarly, he was knowing the accused Daudashaha (A-12) from Mendhala because that is a neighbouring village and he has deposed accordingly in Court.In respect of identification, it is further urged that the identification parade held by Naib Tahsildar of Babhulgaon, namely, Govind Badhiye (PW 11) on 30-8-1990 and 31-8-1990 is a mere farce.Moreover, PWs 3 and 7 have admitted that they had seen the accused persons in Police Station when they were is police custody.Therefore, the evidence of identification parade is defective.But C.P.I. Shri Thorat has stated that he wanted to arrange the identification parade only with a view to know the father's name in respect of each of the accused since only the first name of each of the accused persons was given to him.Further, these eye-witnesses were knowing the accused persons by their faces.Morever, these eye witnesses have seen the accused persons from a very close distance.Therefore, the evidence about the identification parade, though defective, is not fatal to the prosecution case.As regards the evidence of PW 3 Ramprasad the learned Counsel for accused has criticised his evidence by staing that either Ramprasad was not present on the spot of incident or he is deliberately suppressing the true facts.After the incident, he has lodged his report (Exhibit 145) in Police Station, Babhulgaon.It is urged that in this report only the name of accused Ayyub is mentioned that he fired the bullets and that there is no allegation against the other accused persons.It is mentioned in the report that accused Ayyub (A-1) and 10-12 other accused have committed the crime.It is also urged that the report (Exhibit 145) is silent about the injury caused to Mohabbatkhan (A-23).PW 3 Ramprasad has not stated anything about the fire injury caused to Mohabbatkhan at the time of incident.It is well settled that F.I.R. is not a be-all and end-all of the prosecution case.There is reliable evidence of PW 3 Ramprasad Shrivas and PW 7 Babarao Pawasekar that Ramprasad, after the incident, got frightened as P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole were lying in injured condition after firing and in order to seek immediate help and also with a desire to give some assistance, he narrated the incident in short in his report (Exhibit 145).Mere absence of the name of injured Mohabbatkhan (A-23) in this report (Exhibit 145), in the circumstances of the case, does not amount to any suppression.The facts of the incident, as narrated by the eye-witness account given by the eye-witnesses, cannot be said to be stereo-type.There is independent evidence of PW 1 Abhiman on the first phase of incident when accused Ayyub was arrested near the school of Naigaon.Now the incident of arrest had taken place in a short time that P.S.I. Deshmukh asked accused Ayyub to accompany him in Police Station as he was charged under section 151, Cr.P.C. The accused Ayyub at first tried to run away, but the police were successful in catching him and, therefore, he was arrested under section 151, Cr.P.C. On this point, there is evidence of PWs 3, 5 and 7 and they have deposed in similar fashion, as deposed by PW 1 Abhiman.Similarly, at the time of second phase of the incident at S.T. Bus stand when the auto was stopped by obstruction, policemen got down from the auto and accused Ayyub was taken out of the rickshaw, there was some talk between P.S.I. Deshmukh and other accused and P.S.I. Deshmukh told the accused persons that accused Ayyub would be released in Tahsil Office on bail and thereafter some accused persons caught hold the two Police Head Constables PWs 3 and 7 and the incident of firing occurred.Now in such a case the evidence of eye-witnesses would be similar excepting the difference in some minor details.C.P.I. Shri Thorat was residing at Yavatmal.He had no interest.Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that these eye-witnesses have deposed at the behest of C.P.I. Thorat.The presence of PWs 3, 5 and 7 on the spot is not disputed even by the accused persons.The presence of PW 6 Ramrao Khandare on the spot is disputed.But as discussed earlier, even the existence of the hotel of PW 6 Ramrao Khandare near the S.T. Bus stand, Naigaon is admitted by the accused.It is suggested to this witness that he demanded the amount for running a hotel from some of the accused and as they had not given the said amount, he is deposing falsely against them.It is also suggested to witness i.e. PW 7 Babarao that PW 6 Ramrao Khandare was doing the business of running the hotel at Naigaon S.T. bus stand at his behest.There is reliable evidence of photograph, spot panchanama and even the evidence of DW 2 Pashamiya that at the time of incident there was one hotel which was constructed of kud walls near the S.T. stand.He has shown the place from where he witnessed the incident and panchanama of the same is drawn by C.P.I. Thorat.Therefore, there is voluminous evidence to show that the hotel of PW 6 Ramrao Khandare was in existence near Naigaon S.T. stand and as he was running the hotel, his presence in the said hotel is natural.He has stated that he has seen the incident from the big hole of the kud wall and the incident has taken place just near his hotel as can be seen from the spot panchanama, inquest panchanamas and the panchanama of the place where dead bodies were lying.Therefore, the presence of all these eye-witnesses on the spot is established by the prosecution.It is further submitted that PW 6 Ramrao has stated that there was a mob of 20-25 persons and his evidence is inconsistent with other direct evidence and that he is a got-up witness.The place from where he has witnessed the incident is shown in panchanama (Exhibit 151).His mere statement that the mob consisted of 20 to 25 persons when others have stated 10 to 12 persons, cannot be said to be inconsistent with evidence of other eye-witnesses.At the time of such incident, the witnesses given approximate number of accused persons by their guess work.Considering the evidence of these eye-witnesses, the prosecution is successful in establishing its case against accused Ayyub (A-1), accused Kayyum (A-2), accused Sk.Noor (A-3), accused Sk.Rustam (A-4), accused Hasankha (A-6), accused Daudashaha (A-12), accused Hakimshah (A-13), accused Noorkha (A-14) and accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23), as each of them has taken part in the commission of the crime.It is also urged on behalf of accused that the prosecution has not proved the distance from which the bullets were fired.The defence has suggested that to control the unruly mob, P.S.I. Deshmukh has fired a bullet from his revolver and it hit Mohabbatkhan (A-23) who was at a distance of about 15' from P.S.I. Deshmukh.PW 14 Dr. Ashok Chaudhari, in his evidence, has given the distance from which the bullets were fired.He has stated that the distance from which the bullet is fired on P.S.I. Deshmukh is about 2" to 5" i.e. from a very close range.Similarly, he has stated that there was charring and blackening which shows the close range of the distance.The evidence of Dr. Ashok Chaudhari (PW 14) is not challenged by the defence.He has also given his opinion by referring to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology.Therefore, the prosecution is successful in proving that all the three bullets were fired from a close range.Moreover, the circumstantial evidence as regards the cord attached to the revolver is such that it cannot go beyond the distance of 2 to 21/2 feet.It is not the case of defence that the cord of the revolver was removed at the time of firing.In this regard, the learned Counsel for accused has urged that even though the statement of Mohabbatkhan (A-23) cannot amount to dying declaration since Mohabbatkhan (A-23) has survived, the police ought to have registered an offence against the P.S.I. Deshmukh on the basis of this statement (Exhibit 235).On the report of PW 3 Ramprasad Shrivas, the offence under section 307 and other sections was registered in Babhulgaon Police Station at 4.00 p.m. Mohabbatkhan (A-23) has received injury in the same incident and the investigation of this crime had already started.Further, accused Mohabbatkhan had not lodged any complaint either in Police Station, Babhulgaon or Police Station, Yavatmal.C.P.I. Thorat had received this Exhibit 235 from Civil Hospital, Yavatmal as he himself was conducting the investigation.Now turning to the defence of accused, it is seen that firstly the defence is that P.S.I. Deshmukh had fired one bullet to disperse the unruly mob.The first bullet hit to Mohabbatkhan (A-23), second to Police Constable Ingole and seeing this P.S.I. Deshmukh fired the third bullet at himself and committed suicide.As regards accused Ayyub (A-1), the alternative defence of grave and sudden provocation is urged before us and accused Sk.Noor (A-3) has taken a defence of alibi.Once we hold that the bullets are fired from a close range, the defence that Mohabbatkhan (A-23) received the injury when he was about 15 feet away from P.S.I. Deshmukh is unbelievable and the defence collapses.P.S.I. Deshmukh was armed with revolver and this fact was known to all the accused.At the time of arrest of accused Ayyub near the school, accused Ayyub tried to run away after some talk but he was caught hold by the policemen.Some persons including some accused have gathered there.Accused Ayyub has also resisted his arrest.He has not even taken out the same from the holster.The mob was only of 20-25 persons and there is evidence that P.S.I. Deshmukh was trying to pacify the mob saying that accused Ayyub would be released from the Tahsil Office on bail as he has been arrested under section 151, Cr.P.C. The accused persons were raising shouts to release accused Ayyub at that moment only.At that time also, P.S.I. Deshmukh has not taken out his revolver.Therefore, the defence that to control the unruly mob, P.S.I. Deshmukh has fired is not at all believable and acceptable.There is sufficient and reliable evidence of prosecution that P.S.I. Deshmukh was caught hold by accused Kayyum (A-2), accused Sk.Noor (A-3), accused Noorkha (A-14) and accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23).Noor (A-3) had caught hold the waist of P.S.I. Deshmukh from back side.Mohabbatkhan (A-23) was holding the right hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh and accused Kayyum (A-2) and Noorkha (A-14) caught hold the left hand of P.S.I. Deshmukh.When P.S.I. Deshmukh was caught hold in this fashion, his movements were restricted.Since both of his hands were caught, he could not take out his revolver from the holster.There is nothing to show that P.S.I. Deshmukh had any history of committing suicide, that he was dissatisfied with life and, therefore, the theory put forth by the defence that after firing two bullets-one hitting accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) and another Police Constable Ingole, he committed suicide by firing third bullet at himself, cannot be accepted.There is also evidence that P.S.I. Deshmukh was trying to free himself from the clutches of accused Kayyum (A-2), accused Sk.Noor (A-3), accused Noorkha (A-14) and accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) but he could not succeed and seeing this, Police Constable Ingole came to the rescue of P.S.I. Deshmukh.The defence has further tried to urge that accused Ayyub (A-1) was handcuffed by policemen and, therefore, he could not snatch away the revolver and fire the bullets.The prosecution evidence in this regard is of PWs 3, 5, 6 and 7 that accused Ayyub (A-1) was not handcuffed by police.The suggestions were given to witnesses 3, 5 and 7 that when accused Ayyub was arrested by police near the school, he was handcuffed which they have denied.Their evidence is that inside the auto-rickshaw the policemen were trying to handcuff accused Ayyub (A-1) but he was resisting and therefore, they could not handcuff him.PW 5 Ravi Markand has stated that handcuffs were deposited in Police Station.Accused Ayyub (A-1) has taken defence as under :The Auto Driver started the Auto.The Auto reached at the S.T. stand and it was stopped by P.S.I. for light refreshment.The P.S.I. got down.The P.S.I. told the other persons who had collected there that Ayyub is vagabond.The accused Mohabbatkhan asked P.S.I. as to why for he is taking Ayyub.In the meanwhile so many persons collected there so P.S.I. Deshmukh fired one bullet and it was hit to accused Mohabbatkhan.Then he took aim towards Mohabbatkhan for firing second bullet but it was wrongly hit to Police Constable.The other people started running when the aforesaid firing was going on.Two policemen who were sitting near me in the Auto-rickshaw they come out.Then I ran away towards the village Nayagaon.Then I went to the house of one Panchal (Blacksmith).Then I asked him to break the handcuff.The handcuff was broken and then I went to the jungle i.e. field, and I stayed in the jungle for whole night.Then I threw the handcuff in the bushes of that jungle."Accused Ayyub has not examined the Panchal (Blacksmith).He has also not given the name of the Blacksmith or the place of his residence.It is further tried to urge that accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) has given the defence story at the earliest opportunity in Civil Hospital, Yavatmal when his statement (in the form of dying declaration) was recorded (Exhibit 235).It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the evidence of DW 2 Pashamiya that accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) was taken in a mini-bus in an injured condition and accused Kayyum (A-2) and other accused accompanied him upto Civil Hospital, Yavatmal.When they were together in the bus and also in Civil Hospital, Yavatmal, there is every possibility of their consultation about the incident and in order to save themselves and their relatives, accused Mohabbatkhan has invented a novel story of his defence.It is nothing but a figment of his imagination and after-thought which cannot be believed.Accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) has taken a defence that when he was taken in a mini-bus to Babhulgaon, he went to Babhulgaon Police Station and lodged his oral complaint about the incident to A.S.I. Mandaokar (PW 16).PW 16 is examined by prosecution and this story that accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23) went in Police Station, Babhulgaon and lodged the oral report to him is not at all suggested to him.Accused Sk.Noor (A-3) has taken a defence of alibi and he has examined Manikrao Yende, D.W. 1 (V.O.) in his defence.On 6-6-1990, this witness was not present in the Nursery.It may be noted that this Nursery is just adjacent to village Naigaon.Though this witness has given the duty hours from 7.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., it can be heardly believed that any worker working in the Nursery would remain in the Nursery from 7.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. continuously.So, even if his presence marked in the Register of Nursery on the date of incident i.e. 6-6-1990 is accepted, there is no evidence to show that at the relevant time of the incident, accused Sk.Noor (A-3) was present in the Nursery and this witness has stated that he could not say when accused Sk.Noor did the work in the Nursery and moreover about its timings.Moreover, this defence of alibi is not suggested to PW 7 Babarao Pawasekar.Therefore, his defence is not acceptable.The learned Counsel for accused has urged to consider the alternative defence of accused Ayyub (A-1) of grave and sudden provocation.It is urged that at the time of arrest of accused Ayyub, he was beaten by policemen.Even in auto-rickshaw, he was made to sleep and policemen put their legs on his body.He was incapacitated to such an extent that he could not even stand.He further urged that from the beginning, accused Ayyub was saying that policemen were arresting him on a false report of PW 4 Chandabai Kambale.He was thus enraged and because of grave and sudden provocation, the moment he was taken out from the auto-rickshaw he lost his balance.It is true that PW 6 Ramrao Khandare has stated that accused Ayyub (A-1) was made to sleep in the auto-rickshaw and it has also come in the evidence that he was unable to stand.As already observed, accused Ayyub (A-1) first resisted his arrest and therefore, police had given him 5-6 cane blows.Police had to apply force because of resistence of accused Ayyub.Mere giving of 5-6 cane blows cannot amount to merciless beating.PW 6 Ramrao Khandare has admitted that accused Ayyub was made to sleep in the auto-rickshaw meaning thereby that accused Ayyub (A-1) was lying in between the driver and passenger seat in the auto-rickshaw.It is the prosecution evidence that as soon as accused Ayyub was taken out from the auto-rickshaw he rushed towards P.S.I. Deshmukh.It may be seen that this alternative defence of grave and sudden provocation was not taken in the trial.Moreover, no foundation was laid during trial for this defence.In one sense, we can say that this defence is an after-thought.The evidence shows that accused Ayyub (A-1) was not incapacitated and there was no grave and sudden provocation.The next important question to be considered in this case is what offences the accused have committed.The trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under section 148 of Indian Penal Code.It is submitted on behalf of accused that there was no "unlawful assembly" in the beginning as well as at the time when firing was done.P.S.I. Deshmukh has told accused Ayyub (A-1) as also the other accused persons gathered near the school of Naigaon that accused Ayyub (A-1) was arrested under section 151, Cr.P.C. When policemen were taking accused Ayyub in the auto-rickshaw, the other accused followed the auto-rickshaw by chasing the same, pelting stones and shouting that policemen should release accused Ayyub (A-1) and the said mob consisted of 25 to 30 persons.It is satisfactorily established by prosecution that accused Ayyub has snatched the revolver from the holster of P.S.I. Deshmukh and fired three bullets at policemen.When Police Constable Ingole had gone to the rescue of P.S.I. Deshmukh, accidentally one bullet hit to accused Mohabbatkhan (A-23).Main target of accused Ayyub (A-1) was P.S.I. Deshmukh.At the time of first and second firing, the bullet missed P.S.I. and, therefore, the third bullet from this revolver was fired by accused Ayyub at P.S.I. Deshmukh from a very close range, almost revolver touching the right temporal region of P.S.I. Deshmukh.When accused Ayyub (A-1) had fired three bullets, his intention was clear to kill P.S.I. Deshmukh so the act of accused Ayyub (A-1) falls under clauses thirdly and fourthly of section 300 of Indian Penal Code.Therefore, accused Ayyub (A-1) is guilty of committing murders of P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole.The next important question for our consideration is what was the common object of the other members of the unlawful assembly.In this respect, the incident at Naigaon bus stand, when the auto-rickshaw was stopped, is to be considered.After stopping the auto-rickshaw, P.S.I. Deshmukh and Police Constable Ingole got down from the auto rickshaw and P.S.I. Deshmukh was pacifying the mob.PWs 3 and 7, the two Head Constables, were dragged away by two accused each both at a distance of 5 to 7 feet from P.S.I. Deshmukh.Both Head Constables (PWs 3 and 7) could not make any movement.At that time, P.S.I. Deshmukh was caught by three accused.Police Constable Ingole came to the help of P.S.I. Deshmukh.Even though the first bullet was fired, the accused persons who were holding PWs 3 and 7 and the P.S.I. Deshmukh did not set free them and they persisted in their attempt to keep the policemen unmoved.Though the other accused were knowing that accused Ayyub (A-1) had fired the first bullet, they did not set free P.S.I. Deshmukh as well as the two Head Constables (PWs 3 and 7) and by their actions they helped accused Ayyub (A-1) to achieve his target.They even did not do anything to prevent accused Ayyub (A-1) from doing such a dastardly act.This shows that the accused persons had shared the common object with accused Ayyub (A-1) to kill."....... No report was made against the appellants for their provocative behaviour and no case was registered against them for the commission of any cognizable offence.The deceased acted over-zealously and attempted to apprehend the appellants.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,339,139 |
He has been detained by the secondrespondent by his order in Detention Order No.123/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 10.09.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f)of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.896of 2015 registered on the file of V2 Avaniyapuram Police Station for offencespunishable under Sections 354(c), 452, 323, 506(ii) and 392 of the IndianPenal Code and the adverse case in Crime No.1089 of 2014 registered on thefile of V2 Avaniyapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections147, 148, 363, 342, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code @ 147, 148, 363,342, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfactionthat the detenu conformed to the definition of "Goonda" and that his presenceat large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and alsoexpressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that the detenuwould come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detentionorder.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.Though a number of grounds have been raised assailing theorder of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies onthe following contention:-The failure to supply a copy of the Government Order even after arepresentation was made in writing seeking supply of the same amounts todenial of reasonable opportunity vitiating the order of detention itself."The submissions made by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor in reply to the above said contention raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner are also heard.So far as the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner regarding the non-furnishing of the Government Order is concerned,admittedly, the power delegated to the Detaining Authority was beingperiodically extended by fresh Government Orders passed once in three months and a copy of the latest Government Order extending the delegation, which hasbeen referred to in the detention order, has not been furnished to thedetenu.Though non-furnishing of the same initially may not be taken seriousnote of, when a representation is made seeking supply of a copy of the saidGovernment Order to make an effective challenge to the detention order, suchrequest ought to have been considered properly and the failure to do so andthe mechanical rejection of such request amounts to denial of reasonableopportunity to make an effective challenge to the order of detention.On thatscore alone, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.6.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and thisCourt sets aside the order of detention dated 10.09.2015, made inNo.123/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai and directs therelease of the detenu by name Veeramani, S/o.Krishnan, aged about 22 years forthwith, if his continued custody is not authorised in specific cases or byany other detention order.1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort.2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,340,066 |
JUDGMENT V. Kanagaraj, J.This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 10.10.2001 made in S.C. No. 44 of 1999 by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, thereby convicting appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC and sentencing both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/= and in default, to undergo a further term of rigorous imprisonment for six months.The charge against appellant/accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the lower court is that both of them joining hands with each other, with an intent to commit the offence of rape on the victim girl, since she belongs to the scheduled caste, on 21.12.1998, at about 7.00 a.m., when the victim was going to the Manjoor Government High School, the first accused, plucking her school bag and throwing the same away and lifting her physically and the second accused, shutting her mouth when she raised alarm and taking her to the land of the first accused and making her lie on the grass, they not only untied the buttons of her blouse, but also lifted her petticoat, thus attempting to rape her and hence, both the accused became liable to be tried for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC r/w.P.2, observation mahazar and rough sketch and that he was examined by the police on the spot.This witness would also depose that immediately after coming to know about the occurrence, he went to the spot, where everything was in the shambles and his daughter's school bag was also lying there, which he collected; that his daughter's clothes were torn at that time.6. P.W.2 is the victim and she has deposed that she is aged 18 years and studying 9th Standard; that at the time of occurrence, she was studying 8th Standard; that she knew the first accused; that on 21.12.1998, when she was going to the School by the bank of Manjoor sluice, the first accused was standing there and he plucked her school bag and lifted her to the nearby bush with the help of the second accused, who was with him and when she shouted, the second accused shut her mouth and making her lie near the fencing on the grass floor, A.1 attempted to remove her petticoat and since she held the petticoat and blouse tight, they both were torn and at that time, since there was a coughing sound from the Eastern side, both the accused, leaving her there itself, had run off from the scene of occurrence; that then she went to her father, who was at a distance of " km. from the place of occurrence and explained him about the occurrence and her father came along with her to the place of occurrence, picking up the school bag which was lying there and went to the village and explained to the Panchayat President, and then he went to the school and told the Headmaster also and on their advice, they went to the Police Station the next day on 22.12.1998 and lodged a complaint; that after examining her, the police sent her to the Hospital; that the Police also recovered her blouse and petticoat, which would be marked as M.Os.4 and 5 respectively.Since P.W.3 denied knowledge of the occurrence, he would be treated hostile by the prosecution.P.W.4, who is the husband of the Panchayat President of Manjoor village, would depose that he knew P.W.1; that on 21.12.1998, at about 5 p.m. when he was at home, P.W.1 came to him and told that when his daughter was going to the school, two persons attempted to rape her and requested him to hear the parties and resolve the subject; that he directed P.W.1 to go to the Police Station and lodge the complaint.8. P.W.5 is the medical witness and a Doctor attached to Paramakudi Government Hospital and this witness would depose that on 22.12.1998, when she was at the hospital, she examined the victim P.W.1, who said that on 21.12.1998 at about 7.30 a.m. at Manjoor sluice, two persons attempted to rape her; that on examination, she found no external injuries and she issued Ex.P.3, accident register.9. P.W.6 is also a Doctor attached to the Ramnad Government Hospital and this witness would depose that on 23.02.1999 when she was on duty, P.W.2 was summoned before her for examination and the victim alleged that on 21.12.1998 at about 8.30 a.m., when she was going to the school, at the Manjoor sluice, two boys, plucking her bag and tearing her clothes, attempted to rape her and since she raised an alarm, others came to her rescue and her clothes were recovered by the Police.This witness would also depose that with the permission of her father, she examined her and opined that pubic hair were present, but says that neither nail marks nor bite marks were seen on the stomach or thighs or breasts; that there were no injuries in her private part also and it was quite normal; that the hymen was not torn and there was no discharge; that she has issued the certificate to the effect that the victim was capable of having sexual intercourse, but till recently, she had not had any such intercourse at all and would issue Ex.P.4 final opinion; that her blood and urine were tested and also the body was scanned and nothing abnormal was found.10. P.W.7 is a Doctor attached to Ramnad Government Hospital and she would depose that on 23.02.1999 at about 9.55 a.m., A.1 was brought before him by P.C.1659 with a requisition to examine him and on examination, he found him to be 23 years old and this witness would certify that he was capable of having sexual intercourse and would issue Ex.P.5 certificate.Likewise, this witness would also examine A.2 and would issue Ex.P.6 certificate to the effect that he was capable of having sexual intercourse.This witness would further depose that he examined P.W.2, who was brought by her father and would admit her in the maternity ward for being examined by the expert.Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and hence the charge.The trial court, having framed the said charge, based on the facts and circumstances revealed from the case of the prosecution and permitting the parties to record their evidence, has conducted a full trial of the case with due opportunity for both to be heard.During trial, on the part of the prosecution, whose duty it is to prove the case put up to the requirement of law beyond all reasonable doubts, eleven witnesses have been examined for oral evidence as P.Ws.1 to 11; 15 documents have been marked as Exs.On the contrary, the witnesses examined, the documents and the material objects marked on the part of the defence were nil.The court below, in consideration of the facts encircling the whole case and having appreciated the evidence in its own way, has ultimately held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and passed the judgment convicting the accused under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC and sentencing both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/= and in default, to undergo a further term of rigorous imprisonment for six months, but acquitted the accused for the offence charged and punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, testifying the validity of the conviction and sentence, appellants/A.1 and A.2 have preferred the above criminal appeal on certain grounds as pleaded in the grounds of appeal.Looking at the case of the prosecution as projected through the evidence, this Court is able to see that P.W.1, Karuppaiah, the father of the victim has deposed that the victim is his third daughter and that he belongs to Hindu Scheduled Caste community; that he knows both the accused; that the victim, at the time of occurrence, was studying 9th Standard; that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the forest for cutting wood (viragu); that at about 8 a.m., as usual, when his daughter was walking on the bank of the Manjoor sluice, both the accused lifted her and stripped off her clothes and attempted to rape her and after hearing a coughing sound of somebody, they left her there itself and ran off, which he came to know from his daughter; that thereafter, he took his daughter to the school and reported the matter to the Principal and the Panchayat President and on their advice, he went to Paramakudi Taluk Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1, complaint and the Police sent his daughter to the Paramakudi Government Hospital and thereafter, the Police visited the spot, which is nothing but the land belonging to A.1 and prepared Ex.The accident register entered into regarding the details of P.W.2 would be marked as Ex.10. P.W.8 is a Doctor and Radiologist attached to the Ramnad Government Hospital and this witness would depose that on 26.02.1999, P.W.2 was referred to her for examining her radiologically in order to ascertain her age; that she would take 5 X-rays and certify that the victim would of the age between 18 and 20; the certificate issued to the said effect is marked as Ex.P.8 and the X-rays numbering 5 would be marked as M.O.1 series.Likewise, A.1, who was also referred to P.W.8, medical officer and radiologist for ascertaining his age and she would ascertain his age to the effect that he had completed 20 years; the certificate issued would be marked as Ex.P.9 and the X-rays numbering 4 taken from A.1 would be marked as M.O.2 series.In the same manner for A.2 also, this witness would ascertain the age as having completed 20 years and issued Ex.P.10 certificate, besides marking the X-rays numbering four, taken to ascertain his age, would be marked as M.O.3 series.P.W.9 was the Tahsildar of Paramakudi and he would depose that on 12.1.1999, he had issued the community certificate to the effect that the second accused was belonging to 'Kammala' community he and would mark same as Ex.This witness would further depose that on 30.12.1998, he has issued Ex.P.13, Community Certificate to P.W.2 that she belongs to Hindu 'Pallan' community, which is a scheduled caste community.He would also depose that he issued these certificates as per the requisition of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and certified by the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector.P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Paramakudi Police Station and he would depose that on 22.12.1998, when he was in the Police Station, P.W.1 appeared before him at 3.45 p.m. and lodged a written complaint and he registered the same in Crime No. 164 of 1998 under Section 376 r/w. 511 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention Atrocities) Act and prepared Ex.P.14 F.I.R. and sent the original to the Court and the copies to the superior officers for investigation.This witness would also depose to the effect that he referred P.W.2, who was accompanied by P.W.1, to the hospital for medical treatment.P.W.11 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer and he would depose that on 22.12.1998, when he was on duty at Paramakudi Sub Division, about 5 p.m., he received the FIR and at 6 p.m., he inspected the spot in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.15 rough sketch and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses; then he formed a separate Wing to cause the arrest of the accused; that on 23.12.1998, he examined P.W.4 and other witnesses and recorded their statements; that on 24.12.1998 at about 11 a.m., P.W.1 identifying, he arrested A.1 and taking him to the Police Station and preparing a memo.for medical examination, he would refer him to the Government Hospital; that on 25.12.1998, he examined P.W.3 and recorded his statement; that even on 22.12.1998, he advised the Inspector of Police to refer P.W.2 to the hospital for being examined medically; that since the second accused surrendered before the Court, noting the same, he then arranged for the community certificate to be obtained for P.W.2 and the accused.D.1 reveals that on her shouting for help, the revision petitioner himself released her and she escaped from him.Therefore, when Ex.
|
['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.
|
31,344,325 |
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral) In the night intervening 13/14.04.2004, the dead body of a person aged about 25-26 years was found on the Service Road behind Ambedkar College Park in the jurisdiction of Police Station Shahdara.The information in this Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 1 of 15 regard was recorded at Police Station Shahdara vide DD no.40A which was given to Inspector N.P. Singh, SHO of the aforesaid police station for investigation.He reached the spot, and seized the dead body.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 1 of 15On 15.4.2004, Bhagwandin Yadav identified the dead body to be of Maharajdin Yadav.The user of mobile phone number 9811335789, when contacted, informed that the mobile phone number 9811425733 belonged to the elder brother of Vijay who was residing in Loni.On the basis of the aforesaid details, a person whose name initially came to be known as Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 2 of 15 Vijender Kumar @ Fauji was apprehended.The brother of deceased Maharajdin also told the police that his brother was working at a shop and living as paying guest with a neighbouring shopkeeper Mahender Prasad and that on 13.4.2004 when Maharajdin Yadav left the house, Mahender Prasad had also accompanied him.On inquiry being made at the shop of Mahender Prasad, it came to be found that on 13.4.2004 at about 1.30 pm, a person aged about 50 years came to his shop, handed over the keys of the safe in the shop and took a carton kept in the safe on the pretext that Mahender had asked for the said carton.This is also the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased Mahender was recovered from Yamuna river near the police station New Friends Colony.According to the prosecution, the appellant - Vijay got recovered Rs.23,000/- from his house and on 18.4.2004, the appellant - Virender @ Fauji got recovered a mobile phone instrument from his house.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 3 of 15This is further the case of the prosecution that on 29.4.2004, the appellant - Rajinder while in judicial custody got the mobile phone of deceased Maharajdin Yadav recovered from his house.All the three appellants were prosecuted under Section 364//328/392/302/201/120B/411/419 of IPC.Vide charge dated 03.11.2004, the appellants Vijay Kumar was charged under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 364, 302 and 201 thereof abducting Mahender Prasad and Mehrajuddin Yadav and committing their murder in the night of 13/14.4.2004 and disposing of their dead bodies in order to conceal the evidence of the crime and screening them from legal punishment.He was also charged under Section 120B read with Section 392 of IPC for committing robbery of Rs.90,000/- from the shop of Mahender Prasad.The appellants - Tej Singh @ Teja and Rajinder were charged under Section 364/302/201 read with section 34 thereof for committing the murder of the aforesaid two persons and disposing of their bodies with a view to conceal the evidence of the crime and screening themselves from legal punishment.Appellant Vijay was further charged under Section 392 IPC read with Section 34 for committing robbery of Rs.90,000/- from the shop of Mahender.The appellant - Rajinder was also charged Section 411 of IPC for receiving or retaining the mobile phone instrument of deceased Mahender Prasad knowing or having reason to believe the same to a stolen property.The appellant - Vijay was also charged under Section 411 for receiving or Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 4 of 15 retaining the amount of Rs.23,000/-, alleged to have been recovered from his house knowing or having the reasons the same to be stolen property.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 4 of 15Vide impugned judgment dated 24.2.2010, the appellants were convicted under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 420 thereof for cheating PW3 Prem Singh by inducing him and were also convicted for the substantive offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.They were acquitted of rest of the charges.An FIR under Sections 302/201 of IPC was registered on the basis of endorsement made by the SHO on the copy of the DD No.40A. A label of "RL Tailor, Kailash Nagar, Delhi-110031" was found stitched on the pant which the deceased was wearing.On the inquiries being made with R.L. Tailor, Kailash Nagar, it came to be known that the deceased, who used to get the clothes stitched from the said tailor was residing in some nearby locality.On this information Virender Kumar was formally arrested and his confessional statement was recorded.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 2 of 15The appellant - Virender @ Fauji refused to join TIP on 23.4.2004 and thereafter he was identified by the witness Prem Singh and Amit Kumar.It was also revealed during investigation that the name of Virender @ Fauji was also Tej Singh @ Teja.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 3 of 15Vide impugned Order on Sentence dated 25.2.2010, all the three appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for seven (7) years each and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default to undergo SI for six months each for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 420 thereof for cheating PW3 Prem Singh, by inducing him.For the substantive offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the appellants Tej Singh and Rajinder were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000/- each or to undergo RI for six months each in default.The appellant Vijay was sentenced to undergo RI for six months for the substantive offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- or to undergo RI for three months in default.The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that none of the appellants was charged for being a party to a criminal conspiracy to cheat PW3 Prem Singh nor were they charged for the substantive offence Crl.In these circumstances, while defending themselves during the course of trial, the appellants could not have even Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 6 of 15 thought of the meeting a charge of cheating Prem Singh to the extent of Rs 90,000/-.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 6 of 15For instance, there are classes of offences like offences against human body, offences against property and offences relating to cheating, misappropriation, forgery, etc. If a person has been charged for instance under Section 302 of IPC, he can be convicted for offence punishable under Section Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 7 of 15 304 of the Penal Code since the two offences are cognate offences and the ingredients of the offence under Section 304 of IPC are included in the offence under Section 302 thereof.Similarly, if a person has been charged say under Section 325 of IPC for causing grievous grievous hurt to a person he can be convicted under Section 323 thereof for causing simple hurt.But where the grave offence and the less grave offence fall in different classes, it would be difficult to say that a person charged with a grave offence falling in one class can be convicted for a less grave offence which falls in some other class.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 7 of 15The offences punishable under Sections 299 to 377 of the Code fall in Chapter XVI of IPC, under the class "Of Offences Affecting the Human Body" and there is further sub-classification of the offences affecting the human body.On the other hand, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC falls in Chapter XVII of the Code under the class "Of Offences Against Property".Therefore, an offence against property such as cheating cannot be considered to be less grave offence qua the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code which falls in an altogether different class, for the purpose of conviction with the aid of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The expression "cognate offences" indicate similarity and common essential features between the offences and they are primarily based on Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 8 of 15 difference of degree.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 8 of 15In Shamsaheb N. Multani Vs.The two illustrations provided in the section would bring the above point home well and only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as minor offence vis--vis the other offence.In Bimla Devi & Anr.State of Jammu & Kashmir (2009) 6 SCC 629, the appellants before the Apex Court were charged under Section 302 of IPC but were convicted under Section 306 & 498A thereof.The Apex Court, however, set aside the order of their conviction on the ground that they had Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 9 of 15 not been charged with the offences for commission of which they were convicted.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 9 of 15In Shamsaheb N. Multani (supra), the appellant before the Apex Court was charged under Section 302 of IPC but was convicted under Section 304B thereof.The position, however, would be different when the charge also contains the offence under Section 498A of IPC.During the course of the judgement it was observed that if the prosecution fails to make out a case under Section 302 of IPC but the offence under Section 304B of IPC is made out, the Court has to call upon the accused to enter on his defence in respect of the said offence and without affording such an opportunity a conviction under Section 304B of IPC would lead to real and serious miscarriage of justice.In Makkhan & Ors.Emperor AIR 1945 Allahabad 81, the appellants were charged under Section 395 of IPC.They were acquitted of the said charge but were convicted under Sections 458 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code; setting aside the conviction, the High Court noted that before a person can be convicted for a minor offence, the major and the minor offences must be cognate offences which have the main ingredients in common, and a man charged with one offence which is entirely of a different type from the Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 10 of 15 offence which he is proved to have committed, cannot in the absence of a proper charge be convicted of that offence, merely on the ground that the facts proved constitute a minor offence.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 10 of 15In Vazhambalakkal Thomachan Vs.State of Kerala 1978 Crl.LJ 498, the accused was charged under Section 302 of IPC.Being aggrieved from his conviction he filed an appeal.When the High Court found that the charge under Section 302 of IPC did not stand prove the learned Public Prosecutor relying on Sections 221 & 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pressed for a conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC on the ground that there was acceptable evidence that of the stolen property having been recovered from the place pointed out by the appellant.Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that the prosecution had no case, at the commencement of the trial that the appellant had committed robbery or theft or any other cognate offence.The High Court was of the view that the accused charged with one offence which is entirely of a different type from the offence which is proved to have been committed cannot, in the absence of a proper charge be convicted of that offence merely on the ground that the facts proved constituted a minor offence.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 11 of 15Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 11 of 15The appellant, therefore, got no opportunity to offer their explanation, if any, with regard to the aforesaid circumstances.A perusal of the charges framed against the appellants would show that none of them was charged for being a party to the criminal conspiracy to cheat PW3 Prem Singh by inducing him to part with a parcel which as per the case of the prosecution contained Rs.90,000/-.None of them was charged with the substantive offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC for cheating Prem Singh by inducing him to deliver a parcel containing Rs.90,000/- to them.In fact, in none of the charges there was any reference to any sort of cheating or inducement qua PW3 Prem Singh.In the absence of any charge of being a party to the criminal conspiracy to cheat Prem Singh or the charge for the substantive offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC by cheating and inducing PW3 Prem Singh to part with a carton/box containing cash, the appellants had no occasion or opportunity to defend themselves against the aforesaid charges.While defending themselves in respect of the charges Crl.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 12 of 15 framed against them, they could not have anticipated conviction under Section 120B read with Section 420 thereof or for the substantive offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC for cheating PW3 Prem Singh by inducing him to part with parcel containing cash of Rs.90,000/-.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 12 of 15Section 464(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the extent it is relevant provides that no, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, unless, in the opinion of the Court a failure of justice has in fact occasioned thereby.The appellants, in my view, were seriously prejudiced on account of their conviction, without their having been charged either for being a party to the criminal conspiracy to cheat Prem Singh or for the substantive offence of cheating Prem Singh and the said prejudice has resulted in a failure of justice.The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum punishment prescribed in the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment up to seven (7) years and appellants Rajinder and Vijay have already remained in custody for more than seven (7) years.As far as appellant Tej Singh is concerned a perusal of his nominal roll would show that as on 7.3.2011, he had spent six (6) years ten (10) months and five (5) days in custody excluding of the remission earned by him which at that time was four (4) months and seventeen (17) days.Thus, inclusive of remission he also spent more than seven (7) years in custody.In these circumstances it would be gross injustice to the appellants if they are subjected to a fresh trial after framing a charge under Section 120B read with Section 420 thereof and/or under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 14 of 15Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 14 of 15For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order on sentence are hereby set aside.The bail bonds of the appellants are discharged.One copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information & necessary action.LCR be sent back along with a copy of this order.Appeal Nos459,700&701of2010 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,346,706 |
DL-1RE-6546 (TSR) on 29.11.2008 at about 11:30 PM, at a place described as Tilak Nagar flyover, the car concededly having hit the TSR from behind.The TSR was admittedly driven by Naresh Pandit (first respondent), statedly owned by Shailendra (second respondent) and insured against third party risk for the period in question with National Insurance Co. Ltd. (third respondent).The TSR is stated to be moving on road with three persons travelling as passengers.MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 1 of 6The appellant preferred an accident claim case on 17.12.2009 (suit no.115/09/10) before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) seeking compensation on the averments that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the TSR driver since he had suddenly changed lane in order to overtake another TSR moving in front and thereby coming in the way of the car resulting in the collision.The appellant claimed that he had suffered injuries and had also incurred expenditure in repair of the car which had been damaged as a result of the mishap.In the claim case, he impleaded the driver, owner and the insurer of the TSR as the respondents.It may be mentioned here that the dependant family members of Shashi Kant Kiran, the passenger of the TSR who had died also preferred an accident claim case before the tribunal (case no.635/2014) in which the appellant was impleaded as the sole respondent, he being the owner and driver of the car.In the claim case thus preferred by the dependant family members of Shashi Kant Kiran (the deceased passenger), instituted on 21.08.2009, it was alleged that the accident had occurred due to negligent driver on the part of the appellant since he had driven the car in rash speed MAC APP.In the claim case presented by the appellant, during the course of inquiry, he examined himself (PW1) on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), also examining Mukesh Kathuria (PW4), a relative, who was statedly moving with him as a passenger in the car at the time of the accident.The evidence of PW1 and PW4 is along lines of the pleadings referred to above.R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):The appellant was admittedly the owner and driver of the car bearing registration no.DL-9CD-0225 (the car), when it was involved in a collision against three wheeler scooter bearing registration no.As a result of collision, the said passengers are stated to have MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 1 of 6 suffered injuries with one Shashi Kant Kiran dying in the consequence.The police registered a first information report (FIR) no.367/2008 in police station Tilak Nagar taking up the matter for investigation into the offences including those punishable under Sections 279/337/338 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), on the basis of evidence gathered wherein, the appellant stood summoned as an accused by the criminal court and put to trial.No. 1235/2012 Page 2 of 6 hitting the TSR moving ahead from behind causing injuries to three passengers and death of one of them.It is an undisputed case that the car was not insured against the third party risk for the period in question and, thus, no insurer was impleaded in the claim case brought by the dependant family members of the deceased passenger.MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 2 of 6It must further be added here that the claim case presented by the appellant (suit no.115/09/10) and the claim case presented by the dependant family members of the deceased Shashi Kant Kiran (no.635/2014) appear to have been made over to different tribunals where they were inquired into separately each leading to separate judgments.Additionally, the appellant examined Shahzad Alam (PW2), Dr. S. K. Tyagi (PW3), Dr. Anil Sagar (PW5), Jagmal Singh (PW6), Mukesh Kumar Sharma (PW7) and ASI Gurucharan Singh (PW8).While the evidence of PW2 and PW6 related to the expenditure incurred in carrying out repairs of the car which had been damaged, the testimony of PW3 and PW5 pertained to the injuries and the treatment taken therefor.PW7, an official of the court of metropolitan magistrate where the criminal case pertaining to the FIR referred to above has been pending trial, was examined to prove the copy of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), which is inclusive of documents MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 3 of 6 (collectively Ex.PW7/A) in the nature of site plan and mechanical inspection reports.PW8 is the police official who had conducted investigation into the said FIR.MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 3 of 6Pertinent to note here that first respondent Naresh Pandit, the driver of the TSR also appeared as a witness (R1W1) on the basis of his affidavit (Ex.R1W1/A) in which he affirmed the facts on oath again on the lines of his pleadings.The tribunal dismissed the claim case of the appellant on the basis of the following observations:-"I have gone through the entire pleadings as well as evidence adduced wherein the petitioner has filed his affidavits reiterating the averments made in the petition and he has been cross examined.In the cross examination, the petitioner has admitted that he has been arrayed as an accused in FIR registered in the present case.Petitioner has also admitted that the car was not insured at the time of accident.It has also been considered that the vehicle was not got mechanically inspected by the petitioner after the accident and petitioner has no documentary proof to show as to the damage sustained by the vehicle.In fact, case has been made out against the petitioner whereby due to his rash and negligent driving a person had died in the accident.Keeping in view the said fact, petitioner does not deserve any compensation as regards the damages for his vehicle.The issue 1 & 2 are decided against the petitioner."MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 4 of 6Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the tribunal's record, this court finds the manner in which the claim case was decided by the tribunal to be wholly improper.The tribunal has not considered the evidence at all, not the least on the issue of negligence which, given the fact that the claim was made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), was a sine-qua-non for grant of any relief.Even on the question of assessment of damages, the evidence has not been discussed.Rather, assumptions have been made that proper evidence with regard to mechanical inspection is not available to make estimation as to the extent of damages sustained by the vehicle.The presiding officer of the tribunal appears to have not even looked into the file before recording the observations to such effect as quoted above.Given the above nature of handling by the tribunal, this court being the first appellate court, has undertaken the necessary exercise and considered the evidence in entirety.On the question of negligence, however, this court finds the evidence on record loaded against the case set up by the appellant and, therefore, the result of this appeal will have to be again adverse to the cause brought by the appellant.The reasons are set out hereinafter.Though the appellant, appearing as PW1, affirmed on oath that the car was moved in the right lane (it would be lane meant for fast traffic) and that it was the TSR which had suddenly come in the way, and his word being supported by that of PW4, a passenger in the car, there is no reason why the evidence of R1W1, the TSR driver should be disbelieved.He (TSR driver) has deposed that his vehicle was moving at a speed of 20-25 kmph and that MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 5 of 6 the car which had come from behind to hit his TSR was moving at a speed of 80-90 kmph.During his cross-examination, no effort was made to discredit his evidence with regard to the extent of speed at which the two vehicles were moving at the relevant point of time.Undoubtedly, it was suggested to R1W1 that the accident had occurred because the TSR had changed lane and come in the way of the car.The theory of changing lane by itself cannot save the day for the appellant, the car driver.It cannot be ignored that it was the car which had hit the TSR from behind.The extent of damage that both the vehicles suffered as a result of the collision, as borne out by the photographs (Ex.PW1/7 collectively) filed by the appellant himself, shows that it was the car which was moving at speed which was uncontrollable.MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 5 of 6In cases of this nature, the proof of fault is not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.But, even on the test of preponderance of probabilities, the very fact that the TSR was hit from its rear side by the car which was coming from behind, the burden of explaining as to why collision could have been avoided lies squarely at the door of the appellant.On careful appraisal of the material on record, this court finds that the appellant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal must fail.It is accordingly dismissed.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) APRIL 19, 2016 ssc MAC APP.No. 1235/2012 Page 6 of 6No. 1235/2012 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
313,469 |
JUDGMENT P. Chakravartti, C.J.This is a Rule issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, requiring him to show cause why two orders, dated 30-4-1957 and 1-5-1957 respectively, passed by Shri F.M. Sanyal, Presidency Magistrate, in the course of a commitment proceeding against the petitioner should not be set aside or such other order or orders passed as this Court may deem fit and proper.By the impugned orders, the learned Magistrate rejected the Petitioner's prayer to direct the prosecution to produce more witnesses of the actual commission of the alleged offence and also to examine some witnesses on his own account in the interest of justice.The case arose out of an incident which took place on 4-10-1956 and in the course of Which one Osman Kasai received severe injuries, resulting ultimately in his death.At first, the Police started a case against Osman Kasai and 5 others on an information lodged by one Matilal Marwari at about 1-50 P. M., but in the night two other informations were lodged by one Md. Farooque, a brother of Osman Kasai, accusing the Petitioner and certain other persons of an assault on Osman.Later in the same night, on receipt of the injury report of Osman from the Medical College Hospital and his statement made to the doctor in charge that he had been assaulted by unknown goondas, the Police started a case against unknown goondas under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation.Subsequently Osman died in the hospital.On the completion of their investigation, the Police submitted a challan on 4-1-1957, charging the Petitioner and six other persons-with an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for having assaulted Osman Kasai on 4-10-1956, in furtherance of a common intention to cause his death and for having caused his death by the assault.The Petitioner and five of the other accused persons had previously been arrested by the Police, but the seventh accused was absconding.On 31-1-1957, the Chief Presidency Magistrate directed the case to proceed as against the six accused persons before the Court and transferred it to Shri F.M. Sanyal, Presidency Magistrate, for disposal.Shri Sanyal proceeded under Section 207A of the Criminal Procedure.He satisfied himself that copies of the papers to which the accused were entitled had been supplied to them and then he examined the witnesses produced by the prosecution.In the case of every witness, the defence declined to cross-examine.On 30-4-1957, before which six of the witnesses had been examined, an application was made by the Petitioner whereby it was prayed that the prosecution might be directed to produce all witnesses on whom they wished to rely as eye-witnesses and also to produce the medical witnesses.The learned Magistrate rejected the application.He said that the prosecution were examining all the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and having perused the records and documents filed in the case, he did not think that any useful purpose would be served by examining all the other witnesses and prolonging the enquiry thereby.That application was also rejected.The learned Magistrate observed that the question had already been decided by this Court in the State v. Joydeb Chandra Das, 61 Cal WN 248 (A).Thereafter, the Petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,351,525 |
Admittedly the deceased was son of the accused/appellant.3. Facts in brief are that on 28/03/2017 at about 9 in the night, deceased Gangaram went to invite his father Mangu (appellant) for wedding of his son Dharmendra.The accused got annoyed as to why after inviting the entire society, he had come to invite him in the last.Reserved on:06/01/2018 (Delivered on this the day of 9th January, 2018) Per : Virender Singh, J.Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 08.01.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.149/2007 by II nd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kukshi, Distt.Dhar, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of his son and awarded life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo R.I. of one month, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.Cr.A. No.717 of 2008 (Mangu vs. State of MP) 2He refused to attend the marriage and threatened to kill him and his son.The deceased uttered abuses.In that heated moment, the appellant with intent to kill the deceased inflicted falia on his head.Blood started oozing out from the injury and he fell down.Neighbour Gopal (P.W.6) had seen the incident and informed Sardar.After hearing about the incident Dudibai (P.W.7), Kamlabai, Sahbai, Dharmendra and Bhagu rushed to the spot and saw the deceased lying in front of the door of the appellant and the appellant was standing there with bloodstained faliya in his hand and was still abusing.Seeing them, he ran away towards the pond of the village.Within 2 hours Dudibai along with Kamlabai, Bhagu, Sahbai and Dharmendra lodged FIR Ex.P/11 at Police Chowki-Nisarpur, Police Station-Kukshi.The police investigated the case, sent the injured to the hospital, Dr. G.S. Baghel (P.W.1) examined him and found an incised wound of 5 x 2 inches size on left parietal region caused by hard and sharp object.He immediately referred him for Barwani hospital, where Dr. R.S. Palod (P.W.9) found him brought dead and on the request of the police performed autopsy and confirmed the injury found by Dr. Baghel.Dr. Palod opined that death was caused due to injury found on the head of the deceased.After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC.Cr.A. No.717 of 2008 (Mangu vs. State of MP) 3The appellant was charged, tried and convicted as stated in para-1 above.We have considered contentions of both the parties.He has got three brothers.He has got a big family to take care.He has no bad antecedents.In Chand Khan Vs.We order accordingly."In the facts and circumstances noted above, there appears merit in the submission advanced by learned Cr.A. No.717 of 2008 (Mangu vs. State of MP) 7 counsel for the appellant that in view of Exception 1 or Exception 4 in Section 300 of the IPC the case made out against the appellant is that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.It would be natural for the family members of juvenile offender Balu on hearing his cries, to rush for his help and when injury on the appellant has also been proved there is sufficient material to infer the reasonable possibility of a grave and sudden provocation.The assault on the deceased, in absence of intention to cause death could be on account of sudden fight without pre-meditation, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel.We therefore feel persuaded to and do set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and substitute the same with conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent."In Sikandar Ali Vs.State of Maharashtra, AIR 2017 SC 2614, the Court altered the conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 part-2 IPC in the following circumstances:We have no doubt about the complicity of all the accused in the homicide of Sarfraj.A-1 attacked the deceased with the knife and caused injury on his neck which resulted in his death.The other accused assisted him in committing the crime by holding the hands of the deceased.During the course of their business activity the accused reached the dhaba where the deceased was present.An altercation took place during the discussion they were having behind Cr.A. No.717 of 2008 (Mangu vs. State of MP) 8 the dhaba.That led to a sudden fight during which A-1 attacked the deceased with a knife.The incident in question happened all of a sudden without any premeditation after PW1 questioned the appellants about their behaviour.It was a free fight between the two family members.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
313,546 |
The prosecution case, as emerges from the record is that one Shushila @ Maya (the deceased) was the legally wedded wife of the appellant-accused.The appellant is serving as a driver in the Police Department and therefore, they were living together in room No. 185 of the Police Line, situated at Shivaji Nagar Pune.They have two sons and one daughter.The relation between the deceased and appellant were strained after 1986, as accused had developed illicit relations with one Mangala Patil.The appellant thereafter started to ill-treat and harass the deceased.Various letters informing the same were written by the deceased to her parents.Some complaints were also made against the accused with other police officers, including higher officers.The appellant had also written some letters to his in-laws and expressed his desire to give divorce to his wife, the deceased.The appellant had also informed to his in-laws that he would not be responsible, if something happened to his wife Maya.2A. On 9/10/1989, as per the prosecution, in the evening the deceased and appellant-accused were seen together at their house along with their children.However, on the next day i.e. on 10/10/1989 morning only the children of e accused were seen at their house.Nobody saw deceased thereafter.The appellant, between 9/10/1989 and 10/10/1989 and around 3 a.m., committed the murder of his wife by strangulating her with rope and thereafter carried her dead body in the said jeep and threw it in the valley of Katraj Ghat.Thereafter, he came back to Pune and deposited the said vehicle in the Motor Transport Section, at about 4.30 a.m., on the same day.The appellant, at about 19.15 p.m., on 10/10/1989 lodged a missing complaint (Exh.14) in respect of deceased Maya at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Pune.On the same day i.e. on 10/10/1989, the accused took their children to Ulhasnagar to his brother.On the basis of the said missing report, a missing Case No. 173/1989 was registered.He could not collect useful information about the same.The family members of the deceased, thereafter, searched and enquired about the deceased, at different places, including with the neighbours of the accused.The complainant (the brother of the deceased P.W.16) thereafter, had lodged the complaint (Exh.59) on the basis of which a report was prepared by Mr. Jadhav, P.W.20, (Exh.105) and forwarded the same to the Police Inspector, Deccan Gymkhana Police Station.Room No. 185 was searched and panchanama was drawn accordingly by Mr. Jadhav.He had recorded the statement of Mr. Ashok Jadhav (P.W. 17).Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Mr. Ashok Chandgule, P.W. 23, along with all the necessary papers, collected during the investigation.Mr. Chandgule thereafter had recorded the statements of Shobha Kadam, Dilip Choudhari, Shahu Naiknavare, Mohan Yadav and Mr. Degaonkar, ASI MT.As the appellant had shifted to rented premises at Karve Nagar from the quarter No. 185, Mr. Jadhav, P.W. 20 therefore, searched the said rented premises occupied by the appellant.Mr. Jadhav had also recorded the statements of sons of the accused, who were staying in Ulhasnagar.In presence of panchas on 12/12/1989, Mr. Chandgule took the search of jeep NO. MTJ-7595 and found two pieces of broken bangles and one onion in the said jeep (Exh.18).2C. On 13/12/1989 at the instance of the accused the skeleton (dead body) of the deceased was found at the place, in the Katraj Ghat, accordingly, it was seized in presence of the panchas.The photographs were taken by Vijay Tote (P.W. 18) of the skeleton and other articles.The inquest panchanma was drawn Exh.55 of the said skeleton.Dr. Laxmikant Bade, P.W. 19 had examined the skeleton on the spot and opined that it was of the female.The said skeleton alongwith other articles were sent to Sasoon Govt. The post mortem was accordingly conducted by Dr. Bade on 14/12/1989 and found 5 post- mortem fractures and Temporal fractures of thyriod bone antemortem.According to the prosecution those were belonged to the deceased.The same had been identified by the other witnesses also.The memorandum of panchanama of the skeleton (dead body) of the deceased Maya was duly proved by these witnesses.The rope which was used by the appellant for strangulation was also attached and identified by P.W. 13 Nilesh.The other ornaments and the pieces of the bangles were also duly identified by this witness.The various panchanamas drawn from 9th December, 1989 till 23rd February, 1990, were also duly proved by the prosecution.By these panchanama, various articles belonging to the deceased, which were found at the different places, at different time, were also duly proved.The appellant, thereafter, in the next morning, when enquired, told to his children, that his mother (the deceased) left the house with his maternal uncle and also instructed them to inform to the police accordingly, if enquired.P.w. 13 has corroborated the fact that in the same after noon, the appellant left them at Kalyan, at their uncle's place.As per the record and in evidence of Naiknavare and others, these school going children, immediately, on the next day, were sent at the residence of his brother.As we have noted earlier, the appellant was on duty, being a driver of the jeep in question.He brought the jeep at his house at about 3 a.m. and after committing the crime took the body from his house to Katraj Ghat.Thereafter, he thrown the dead body in the valley and brought the jeep at 4.30 a.m. to the MT Section.MISGUIDING EXPLANATION AND MISSING REPORT, SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT AND CIRCUMSTANCES:- As noted above, the appellant, after committing the crime and destroying the evidence of the crime, in the next morning itself, as stated by P.W. 13 Nilesh, was pacifing the children by falsely stating that their mother had gone with maternal uncle and also told them to answer accordingly, if enquired by the police.He immediately shifted the children at his brother's place.JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J.The appellant was charged, tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 and 498A of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) for having committed the murder of his wife Shushila @ Maya Bharat Shinde.Therefore, this appeal against the order of conviction.2D. The complainant had produced various letters written by the deceased Maya, expressing her anguish and the ill-treatment by the appellant and involvement of the appellant with the said Mangala Patil.The Log book of the police vehicle was also sent for hand writing opinion.It was also revealed that the jeep in question was driven about 38 Km.between intervening period of 9th and 10th October 1989, while Mr. Mukhari was doing night rounds in the said jeep driven by the appellant.They had recorded and verified the distance of the total milage of the route on which the appellant had officially driven the vehicle on that night and that figure was 38 km. only.As per prosecution, as the vehicle was driven by the appellant, also up to Katraj Ghat, excessive millage was shown in the log book.Therefore, as alleged, the appellant must have carried the dead body of the deceased in the said jeep and threw it in the valley, so as to destroy the evidence of the offence of the murder.The appellant was chargesheeted.However, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty.His defence was of total denial and false implication.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) had defended himself by stating that he was on duty through out the night between the intervening period of 9th October and 10th October, 1989 and when he returned to his house early in the morning on 10/10/1989 he came to know that his wife maya was missing.Therefore, he had lodged missing report in the police Station at about 19.15 hours.He had also asserted that the skeleton which was found in the valley of Katraj Ghat was not of his deceased wife.The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses.No defence witness was examined by the appellant.The learned Judge after considering the material placed on the record and submissions made by the parties held that; the appellant husband of the deceased Maya subjected her to cruelty during her life time; the skeleton found in the valley of Katraj Ghat was of the deceased Maya; the death of the deceased was homicidal; the death was caused by or in consequences of the act of the accused; the prosecution has proved that the accused had done the said act with the intention of causing the death of Maya and thereby committed the offence of murder; the accused knowingly, wilfully had committed the offence of murder and caused the evidence of the said offence to disappear by throwing the dead body of the deceased in the valley of Katrajghat with the intention of screening himself from the legal punishment.On this foundation the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 302 of I.P.C. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and also liable for the consequential orders.It has been directed that the substantive sentences to run concurrently.5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.7. BACKGROUND MOTIVE AND ILL-TREATMENT:-Taking into account, the evidence of P.W. 3 Mayavati, P.W. 4 Shobha, P.W. 7 Mohan, P.W. 13 Nilesh, P.W. 14 Dilip, P.W. 16 Ramesh, we are of the view that it supports the prosecution case about the ill-treatment faced by the deceased from time to time.All these witnesses have proved that there were ill-treatment and harassment by the accused to the deceased Maya and her children at the hands of the appellant.Most of them were neighbours and knew the appellant, as well as, the deceased.Merely, because there was no complaint lodged earlier by these witnesses about the harassment or ill-treatment, that itself cannot be the reason to discard the evidences of these neighbours.P.W. 13 Nilesh, the son of the appellant, has also supported the case of prosecution in this regard.Merely because he was 8 years old at the time of recording his statement this testimony of the child eye witness can not be disbelieved.P.W. 16 Ramesh, the brother of the deceased had lodged the complainant after more than two months.This evidence is also cannot be over looked, for the delay and being the interested witnesses.The F.I R. Exh.59, letters by the deceased, telegram sent by the deceased, also speak about the ill-treatment and harassment, as referred above.Those letters and the letters even written by the accused also reflect that the appellant had developed illicit relations with Mangala from the year 1986 and since, thereafter, he had started ill-treating the deceased.The appellant used to beat the deceased with the belt, which was recovered from the house of the appellant.The appellant had driven out the deceased and the children on many earlier occasions.At one time they took shelter out side the house.The appellant was moving around with the said Mangala during these periods.In this background, according to us also prosecution has proved that the appellant had motive of harassing and ill-treating the deceased.This back ground also reflects the guilty mind and the guilt of the appellant.The learned Judge therefore, has rightly considered this aspect while convicting the accused.He had full opportunity to commit the crime.The appellant's duty was over by 3 a.m., still he had driven the said jeep at his residence.He had used it for henious purpose up to 4.30 a.m. and thereafter parked the jeep at the Depot and the same was accordingly noted in the log book register.P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have deposed that they saw Maya on 9/10/1989 at night, they knew the clothes, which were on the person of the deceased.Merely, because their statements were recorded two months, after the commencement of the investigation, that itself cannot be the reason to discard the evidence of these witnesses, so also the articles recovered, as it did not bear specific identification marks and were easily available in the market, as sought to be contended by the appellant Counsel.In the present circumstances of the case, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case.All these articles were recovered from the specific places, at the instance of the appellant.The above witnesses have supported the prosecution's case that the deceased was in the house along with the appellant between the period in question and he had full opportunity to commit the murder of his wife.The learned Judge therefore, has rightly considered this aspect.We are also concurring the same view.The appellant has committed the murder.The material witness is P.W. 13 Nilesh Shinde, the minor son of the appellant.He has deposed positively in support of the prosecution's case in his evidence and on the material aspect and the same remained undisturbed.Merely, because there are some lacunas in the statement about the date and time of the incident and that he was only 8 years of age at the relevant time, that itself cannot be sufficient, to discard the testimony of this eye witness.The appellant had shifted their children including Nilesh P.W. 13 on 10/10/1989, immediately, after the date of incident and proceeded on a long leave.In view of the other corroborative circumstantial evidence and materials on the record, we find the testimony of this witness is trustworthy.After going through the testimony of this witness P.W. 13, we find that this witness has deposed as under:"I got up by hearing shouts of my mother.When I stealthily saw, I found my father strangulating my mother by pressing her neck.After some time my mother become quiet.My father then wrapped bed-sheet around her and lifted her to a jeep.I went to sleep.Next day morning when myself, my brother and sister crying in the name of my mother, my father told me that my maternal uncle had come and my mother had left with him.He told me to tell police on inquiry that my mother had gone with Aba Mama.In the afternoon my father took us to Kalyan to our uncle."10A. This witness has also identified the clothes and ornaments, broken bangle pieces, saree and blouse of his deceased mother, including rope and bed-sheet in which his mother was wrapped by the appellant.Even if there are minor omissions and improvements, it will be wrong to discard the evidence of this witness, especially when in his cross-examination he remained unshaken to the fact that he saw the accused pressing neck of his mother and thereafter wrapped in the bed-sheet and put her in the jeep, except to the extent of missing of these statements in the police statement.P.W. 19 Dr. Bade has proved the certificate of cause of death and post-mortem notes, which supports the prosecution case that the deceased had died due to compression of neck with rope.The inquest panchanama also supports the prosecution's case.Dr. Bade P.W. 19 has opined that the skeleton was of a female, aged about 25 to 35 years.Some missing bones were found on 14/12/1989 also.This witness was accompanied by the Sweeper and attendance from the department to the spot.The dead body was examined on the spot itself, after inquest panchanama.This witness has also observed, one black blouse, one faith menstrual pad, thread around waist, one petticoat, one faint yellow synthetic saree, one thick Solapuri bed sheet, one metallic ear ring, one rope measuring 165 inches in length, loope of rope around the neck of the deceased, cloth stained with blood and mud.The cause of death was certified by this witness due to compression of the neck.This witness has also noticed and proved scalp skin with hair and rope entangled with hair of the deceased.In the Cross-examination even though he has admitted that the body was completely decomposed and apart from the clothes, the skeleton (dead body) was unidentifiable, he has duly maintained the cause of death by compression of neck.This witness has maintained his statement that hair were entangled with the rope and the same rope was handed over to the police.The photographer has also corroborated Dr. Bade, P.W. 19.There are other circumstantial evidence to corroborate and link that the accused had committed the murder and the skeleton (dead body), as found was of the deceased.The appellant in fact, had misguided by lodging the false missing complaint, as referred above.The conduct of the appellant therefore, is also relevant to support the prosecution case, in this matter.The Skeleton was not referred to any expert, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there were other material to show that the skeleton belongs to the deceased Maya.This prosecution's story has been corroborated and proved by P.w. 13, P.W. 8 Ramesh, P.W. 10 Naiknavare and P.w. 14 Dilip.The appellant immediately, on 11/10/1989 had also proceeded on long leave on medical ground.(Exh.48).The appellant left the old house and shifted to Karve road.This fact has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W. 1 Murlidhar, P.W. 3, Mayavati Mane, and P.W. P.S.I.. This fact also demonstrates the conduct and guilty mind of the accused.He had prepared the background for the false case and misguided the investigation.This also shows that the appellant had pre determined plan and intention to commit the murder of his own wife and thereafter to screen the evidence and or to destroy the evidence by destroying the dead body of the deceased and accordingly, had thrown the same in the Katraj Ghat, as recorded above.The prosecution has also brought on the record that the said jeep was used by the accused for the purpose of destroying the dead body of the deceased.The appellant had used the vehicle from his house to Katraj Ghat and returned from Katraj Ghat to MT Section.The actual kilometres for the night rounds with Shri Mukhri (ACP), was around 38 Kilometres.However the additional 35 km. as recorded, as per the entry made by him in the log book Exh.28 and 29, shows that he had used the said vehicle from his house to Katraj Ghat also.To prove this, the evidence was led of P.W. Ramesh, P.W. 10 Naiknavare, which have corroborated and proved the prosecution case to complete the chain of the events.We have also noted that panchanama Exh.18 was drawn on 12/12/1989, whereby, two bangle pieces from the vehicle in question were attached and the same was duly proved by P.W. 2 Shivaji.It is proved on the record that these bangle pieces were belong to the deceased.The other bangle pieces were found near the skeleton of the deceased.Some bangle pieces belongs to the deceased were also found at the original place of the crime, apart from other articles, including bunch of hairs and same was proved by P.W. 20 Parshuram Jadhav.The rope which was found around the neck of the victim also entangled with the hairs of the victim.The C.A. report shows that all the hairs were of woman and appeared to be similar.The Chemical Analyser's report has also proved that the bangle pieces found in the jeep and bangle pieces found near the dead body were same.Therefore, the prosecution has proved the link of each circumstances which shows that the appellant had committed the crime and thereafter took steps to destroy the evidence to avoid the punishment.Therefore, the appellant has committed crime under section 302 r/w 201 of I.P.C., as all the ingredients of the same have been proved by the prosecution.18A. RECOVERY OF THE SKELETON (DEAD BODY) :-We cannot over look the fact that in the present case the skeleton and other articles were found in the valley of the katraj ghat about 100 feet down from the road.It cannot be said that such place is easily accessible to all.This evidence connect the crime with the appellant.On 10/10/1989 at about 19.15 he had lodged false report in the police station.In the missing report, apart from false information of her missing he had wrongly described the details of her clothes.The clothes and other articles which were discovered from the skeleton (dead body) of the deceased were different than the reported by the appellant, in his missing report.We have noted that there is nothing to show how the appellant knew about the colour of clothes, when the deceased was missing from the house, since early morning itself.As recorded in the evidence P.W. 13 and as corroborated by others, the appellant and deceased were last seen together.In the circumstances, there is apparent falsehood, contradiction and inconsistencies in the appellant's own statement, on the record.The appellant had told his children that his mother left the house with his maternal uncle.In missing complaint he referred that the deceased Maya was missing since morning.The appellant had also informed to his in-laws about missing of Maya by the letter.All these conduct read with own statement given in pursuance to section 313 of Cr.P.C. also reflects and are added circumstances, in favour of prosecution and against the appellant including the conduct of the accused and defence of the accused of total denial as per his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is also supports the prosecution, The appellant, as recorded, not led any evidence to justify his own statement and or case.The appellant was non cooperative to the police as per the evidence of P.W. 12 P.S.I. Jadhav.He did not allow to meet the children especially to P.W.16 Ramesh, the complainant.LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED AND THE DECEASED HAND WRITING REPORT:-In the present case the investigating officer had collected the disputed documents and took the specimen hand writing and actual hand writing of the accused and sent it for report (Exh. 134 and 135).The same is duly proved by P.W. 24 Ranjan Gavankar and P.W. 23 Ashok Chandgule.Therefore, merely because the name of the appellant, is missing from the letters by that itself cannot be said that the letters were not sent by the accused, especially, when his hand writing is substantially proved.Any way, according to us also the other circumstantial evidences are sufficient, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, to convict the appellant.The complaint was lodged on 8/12/1989 by P.W. 16, the brother of the deceased.After due enquiry from the neighbours and other persons and knowing the background of the regular harassment and illicit relationship of the appellant, the complaint was filed.The learned Judge has rightly dealt with this aspect.We have already noted that the complaint was lodged on 8/12/1989 by Ramesh Jadhav, P.W. 16 and the crime was registered accordingly.The investigation proceeded after two months from the date of offence.The statements were recorded of the witnesses after two months.Thullia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 Supp (2) S.C. 455 Haridial Singh V. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 135 Ganesh Bhavan Patel V. State of Maharashtra.The principle that the delay in lodging the F.I.R., if any, should be satisfactorily explained.The delay in recording the statements of witnesses and its related law is also settled in Balkrishna Swain V. State of Orissa and Ganesh Bhavan V/S State of Maharashtra.The principle is that " unjustified and unexplained long delay on the part of investigating officer in recording the statement of material eye witnesses during investigation of murder case will render of evidence of such witnesses unreliable "In the present case and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as referred above, according to us, there was justified explanation in lodging the complaint and in recording the statements of the witnesses There is no doubt in the prosecution case, as the facts of this case no where suggest that the prosecution case is after thought or there is exaggerated and or concocted story, as a result of any prior deliberation and consultation.We have noted that the appellant had lodged misguiding and false missing complaint of the deceased and took no further steps to pursue the same.It is only the brother of the deceased who had lodged the complaint.The said letter was received on 18th October, 1989 by the deceased father.He therefore, sent his son to Pune, along with other members of the family to various places to search for the deceased.P.W. 17 has corroborated the prosecution case on this aspect.The other two applications dated 28/10/1989 were addressed to the Collector, as well as, to the Commissioner of Police, Pune.An application dated, 29/10/1989, was sent to the Home Minister.23A. All these applications, failed to generate any thing, so far as police department is concerned.The complainant had expressed his suspicion about the accused in all these applications, therefore, he had no choice but to lodge the complaint in question, after two months.All these applications and the contents therein were consistent against the accused appellant.The statements of the witnesses were thereafter recorded by Mr. Chandgude.The appellant is not entitled for acquittal on this ground of delay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.SOLE CHILD TESTIMONY:- We have also noted that the conviction is also based on the testimony of Nilesh a child witness.Even if, there are some omissions to the effect that he had not disclosed in his police statement that he saw the accused pressing the neck of his mother and his mother was wrapped in bedsheet.But still, the remaining testimony and evidence are sufficient to corroborate the circumstantial evidence to support the prosecution case.We cannot over look the fact that this child witness was in the custody of real brother of the accused from the next day of the incident till recording of his statement.On the contrary it was the case that the appellant had not allowed the maternal uncle to meet the children, during this period.However, it is clear from the remaining testimony of this witness that he had heard the shouts of his mother and at that time his father was beating her and after some time his mother become quiet and his father lifted her towards the jeep.This sole child witness cannot be said to be unreliable.We cannot overlook the fact that Nilesh P.W. 13 is the son of appellant and at the relevant time of the incident he was in the house, when the appellant and the deceased were together on the fateful night.This wintess has further corroborated that the appellant was present at the relevant time in the house and thereafter, lifted the body of the deceased.On the next day morning the appellant had given false explanation, even to the children.We are of the view that the testimony of this sole eye witness Nilesh is also sufficient for the purpose of convicting the appellant, as other corroborating evidence including the medical evidence has supported the prosecution case and points out that the appellant and no one else had committed the crime.At this juncture the evidence of Dilip P.W. 14 who saw the vehicle at night near the house in question also cannot be overlooked.The bangle pieces found in the jeep No. MTJ 7595, which were duly attached and proved through P.W. 2 is also relevant.The admitted entries by the appellant Exh.28 and 29 made in the log book of the jeep in question, also corroborates the same, including the movement of the vehicle on that fateful night as corroborated by P.Ws.SOME LACUNAS:-As in the present case the statements were recorded after two months from the date of incident and there were some omissions and improvements in the evidence of some of the witnesses but considering the over all view of the prosecution story, as well as, other corroborative oral, as well as, documentary evidence on the record, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder and destroyed the evidence to avoid the punishment.Even if, there are some lacunas in not keeping and mixing the other articles with the articles in question before identifying the same, we are of the view that, only for that reason the prosecution case, as other wise duly proved, cannot be thrown out.In the present case, there is ample evidence and witnesses who identified all the basic articles and clothes, including P.W. 13, the son of the deceased and thereby supported and proved the prosecution's case in this aspect also and we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge on these issues also.CONCLUSION:-Taking into consideration the background and as frequent ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased after 1986, as the appellant had illicit relations with Mangala, in this background the appellant had committed pre planned murder of his wife by strangulation.The appellant, thereafter, made false statement and gave false explanation to his children.The appellant had lodged false missing report of his wife.The appellant therefore, took all steps to destroy the evidence of his heinous crime to avoid punishments.The police thereafter on the complaint filed by the brother, P.W. 16 further initiated the investigation.At the instance of the appellant the body of the deceased was discovered along with various ornaments, articles and clothes.The Investigating Officer thereafter collected the material to prove each and every circumstance to link the appellant with the crime They were seen together lastly.Nilesh the son of the deceased and appellant was the eye witness to the heinous crime of the appellant.The prosecution has also proved other circumstances to link every aspect and circumstances which connect the appellant with the crime in question.The learned Judge based on the material placed on the record rightly, considered all the issues and convicted the accused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,358,085 |
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Ashutosh @ Lalu in Crime No.517/2016 registered by P.S. City Kotwali, District-Chhatarpur under sections 353, 332, 294, 506 & 333 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, on 30.12.2016, victim constable Shyambihari Choubey was on duty in Balaji Temple.At that time, petitioner filthily abused him and slapped him.He threatened to kill the victim and slammed him on the ground and as such, he caused disruption in discharge of his official duties.As a result, the victim sustained fracture of a finger of his right hand.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the offence was registered under sections 323, 294, 506 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was granted bail by order dated 31.12.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur; however, by 01.06.2016 the offence under section 333 of the Indian Penal Code was also added and the police proposes to arrest the petitioner again for the same offence.The petitioner has not misused the liberty granted to him; therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact that the petitioner had already been released on 31.12.2016 vide an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur and after about 6 months, he is again sought to be arrested, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Ashutosh @ Lalu, is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated in Sub section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,367,578 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : PW 7 Shera Ram is the younger brother of deceased Shivji Ram and they had obtained land from Gram Panchayat towards the western side of the village and obtained Pattas for the said land.Accused Bhera Ram and accused Chuna Ram are real brothers while accused Surja Ram and accused Mohan Ram are sons of accused Sadula Ram.Accused Bhera Ram and Sadula Ram told Shivji Ram and Shera Ram that they will not allow them to take the land and will snatch it from them.Two months prior to occurrence Shivji Ram and Shera Ram erected fencing around their land whereupon the accused Bhera Ram and other accused were seriously annoyed over the same.On the occurrence day i.e. on 29.5.1983 at 10.30 a.m. Shivji Ram and both his younger brothers were repairing/re-erecting the fencing in their land, accused persons Bhera Ram, Sadula Ram and his sons Mohan Ram and Surja Ram, Gordhan Ram, Nanak Ram and Chuna Ram, all duly armed entered into Bara from south side and started dismantling the fence.Shivji Ram and his brothers questioned the same by saying that they have obtained Patta from the Panchayat.Thereupon Bhera Ram and Surja Ram simultaneously inflicted Barchhi blow on the head of Shivji Ram, as a result of which he fell down and all the accused attacked him with their weapons.Shera Ram intervened and accused Mohan Ram inflicted Barchhi blow which landed on the left side of his head and accused Chuna Ram inflicted the jei blow on his right leg.Then all the accused started beating whereupon his sister Dhuri came running and fell upon Shera Ram in order to protect him.PW 11 Balu Ram and PW 2 Mangi Lal who were present at the occurrence place were threatened by the accused and they got frieghtened and saw the occurrence standing by the side of the road.After that all the accused went away.Shivji Ram died on the spot.Some unknown person gave a telephonic information about the occurrence to the Police Station Nokha on 29.5.1983 and after making Exh.P-54 entry in the Roznamcha PW 13 Attar Ali Khan went to the occurrence place and found Shivji Ram lying dead and Shera Ram with injuries and he recorded Exh.P9 statement of Shera Ram, sent him to Nokha Hospital for treatment.He forwarded Exh.P9 statement to the Police Station for registering the case and Exh. P55 FIR came to be registered.He conducted inquest on the body of Shivji Ram and prepared Exh.P5 ‘inquest report’.He prepared Exh.P3 site plan and Exh.P45 site inspection note.C. NAGAPPAN, J.This judgment shall dispose of three appeals in Criminal appeal Nos.1985 of 2010 filed by the appellant Nanak Ram/Accused and Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2011 filed by appellants/Accused Mohan Ram and Surja Ram against their conviction and sentence, and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1991 of 2010, 1990 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.1992 of 2010 filed by the State of Rajasthan for the enhancement of the sentence against the above mentioned accused, respectively.He also seized the footwear of Shivji Ram viz. Exh.P35 and sent the body for post mortem.Dr. Moti Lal Mishra (PW 9) conducted the autopsy on the body of Shivji Ram and found the following 9 injuries:i) An incised wound of 6-½” x ½” and deep upto brain on the head,ii) a punctured wound of 1 x ½ x ½ cm on the left knee joint deep to the bone;iii) multiple contusion of 1 cm each incised on the left elbow joint;iv) an abrasion 1 x ½ cm on the left ring finger dorsally;v) a contusion of 4 x 2 cm on the lower half of the left leg anteriorly;vi) swelling 2 x 2 cm on the left leg near the 5th injury;vii) a contusion of 1 x 1 cm on the right thighviii) an abrasion 3 x 1 cm on the right knee joint near the ankle joint; andix) an abrasion on the right middle finger dorsally.He issued Exh. P 33 Post Mortem report by expressing opinion that the death has occurred due to destruction of all the elements of brain and shock due to excessive bleeding.PW 9 Dr. Moti Lal Mishra examined Shera Ram in the Nokha hospital and found the following 11 injuries on him:i) One crushed wound of 4 x 3 cm bone deep on lower half of the left leg interiorly;ii) One crushed wound of 1cm x .5x.5 cm on middle 1/3 of the right leg laterally;iii) Contusion of 15 x 1.5 cm on the lower portion of glutal region;iv) An abrasion 3 x ½ cm on the right scapula;v) One crushed wound of 6 x 1 x 1.5 cm on the left side of the head, 7 cm above the left ear,vi) An abrasion 1cm x 1 cm on the back side of the head;vii) Swelling 4 x 3 cm on the right palm;viii) An abrasion 1 x ½ cm on the left thumb laterally;ix) A contusion of 6 x 1 cm on the middle half of the right thigh medially;x) A contusion of 3 x 1 cm on the right thigh 2 cm above the ninth injury andxi) Contusion two in number, one of 4 x 1 cm and another of 3 x 1 cm on the upper half of the right glutal.He opined that all the above injuries were simple in nature and issued Exh. P 32 Injury Report.After completing investigation challan was filed in the Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Nokha against all the accused persons.Accused Nanak Ram was absconding.The other accused persons namely Bhera Ram, Sadula Ram, Chuna Ram, Surja Ram, Mohan Ram and Gordhan Ram were tried in Sessions Case No.63 of1983 for the alleged offences under Section 302, 307, 323 and 324 all read with Section 149 IPC and also the offence under Section 147 and 148 IPC.The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and tendered in evidence 59 documents.The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Bhera Ram and Surja Ram for the offences under Section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo imprisonment for life.He also convicted accused persons Sadula Ram, Mohan Ram and Gordhan Ram for the offences under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.Besides he convicted accused persons namely Surja Ram, Bhera Ram, Gordhan Ram and Mohan Ram for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment He also convicted Sadula Ram for the offence under Section 147 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.In addition he convicted accused persons Surja Ram, Bhera Ram, Mohan Ram, Sadula Ram and Gordhan Ram for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and directed all the sentences to run concurrently.However, he acquitted accused Chuna Ram of the charges.All the five convicted accused persons preferred appeal in Appeal No.428 of 1984 on the file of High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, at Jodhpur, challenging their conviction and sentences.During the pendency of the appeals four accused persons namely Sadula Ram, Gordhan Ram, Bhera Ram and Chuna Ram died, with the result the appeal preferred against them in Appeal No. 106 of 1985 abated and the said appeal continued only as against the accused Mohan Ram.Like wise Appeal No.428 of 1984 preferred by the accused persons Bhera Ram, Sadula Ram, Gordhan Ram also stood abated and it continued on behalf of accused Surja Ram and Mohan Ram only.The High Court of Rajasthan partly allowed the appeal in Appeal No.428 of 1984 filed by the accused Surja Ram by setting aside his conviction for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and instead convicted him under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and the other conviction and sentences imposed on him were maintained.At the same time it dismissed the appeal in Appeal No.428 of 1984 preferred by accused Mohan Ram, by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him.The High Court also dismissed the Appeal No.106 of 1985 preferred by the State of Rajasthan against accused Mohan Ram.The accused Nanak Ram on being apprehended was tried in Sessions Case No.24 of 1985 and the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner convicted him for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.He also convicted him for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and further convicted him for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and in addition he convicted him for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and further he convicted him for the offence under Section 447 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and directed all sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentence Nanak Ram preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.314 of 1990 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the High Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and instead convicted him for offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and maintained all the other convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court.Challenging their convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court on them accused Nanak Ram, Mohan Ram and Surja Ram preferred Criminal Appeal referred to above and the State of Rajasthan also filed appeals against the above accused seeking for enhancement of the sentences imposed on them.All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the occurrence took place about 30 years ago and accused persons went to the occurrence place only to remove the fence put up by Shivji Ram and his brothers and when it was resisted a free fight followed which was accidental and there was no intention to kill and only one blow on the head of Shivji Ram was fatal and the other injuries were only minor injuries, and the Courts below have failed to appreciate that there are material improvements and infirmities in the prosecution case and the presence of eye witnesses is highly doubtful and the conviction of appellants is wholly unwarranted and liable to be set aside.Per contra Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan strenuously contended that Shivji Ram and his brothers are the Patta holders of the land and lease deeds have been executed by the Panchayat in their favour and the accused persons having failed in their legal proceedings had decided to attack the brothers and take forcible possession of the land and in pursuance of the said common object all the seven accused persons duly armed forcibly entered the land and inflicted injuries on Shivji Ram with barchhi and jei resulting in instantaneous death and also inflicted injuries on his younger brother Shera Ram and the alteration made by the High Court on the conviction from Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 149 IPC is erroneous and legally unsustainable.The prosecution has examined PW 7 Shera Ram, PW 2, Mandi Lal, PW6 Dhuri and PW11 Balu Ram as having witnessed the occurrence.PW7 Shera Ram and PW 11 Balu Ram are the younger brothers of deceased Shivji Ram and PW6 Dhuri is their sister.PW 7 Shera Ram was also injured during the occurrence and according to him on the occurrence day namely on 29.5.1983 at 10.30 a.m. Shivji Ram and both his brothers were repairing/re-erecting the fencing in their Patta Land and accused persons Bhera Ram, Sadula Ram and his sons Mohan Ram and Surja Ram, Gordhan Ram, Nanak Ram and Chuna Ram armed with weapons entered into Bara from south side and started dismantling the fence and they questioned the same by saying that they have obtained Patta from Panchayat and at that time Bhera Ram and Surja Ram inflicted Barchhi blow on the head of Shivji Ram as a result of which he fell down and all the accused attacked him with their weapons and when he intervened accused Mohan Ram inflicted barchhi blow on the left side of his head and accused Chuna Ram inflicted jei blow on his right leg and other accused also started beating him whereupon his sister Dhuri came running and fell upon him in order to protect him and the accused persons also threatened PW 11 Balu Ram and PW2 Mangi Lal and being frightened they stood by the side of the road and saw the occurrence and Shivji Ram died on the spot.PW7 Shera Ram sustained as many as 11 injuries on his person as a result of the attack made by all the accused on him at the time of occurrence.PW 11 Balu Ram was involved in the fencing of the land along with his brothers and his presence in the occurrence place cannot doubted.PW 2 Mangi Lal happened to be with Shivji Ram in his land and he has witnessed the occurrence.He is an independent witness.On seeing the attack made by the accused on her brothers PW 6 Dhuri came running and tried to protect Shera Ram by falling upon him.The testimonies of PW2 Mangi Lal, PW6 Dhuri, PW11 Balu Ram are natural cogent and in all material particulars corroborated the testimony of PW7 Shera Ram.Accepting their testimonies it is clear that during the occurrence all the seven accused as members of unlawful assembly have inflicted injuries with their weapons on deceased Shivji Ram and PW 7 Shera Ram.Shivji Ram died of homicidal violence is established by the medical evidence adduced in the case.PW9 Dr. Moti Lal Mishra conducted autopsy on the body of Shivji Ram and found on the head an incised wound of 6½” x ½” deep upto brain and on internal examination the destruction of the elements of the brain.He also found eight other injuries on the other parts of the body.He issued Exh. P33 post mortem report and expressed opinion that the death has occurred due to destruction of the elements of brain and shock due to excessive bleeding.In the oral testimony PW9 Dr. Moti Lal Mishra has categorically stated that injury No.1 found on the head was itself sufficient to cause death.There is no doubt that Shivji Ram died of injuries sustained during the occurrence.It is further relevant to note that PW9 Dr. Moti Lal Mishra examined PW7 Shera Ram immediately after the occurrence in Nokha hospital and found 11 injuries on him.P.32 is the injury report issued by him mentioning the injuries.According to him all the injuries are simple in nature.Telephonic information about the occurrence was given to Nokha Police Station by some unknown person on 29.5.1983 itself and PW13 Attar Ali Khan after making Exh.P54 entry in the Roznamcha, immediately went to the occurrence place and found Shivji Ram lying dead and Shera Ram with injuries.He recorded Exh.P9 statement of Shera Ram and sent him to Nokha hospital for treatment and forwarded the statement to the Police Station for registering the case Exh.P55 is the First Information Report.He also seized jeis used by the accused from the occurrence place under Exh.P34 Mazhar.There is no delay in registering case and there is no flaw in the investigation.It is true that the accused party had land dispute with the victim party.Accused Bhera Ram preferred appeals against the grant of Patta to Panchayat Samiti at the first instance and they came to be dismissed and the revision preferred before the Collector was pending.PW8 Sarpanch Dhura Ram and PW5 record keeper Hanuman Das have stated so.Thus the evidence shows that the accused party was desirous to get the subject land to themselves and were taking legal steps to achieve it.On coming to know of the fencing put by Shivji Ram and his brothers they were annoyed and went there to remove the fencing.While they were dismantling the fencing, Shivji Ram and his brothers came there and objected to it by saying that they have obtained Patta and a sudden quarrel erupted.A fight suddenly takes place for which both parties are more or less to be blamed and it is a combat whether with or without weapons.It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct, it would not have taken the serious turn it did.Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning.Out of the 9 injuries, only injury no.1 was held to be of grievous nature, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased.The assaults were made at random.Even the previous altercations were verbal and not physical.The earlier disputes over land do not appear to have assumed the characteristics of physical combat.This goes to show that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel the accused persons had caused injuries on the deceased.That being so the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is applicable.The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Ghapoo Yadav & Ors.Looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances as enumerated above the conclusion is irresistible that the death was caused by the acts of the accused done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and therefore the offence would squarely come within the first part of Section 304 IPC and the appellants would be liable to be convicted for the said offence.The conviction of the appellants/accused under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC by the High Court is liable to be set aside.We are of the considered view that imposition of 7 years rigorous imprisonment on each of the appellants for the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC would meet the ends of justice.We sustain the other conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,368,945 |
By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22nd April, 2017 acquitting respondent for offences punishable under Sections 354/354B/341/506 IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act registered at PS Nabi Karim, Delhi.The allegations of the complainant in the FIR were that the petitioner who was residing in the vicinity used to stalk her and on 17th May, 2014 at about 7.00 PM when she was coming back after taking tuition she was accosted by the respondent who was standing near kuda khatta, Prem Nagar with a bottle of Limca and when she asked him about his following her, the respondent affirmed the fact and stated that he had been doing it for the last four months.When the victim reached the gali, appellant surfaced again, stopped her and poured limca on her face.The victim informed her mother who in turn informed the police.Information of this alleged incident of 17 th May, 2014 at about 7.00 PM was given by the complainant's mother on 31 st May, 2014 and recorded as DD No. 33A exhibited vide Ex.PW-4/D on the basis of which FIR was registered.CRL.L.P. 494/2017 Page 1 of 2However, before the complaint was given by the mother of the victim on 31st May, 2014 the respondent had lodged a complaint on 20 th May, 2014 at PS Nabi Karim but with regard to incident of 19th May, 2014 which was entered vide DD No. 37B dated 20th May, 2014 and exhibited as Ex.DW-1/A. In the said complaint the respondent clearly stated that he had been extended threats by the complainant and her family members to involve him in FIR of "chhed chhad".The learned Trial Court also noted that 7.00 PM in the month of May is a time when there is light and where people were in high attendance as the incident took place in gali however, no independent person witnessed the incident.Hence the learned trial Court granted the benefit of doubt to respondent and acquitted him.For the facts noted above and that even before belated FIR was lodged the respondent expressed his apprehension of his being involved in false case relating to "chhed chhad" and that no independent witness came forward to support the case of the victim despite there being shops and lot of people around, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court committed no error as the view expressed by the learned Trial Court is one of the plausible views on the evidence of the prosecution and defence before it.6. Leave to appeal petition is declined.Petition is dismissed.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH 13, 2018 'vn' CRL.L.P. 494/2017 Page 2 of 2
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,437,322 |
there is sufficient material against the applicant.He has read out the statement available in the case diary and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant Mahesh Kumar s/o Gopilal he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1.00 lac (Rs. One lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M. CR.C. No. 19590 / 2019 MAHESH KUMAR VS.SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, LOKAYUKT UJJAIN--- 3 ---For the reasons best known to the police officers, they have not taken any action since 2014 against the present applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor Date: 2019.05.17 14:15:14 +05'30'
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,439,159 |
O.P.No.30479 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16504 & 16505 of 2019 28.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6O.P.No.30479 of 2019 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore at Chennai and quash the same.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an FIR was registered in Cr.No.835 of 2017 against the petitioner herein under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC.He further submitted that the complainant himself has proceeded to investigate the matter and filed the final report.He further submitted that based on the said final report, the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai has taken the case on file.He further submitted that as per Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., taking cognizance in respect of the offence under Section 188 IPC can be made only based on the complaint filed by the concerned Officer in writing but in this case, the said procedure has not been followed and on the contrary, the respondent police filed a final report and based on the said police report, the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has taken the case on file and on that ground also, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.8029 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai has to be quashed.O.P.No.30479 of 2019The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the Officer, who lodged the complaint against the petitioner has himself investigated the matter and filed the final report.(a) (i) if any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 to 1860), or(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate:”http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.30479 of 2019From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.In this case, no such complaint has been filed in respect of the offence under Section 188 IPC, but on the contrary, the respondent has filed a final report and based on the same, the Magistrate has taken the case on file.Since taking cognizance of the case in respect of the offence under Section 188 IPC is not in accordance with the provision of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the other offences under Sections 143 and 341 IPC are being ancillary offences, the entire final report is liable to be quashed.Apart from that it appears that the officer, who lodged the complaint has himself investigated the matter and filed a final report.On that ground, the investigation is vitiated and the said charge sheet is also liable to be quashed.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.30479 of 2019In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.The proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.8029 of 2017 alone quashed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.28.02.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No drl To2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.30479 of 2019 P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,441,805 |
The present petition has been filed by petitioner, Jai Gopal, under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 25th April, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Election Petition bearing No.60/2012 whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal/ rejection of the election petition was dismissed.Brief facts are that the General Elections of Councillors for the purpose of constituting East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) were held on 15th April, 2012 wherein the petitioner contested as candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) from Ward No.232, Anarkali, Delhi.He was declared elected by a margin of about 2300 votes defeating the nearest rival, i.e. respondent No.1 herein.CRP No.103/2013 Page 1 of 24The respondent No.1 filed the election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had indulged into corrupt practices in terms with Section 17 read with Section 22 of the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 (in short, called "DMC Act") and also, inter alia, on the grounds that the result of the election has been affected in view of the said practices.CRP No.103/2013 Page 2 of 24Respondent No.1 contested the election as an independent candidate and lost by about 2300 votes from the petitioner.Respondent No.2 contested as a candidate of Indian National Congress, respondent No.3 as candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party and respondent No.4 as candidate of Communist Party of India.Respondents No.5 to 10 all contested as independent candidates.The petitioner along with his nominations papers as candidate for election to the EDMC from the Ward in question submitted Form-A & B dated 23rd March, 2012 issued by BJP.The petitioner in terms of Rule 18(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules, 2012 submitted affidavit in Form-20, 21 & 22 of these Rules.The affidavit dated 24th March, 2012 in Form-21 of the petitioner claims that he is not an accused of any offence(s) punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case(s) in which charge(s) has/have been framed by the Court(s) of competent jurisdiction.In his affidavit in Form-22 under the heading "Details of Immovable Assets", the petitioner has disclosed residential building No.124, Ram Nagar, Delhi, Survey No.5/29/2 having a total area of 1371 Sq.with total built up area of 3295 Sq.as his own property having current market value of `2,30,00,000/- without indicating any joint ownership thereof and thus, claimed it to be his own property.The contention of respondent No.1 at the time of filing of the election petition was that the petitioner has made incorrect statement in his Form-21 & 22 to the following effect:-CRP No.103/2013 Page 3 of 24: Not applicable.Police station(s):-Not applicable(ii) Section (s) of the concerned Act(s) and short description of the offence(s) for which the candidate has been charged.Court(s) which frame the charge(s) discharged from.It is also denied that distribution of these pamphlets/handbills in envelop, amounts to corrupt practices by respondent No.1, his agents and the persons with his consent and on his behalf.It was denied that Sh.The campaigning in election is entirely different from 'Thanksgiving' and as such the allegation is also devoid of any merit and does not come under the purview of corrupt practice.The respondent No.1 while alleging that two persons employed with MCD campaigned for the petitioner amounting to corrupt practice, failed to give the necessary and sufficient particulars as to what is the parentage or residential address of the said persons, where exactly those two persons are employed and in which manner they have campaigned/furthered the prospects of the petitioner for the election in question.A police complaint, vide DD No.31A at 17.32 hrs.The petitioner with his supporters visited the Police Station, with an intention to hush up the matter, but could not succeed in his designs.The police caught the person campaigning for the petitioner and also seized the leaflets/handbills being distributed by him for and on behalf of the petitioner.CRP No.103/2013 Page 20 of 24It was denied that the petitioner with his supporters visited the Police Station, with an intention to hush up the matter, but could not succeed in his designs.It was also denied that any person campaigning for and on behalf of the petitioner or authorized by the respondent was caught by the police and he indulged into corrupt practices under Section 17 of the Act. It has been stated that the petitioner had finished his campaigning work at the scheduled time fixed by the Election Commission/Returning Officer and had not authorized any one to campaign for and on his behalf after the scheduled time.From the pleadings of election petition, there is no particular given as regard late complaining about the tacit approval of the petitioner or his election agent.It appears that the respondent visited the police station by staging a propaganda with sole intention to create same evidence for the purpose of due course.The said allegation even otherwise lacks of specific details which cannot be accepted.LLC0766331 and at Sl.No.1130 and 1134 respectively.Similarly, the other brother of the petitioner Sh.Romeo Verma, his wife Smt.Usha Verma, his daughter Ms.Chandni Verma are voters at Sl.No.327, 328 and 329 respectively.Romeo Verma and his wife are registered as voters for the CRP No.103/2013 Page 22 of 24 same Ward as Romeo Kumar and Usha at Sl.Nos.1135 and 1137 also.Respondent No.1 filed the petition under Section 15 of the DMC Act against 15 respondents including the petitioner herein.The petitioner and all the respondents filed nominations for the post of Councillor of EDMC from the Ward in question.The nomination papers of respondents No.11 to 15 were withdrawn from the contest leaving the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 10 as the contesting candidates for the said Ward.The details of the total numbers of votes polled and received by the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 10 are as under:-However, petitioner has not made any disclosure about the said FIR and instead has claimed "not applicable".Since the petitioner had not disclosed all material facts, no roving inquiry could be permitted.The petitioner in the present case has denied all the allegations made by the respondent No.1 in his election petition.According to him, the petition does not disclose any cause of action.The petitioner by abundant caution the answering respondent had duly applied for a certificate in his favour declaring non-involvement in any criminal offence from the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Delhi.A certificate dated 22nd March, 2012 was issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi to this effect that answering respondent is not involved in any criminal offence.Thus, it is apparent on the face of it that the allegations levelled by respondent No.1 are not tenable as nothing contrary has been filed or disclosed by the respondent No.1 in the election petition.CRP No.103/2013 Page 15 of 24The respondent No.1 in the election petition has alleged that the petitioner has wrongly claimed property No.124, Ram Nagar, Delhi as his own.It was denied that the property continues to be ancestral.It is argued that the petitioner has given true facts to the best of his knowledge and belief in relation to his property No.124, Ram Nagar, Delhi as the same relates to his paternal property which was bequeathed in his favour vide registered gift deed dated 2nd May, 2001 executed by answering respondent's father.It is evident that the respondent has malafidely made vague allegations in view of specific statement made that the property is his paternal property which was bequeathed in his favour vide registered Gift Deed dated 2nd May, 2001 executed by his father.In the presence of said documents, it cannot be treated as an ancestral property and is in exclusive ownership of the petitioner.No document was registered for this property for its transfer from the name of petitioner to other person.CRP No.103/2013 Page 16 of 24It was denied by the petitioner that the property continues to be in the ownership of petitioner.In reply he has specifically stated that he had purchased the same for a sum of `2,90,000/- in the year 2005 and the said was sold by him way back on 25th July, 2005 and after execution of the sale deed in favour of the purchaser he was left with no title or interest in the above said property entitling him to claim ownership of the above said property.The certified copy of the sale deed dated 25th July, 2005 is filed on record.In the presence of certified copy of sale deed, it is apparent, the respondent has not verified the actual position and filed election petition without verifying the truthfulness of the same.Even the respondent has failed to place on CRP No.103/2013 Page 21 of 24 record copy of the complaint made by the respondent No.1 with the local police station at the time of filing of election petition.CRP No.103/2013 Page 21 of 24Lastly, it was alleged that Section 17 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 provides that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral role for more than one constituency.Section 18 thereof prohibits any person to be registered in the electoral roles of any constituency more than once.Similarly, Rule 39(3) of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councilors) Rules, 2012 prohibits an elector from voting in more than one Ward and if the elector so votes, his votes in all such Wards shall be void.Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 39 prohibits an elector from voting more than once in the same Ward.The Electoral Roll (voter list) of Assembly Constituency, 60-Krishna Nagar (Gen) NCT of Delhi at Part No.35 would disclose the name of Sh.Rakesh Verma S/o Sh.Jai Dayal Verma R/o House No.13/16 at Sl.No.113 with Voter I.D. Card No.At Sl.Madhu Verma W/o Sh.Rakesh Verma with Voter I.D. Card No.Deepti Verma D/o Sh.Rakesh Verma with Voter I.D. Card No.LLC0766353 and at Sl.Sameer Verma S/o Sh.Rakesh Verma with Voter I.D. Card No.Rakesh Verma is the real younger brother of the petitioner.Rakesh Verma and his wife are once again registered as voters in the same Assembly Constituency and the same Municipal Ward at Sl.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
294,459 |
ORDER K.N. Ojha, J.1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.The revision is being decided at the admission stage.Instant criminal revision has been preferred by accused Mohan Singh against order dated 24-9-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandausi, district Moradabad in which the revisionist has been summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2003 under Sections 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C., 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. police station Bahjoi district Moradabad.In the impugned order dated 24-9-2003, it has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that accused Dinesh and Suresh appeared in the Court.Statement of PW 1 Mahendra resident of village Fatehpur, police station Bahjoi district Moradabad was recorded who stated that revisionist Mohan armed with pharsa caused injuries to his son Rajnesh at about 9.00 p.m. in the month of Sept. It was further observed that Mohan was named in the F.I.R., but charge-sheet was not submitted against him.Since prima facie case was made out under Section 307 reads with Sections 34, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. against Mohan on the basis of the statement of PW.1 Mahendra, therefore, the application moved for summoning co-accused Mohan under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed.The Impugned order dated 24-9-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandausi district Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2003 State v. Satendra Singh shows that it was the description of fact that F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist.In F.I.R. there were other accused also, but charge-sheet was not submitted.Therefore, the charge was not framed, but when the statement of Mahendra Singh father of the victim and Informant of the case was recorded in detail and the witness made statement that the occurrence had taken place three years before in the month of Sept. at about 9.00 p.m. when he was standing at his door, Satendra, Suresh, Mohan Singh and Dinesh came there.Revisionist Mohan was armed with pharsa, Suresh was armed with iron rod, Satendra and Dinesh were armed with lathis.First they started insulting language and when PW 1 Mahendra Singh prohibited from doing so, they started to cause injury.On his alarm his son Rajhesh and nephew Jaipal reached there." They were also Injured and the revisionist Mohan caused injury to Rajnesh with Pharsa.When the persons of the village reached there, the accused left the place threatening with dire consequences.The motive was also specified that two months before, the dispute had taken place between the children of the complainant and the accused persons.He got F.I.R. written by Jagdish and lodged F.I.R. at the police station.The fact and specific role of the revisionist was stated by the PW 1 Mahendra.It was recorded in many pages by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.It is on the basis of this statement that the revisionist was summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has written in the impugned order that even though the revisionist was named in the F.I.R but charge-sheet was not submitted against him, but when the statement of PW 1 was recorded, he made statement and prima facie case is made out against the revisionist.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,461,579 |
Prosecution case, succinctly stated, is as follows:On 15th July, 1997, on receipt of DD No. 5A at about 2:10 AM, SI Harish Chander Gautam along with Constable Rohtash went to house No. 4925/40, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh and came to know that the injured had been removed to JPN Hospital.After leaving Constable Rohtash at the spot to preserve the scene of crime, SI Harish Chander went to JPN hospital, where he collected MLC of an unknown injured who was declared brought dead.Post mortem on the dead body was got conducted and the dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased.Thereafter, SI Harish Chander came to the spot where Yashoda, wife of the deceased Rajender, gave her statement on which endorsement was made vide Ex.It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which, in fact, is the result of deliberation and manipulation, inasmuch as, initially the Crl.Police machinery, in the instant case, swung into action on receipt of DD No.5A Ex.PW16/A recorded at 2:10 AM to the effect that lady constable Sunita from PCR had given information that a person had fallen from the roof of house No. 4925, Gali No.40, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh and police be sent.This DD was entrusted to SI Harish Chander, who along with Constable Rohtash, went to the spot where they came to know that injured had already been removed to hospital.On reaching the hospital, SI Harish Chand collected the MLC of an unknown person, who was declared "brought dead" in the hospital.Dead body and MLC of Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 4 of 19 Rajinder was sent to mortuary.Thereafter, he came to the spot and recorded the statement of Yashoda Ex.PW5/DA wherein she disclosed that she along with her husband Rajender @ Raju were residing as tenants @ Rs.500/- per month in the house of Tulsi for the last about 1 years.Tulsi used to indulge in obscene activities with her husband.Both Tulsi and her husband used to consume alcohol.On that day, her husband had consumed alcohol.At about 12:00 AM when she was washing utensils, Raju had come downstairs.At about 1:00 AM when she was sleeping, Lalita, daughter of Padam Chand, came and informed her that Raju had fallen from the roof.She had not heard any noise of quarrel that night.She came downstairs with Lalita and found Raju lying in the street.She asked Rajender to remove Raju to hospital on which Rajender told her that he will be taken to hospital shortly.In the meantime, many persons collected there and somebody informed the police.PCR Van came and removed Raju to hospital.In her presence, no quarrel had taken place with her husband.This statement was attested by SI Harish Chander.PW7/A is the statement of Kari, s/o Sh.Hansibul, resident of 4925/40, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi and stated that on the night of 14th July, 1997, after taking dinner, he had gone to sleep on the 3rd floor of his house at about 12:30 AM.At that time, Raju was also sleeping on the terrace.Raju had consumed liquor in his presence.PW8 Smt. Sohan Devi is the mother of the deceased.Her statement Ex.PW8/A was recorded.She also stated that she was sleeping on the second floor of her house.At about 1:00 AM, her daughter Lalita came and woke her up by stating that she had heard some noise and when she peeped from the window, she saw Raju lying on the ground.Lalita went to inform Yashoda, wife of Raju.She came downstairs.Lalita and Yashoda followed her.At that time, Rajinder was sleeping on the road while Tulsi was sleeping in his room.Both of them came and Rajinder wanted to remove Raju to hospital, however, somebody informed the police.The police came and removed Raju to the hospital.On that night, there was no quarrel nor did she hear any noise on that day.Raju used to consume alcohol.She did not notice anybody beating Raju on that night.Mukesh is the brother of the deceased whose statement Ex.PW4/A was also recorded by SI Harish Chand and he revealed that a quarrel had taken place between his brother Raju with Tulsi and Rajender on 13th July, 1997 at about 9:00 PM.On that day, Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 7 of 19 Raju had sustained some minor injuries also but no report was lodged to the police nor was he medically examined.Raju, Rajinder and Tulsi used to consume liquor daily.On the fateful night of 14th July, 1997, at about 1:00/1:30 AM, Yashoda, wife of Raju came and informed that Raju had fallen from the roof.Rajinder and Tulsi were also present who wanted to move Raju to hospital but he told them to wait for the police.Police was informed.PCR Van came and removed Raju to hospital.A. No. 8/2000 Page 7 of 19PW2 Lalita, was also examined by SI Harish Chand and her statement Ex.PW16/J was recorded wherein she stated that on the night of 14th July, 1997 she was sleeping at the second floor of her house.At about 1:00/1:30 AM, she heard some noise.When she peeped from the window, she found Raju lying in the street after having fallen from the terrace of 3rd floor.She did not hear any quarrel or noise on that night.She informed her mother Sohan Devi and thereafter, informed her sister-in-law Yashoda, wife of Raju.Yashoda was also sleeping at that time.She woke her up and informed about Raju lying in the street.Many persons collected there.Somebody informed the police.PCR Van came and removed Raju to hospital.She also stated about the incident of 13 th July, 1997, when Raju was abused by Tulsi and was beaten by him, Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 8 of 19 however, Raju was rescued by her and Nirmala, wife of Tulsi.Both Raju and Tulsi were under the influence of alcohol.Thereafter, both went to their respective rooms.She woke up and saw from the window that Raju @ Rajender who used to sleep on the terrace of the 3 rd floor had fallen down in the gali from 3rd floor.She woke up her mother Sohna Devi and went upstairs to wake up her sister-in-law Yashoda and told her that Raju had fallen down.According to him on 13th July, 1997, there was a quarrel between Raju and Tulsi at about 9:00 PM in the gali.Tulsi had given beatings to Raju, due to which he sustained injuries on his face.However, matter was not reported to the police.On 14th July, 1997, he was informed by his sister-in-law Yashoda that accused Tulsi and Rajender had pushed Raju from the roof.When he went to the spot, he saw his brother lying in the gali.He called the police who removed his brother to hospital.: SUNITA GUPTA, J. (Oral)Appellants Rajinder Prasad and Tulsi Prasad have filed this appeal bearing Crl.A.No.8/2000 challenging the judgment and order on sentence dated 30th November, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.81/97 arising out of FIR No.436/97 u/s 302/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh, whereby the appellants were convicted u/s 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.They were given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.A. No. 8/2000 Page 1 of 19A. No. 8/2000 Page 1 of 19PW 5/A and FIR under Section 302/34 IPC got registered.Investigation was handed over to Inspector B.S. Rana, who carried out further investigation in the matter, arrested the accused persons and after completing investigation, submitted the charge sheet.In order to substantiate the charge framed under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused persons, prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons while recording their statements under Section Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 2 of 19 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they alleged that complainant Yashoda initially made the correct statement to the police.However, subsequently on the instigation of her relatives, she made supplementary statement.They pleaded their innocence and alleged false implication in this case.They did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.A. No. 8/2000 Page 2 of 19Vide impugned judgment dated 30th November, 1999 and order on sentence of the same date, both the accused were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.Challenging the findings of the learned Trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.Therefore, vide order dated 25th April, 2014, the appeal qua appellant No.1 stood abated.We have heard Sh.K.B. Andley, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant duly assisted by Sh.M.L. Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.A. No. 8/2000 Page 3 of 19 complainant made a statement before the Police that her husband had fallen from the roof.Besides her, statement of various other persons were recorded, all of whom stated the same facts and did not implicate the accused persons.Subsequently, the complainant had falsely implicated the accused persons.Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the findings of the learned Trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises, which deserve to be set aside.A. No. 8/2000 Page 3 of 19The submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has substantial force in view of the voluminous evidence coming on record.A. No. 8/2000 Page 4 of 19SI Harish Chander, thereafter took wife of the deceased and some of his relatives to the mortuary where they identified the dead body of the deceased.Form No.25.35(1)(B) Ex. PW16/D was filled up where in column no. 20, the apparent cause of death was mentioned as "fall from terrace of third floor under influence of liquor".An application Ex. PW16/F was moved by SI Harish Chander to doctor for conducting post mortem examination wherein also it is recorded that Raju @ Rajender was sleeping on the terrace of 3rd floor of the house after consuming liquor.At about 1:00/1:30 AM, he had fallen from the roof, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and he was removed by PCR Van to JPN Hospital.The brief history Ex.PW16/G is also to the same effect.When the injured was brought to the hospital and his MLC Ex. PW6/A was prepared, even at that time, the alleged history of falling down from 3rd floor was given.A. No. 8/2000 Page 5 of 19Besides recording statement of Yashoda, wife of deceased, SI Harish Chander recorded statements of various other persons.He neither noticed any quarrel between Raju and Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 6 of 19 anybody else nor heard any noise.When Lalita raised hue and cry that Raju had fallen from the roof, then he along with Lalita and Yashoda came down and found Raju lying on the road.A. No. 8/2000 Page 6 of 19On the night of 14th July, 1997 also, Raju had consumed liquor and was sleeping on the terrace of his house.She also did not hear any noise of quarrel on that day.A. No. 8/2000 Page 8 of 19PW16 SI Harish Chander seized blood, earth control and chappals of the deceased from the spot.According to him, wife of the deceased returned back from the mortuary and then she made a statement again which is Ex.PW5/A, on which he made his endorsement Ex.PW16/C and got the case registered.In this statement Ex PW5/A, which culminated in registration of FIR, for the first time, she alleged that on the night of 14 th July, 1997, at about 12:00 AM, she as well as her husband Raju were sleeping.Tulsi and Rajinder came and strangulated her husband.When her husband raised alarm, she rushed to rescue him, however, she was pushed by Rajinder and Tulsi and they threw Raju from the 3rd floor of the house as a result of which, Rajinder died.Even prior thereto, many a times, they used to quarrel with her husband and they even tried to molest her.A. No. 8/2000 Page 9 of 19A. No. 8/2000 Page 9 of 19When she appeared in the witness box, she deposed to the same effect.As regards her earlier statement, she tried to give an explanation that at the time of recording her statement Ex.PW5/DA by the police, her mental condition was disturbed seeing the condition of her husband.According to her, her statement Ex.PW5/DA was recorded by the police at about 4:20 AM on 15 th July, 1997 while statement Ex.In criminal trial, one of the cardinal principles is registration of earliest information as FIR.As observed by Honble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1, the object sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as FIR is inter alia twofold:- One, that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment, etc., later.On the other hand, prompt filing Crl.PW 5/A, she implicated both the accused, her testimony requires corroboration.A. No. 8/2000 Page 12 of 19As seen above, statement of Lalita Ex. PW 16/J was recorded before registration of FIR wherein she did not level any allegation against any of the accused.Even during the trial of the Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 13 of 19 case, she had maintained the same stand which was taken by her when her statement was recorded by the police and deposed that on 14th July, 1997 at about 12:00 PM, she was sleeping in her room on the second floor.At about 1:00/1:30 AM, she heard the voice (dham).They came down the street.Somebody informed the police and the police came and removed Raju to hospital.Accused Tulsi was landlord of the deceased but no altercation has taken place between Tulsi and deceased in her presence on 13th July, 1997 at about 9:00/10:00 PM.Both the accused Tulsi and deceased Raju used to consume liquor.Since the witness did not support the case of prosecution, as such, she was cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor for the State and in cross-examination, she has denied having stated to the police that on 13th July, 1997 at about 9:00/10:00 PM, accused Tulsi had come to her room and when deceased Raju was going upstairs Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 14 of 19 accused Tulsi started abusing him and when Raju asked him not to abuse him, accused Tulsi put him down on the bed in her room or that in the meantime, wife of Tulsi, namely, Nirmala came there and they separated them.A. No. 8/2000 Page 13 of 19A. No. 8/2000 Page 14 of 19In cross-examination, he admitted that on the intervening night of 14-15th July, 1997 his Bhabhi Yashoda came to him and informed that accused persons have thrown deceased Raju from the roof.However, he admitted that this fact was not stated by him to the police.As such, it is a material improvement in his statement.A. No. 8/2000 Page 15 of 19A. No. 8/2000 Page 15 of 1925. PW7 Kari and PW8 Smt. Sohan Devi have reiterated the statements Ex.PW7/A and PW8/A made by them before the police.The cumulative effect of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution reveals that prior to registration of FIR, it was the case of prosecution, as revealed from the statement of various persons recorded at the spot including the complainant, that the deceased consumed liquor and had fallen from the terrace of 3 rd floor of his house, as a result of which he sustained injuries which proved fatal.It was only later on, that after delay of about 12 hours, the wife of the deceased changed her stand and made a statement implicating both the accused persons who were then arrested.In fact, her testimony that on hearing alarm of her husband she went to the terrace and saw both the accused quarrelling with her husband and when she tried to rescue him, she was pushed by the accused persons and they lifted her husband and threw him in the gali, does not find support from the remaining witnesses, inasmuch as, according to PW2 Lalita, on hearing the voice of dham', she woke up and peeped from the window and saw from the window that Raju @ Rajender had fallen down in the gali from 3rd floor terrace.Thereafter, she woke up her mother and sister-in-law Yashoda and informed them that Raju had fallen down from the roof.It is only Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 16 of 19 after the information was given by Lalita that Sohan Devi and Yashoda went downstairs and found Raju lying in the gali.To the same effect is the testimony of PW8 Sohan Devi.In fact, she went a step further by deposing that at that time accused Rajinder was sleeping in the gali while Tulsi was sleeping inside the house.None of the witnesses heard any quarrel between the deceased or accused persons.The conduct of the accused is also worth noting, inasmuch as, it has come on record that when the deceased was found lying in the gali, the accused persons offered to take Raju to hospital, however, brother of the deceased Mukesh informed the police and thereafter PCR van came and removed him to hospital.If the accused persons had committed the crime, they would not have been found present at the spot.Throughout the police proceedings, they were available at the spot and when Yashoda subsequently made the incriminating statement against the accused persons, they were immediately arrested.A. No. 8/2000 Page 16 of 19The result of the aforesaid discussion is that testimony of Yashoda alone was not sufficient to convict the accused persons.Same does not find corroboration from other material on record.As such, prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt.A. No. 8/2000 Page 17 of 19"Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof.An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof.When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.A. No. 8/2000 Page 18 of 19The judgment and order of sentence dated 30.11.1999 are set aside.The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the offence alleged against him.Vide order dated 5th September, 2000, the sentence of the appellant was suspended and he was ordered to be released on bail.Information be sent to the Superintendent Jail.Copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court record be sent back.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE (KAILASH GAMBHIR) JUDGE MAY 19, 2014 rs Crl.A. No. 8/2000 Page 19 of 19A. No. 8/2000 Page 19 of 19
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,947,015 |
As the tracing out of the saidRegister is still at the very same status, it is prayed that this Hon'bleCourt may be pleased to grant one month time to trace out the preparationregister, to find out the details of the whereabouts of the said records.?The relevant portions in thereport are extracted herein under:7.The Inspector of Police,Thattarmadam Police Station, Thattarmadam, Thoothukudi District.8.The Inspector of Police,Sathankulam Police Station, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,to call for the records in PRC No.63 of 2000 on the file of the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District and quash the same asillegal and devoid of merits forthwith.PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to takeappropriate action to find out the case records in PRC No.63 of 2000 pendingon the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sattankulam and also to reconstructthe case records for speedy committal within stipulated time by consideringthe petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2015 and consequently direct the2nd respondent to register an FIR and to take proper action against thepersons who are responsible for such missing Court and Police records andpass orders within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court.PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the impugnedorder dated 20.01.2018 under Reference P1/54457/971/2017-N.Re/122 / SDO.SKM / 2017 - P1 / 54457 / 971 / 2017 - N.Ref.122 / SDO.SKM / 2017 - P1 / 54458 /972 / 2017 N.Ref/121 / SDO.SKM / 2017 - P.CAMP / 289 / DSP SKM / 2017 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directthe Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint appropriate authority above the cadre ofthe 7th Respondent for conducting For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ebinezer For Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.B.Bhagawathi, Government Advocate :COMMON ORDER All the three cases are dealt with together and a common order ispassed, since the issues involved and the parties involved are the same inall the above three cases.2.The Criminal Original Petition will be taken as the base case and theparties will be identified in accordance with their nomenclature in theCriminal Original Petition.3.Brief facts of the case:On 07.10.1987, 6 named persons and a few others, armed with deadly weapons took away the father and brother of the third respondent in a Van atabout 12.00 Noon.In the said incident, it is alleged that the above saidpersons took away certain articles and also gold chain from the mother of thethird respondent.On the same day, at about 5.00pm, the third respondent wentto the second respondent Police Station and complained about the incident andthe same was reduced into writing and an FIR was registered in Crime No.593of 1987 for the offences under Sections 397 and 364 of IPC.Some of the accused persons were arrested and some of them surrendered before the Court.In the course of investigation, the FIRwas altered and certain provisions were added to the existing offences and analtered FIR came to be registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148,120(B), 450, 395 r/w 397, 365, 342 and 392 IPC.This alteration was madeafter adding 7 accused persons as mentioned above.3.4.The petitioner herein (who was A-8 at that point of time and is presentlyranked as A-7) filed Crl.OP No.10177 of 1988 to quash the final report.Thecase papers were sent to the High Court during the pendency of the CriminalOriginal Petition.In theinterregnum, this Court passed an order dated 17.08.2015 in CRLOP(MD)No.15813 of 2015, to call for a status report from the learned JudicialMagistrate, Sathankulam.Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam submitted a report dated 01.09.2015,which reads as follows:I submit that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, theDeputy Superintendent of Police, Sathankulam has reconstructed some of the document and it was received from the Principal District Munsif ? cum ?Judicial Magistrate at Tiruchendur.But the material documents viz1.Complaint., 2.FIR., 3.Charge Sheet and list of witnesses and 4.Form 95 werenot reconstructed.In thiscase charge sheet haswas laid against 13 accused out of them the 1st accused was died on 10.04.2004, NBW is pending against A2, A5, A6 and A9 to A12 and other accused are appearing through their counsel till date.In the meantimeA7 Kumaresan file Crmp.3373/2015 and Crmp.Side) HighCourt, Madras dt. 12.08.2016 was filed in the above matter.It is prayed thatthe said report may be treated as part and parcel of this further report.? 21) It is further submitted that in obedience of the orders of theHonourable High Court, all the available records in connection with the casein Sathankulam Police Station Crime No.593/1987 was deeply scrutinized and the aforesaid facts were ascertained.Moreover, on 06.08.2015, the Inspectorof Police, Thattarmadam Police Station submitted a proposal to theSuperintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District for withdrawal of the saidcriminal case on the following grounds:?The case is pending for past 28 years without any progress the case bundlesnot yet found in the Judicial Magistrate Court so far; There is no case diaryor charge sheet connected records found in Thattarmadam Police Station also.The Hon'ble HighCourt Chennai directed the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur to send all thedocuments for perusal.After the perusal by the Hon'ble High Court, thecharge sheet file was not returned to Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur.Likewise, the CD file was not handed over to Thattarmadam Police Stationduring the year 1990 by Sathankulam Police Station.Presently, the case ispending in Sathankulam Judicial Magistrate Court.In this case out of totalnumber of 13 accused A-1 died and Death Certificate submitted before theCourt.A-6, A-10 died and Death certificate are available.NBWs are pendingagainst A-3, A-7, A-11,A-12 and A-13, A-2, A-4, A-5,A-8 and A-9 have notappearing befor the Court but filing 317 CrPC petitions, regularly forcondoning their absence and it was kept alive.There is no progress in thiscase for years together because of the unavailability of the charge sheet andother vital documents.Hence, I request to do the needful to withdraw thecase.?The same was also endorsed and recommended by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathankulam Sub -Division and Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II, Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathankulam.In turn, the Superintendent ofPolice, Thoothukudi District forwarded the proposal with his recommendationsto the Collector, Thoothukudi District vide letter No.C1/42360/2015 dated28.09.2015 for the withdrawal of the case.The Collector, ThoothukudiDistrict, in turn requested to obtain and forward the opinion of theAssistant Director of Prosecution, Thoothukudi for further action.22).It is submitted that despite all our efforts taken to trace the CD filein ended in vain.However, certified cop of the FIR issued by the Court hasbeen procured from the complainant.The purpose of right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppressionand prevent delay by imposing on the Courts and on the prosecution anobligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch.iv) in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders asto costs.Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.2.The Judicial Magistrate,Sathankulam.3.The Secretary,Department of Home, Fort St.5.The Superintendent of Police,Thoothukudi District,Korampallam, Thoothukudi.6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Sathankulam Region, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,459,266 |
Somalaiappan, the defacto complainant in the special case in S.C.No.1 of 2013, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act(Principal Sessions Judge), Tiruppur, came forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to the District Magistrate/the District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur to appoint Mr.B.Mohan, a Senior Advocate to conduct prosecution in the said case.On the complaint of the petitioner, a case in Crime No.2602 of 2010 for offences under Sections 147, 323 IPC and 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (shortly hereinafter SC/ST(PA) Act) has been registered by the 12th respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Police Station.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kangeyam Sub-Division, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District, investigated the case.(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule(1) the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may, if deem necessary or if so desired by the victims of atrocity engage an eminent Senior Advocate for conducting cases in the Special Court on such payment of fee as he may consider appropriate.(6) Payment of fee to the Special Public Prosecutor shall be fixed by the State Government on a scale higher than the other panel advocates to the State.Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.25.09.2013 Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / No rrgToHe filed the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 147, 294(b), 323 r/w 149 IPC and 3(i)(x)(xiv) of S.C/S.T.(P.A) Act, as against respondents 1 to 11 before the committal Magistrate.The learned Magistrate took cognizance thereon in a Preliminary Register Case and committed the case to the Court of Special Judge(Principal Sessions Judge) under SC/ST (P.A) Act, Tiruppur.Both these panels shall be notified in the Official Gazette of the State and shall remain in force for a period of three years.(2) The District Magistrate and the Director of Prosecution/in-charge of the prosecution shall review at least twice a calendar year, in the months of January and July, the performance of Special Public Prosecutors so specified or appointed and submit a report to the State Government.In the circumstances, in pursuance of the written representations of the petitioner dated 25.3.2103 and 2.8.2013, the District Magistrate/the District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur is directed to engage Mr.B.Mohan, Senior Advocate to conduct the prosecution in the special case in S.C.No.1 of 2013 pending before the Special Judge(Principal Sessions Judge) under SC/ST(PA) Act, Tiruppur within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is disposed of.1.The Special Judge under the SC/ST(PA) Act / Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.2.The District Collector, Tiruppur District.3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.4.The Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Police Station.Tiruppur Distict, Tiruppur.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.DEVADASS, J.O.P.No.22043 of 201325.09.2013
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,464,870 |
The application is hereby allowed.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 03:33:02 :::7 BA 436.2019.odtThe applicant Punit s/o Shivraj Patil in connection with connection with Crime No.0429 of 2018 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur, District Latur for the offences punishable under sections 364- A, 384, 386, 389, 323, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.c] The applicant shall attend police station Renapur on every Sunday between 8.00 am to 11.00 am, till conclusion of the trial.Application is accordingly disposed off.( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 03:33:02 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
170,465,848 |
One lacerated injury, 5"X3", one inch above left ankle-skin subcutaneous fact fassa muscles and both tibia and fibula are severed causing compound communuted fracture.Magins are sharp.Mrs. Rupa Bandyopadhyay Heard on : 29th July, 2008 Judgment on : 22nd August 2008 GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA:This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 19th March 1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia, in Sessions Trial No.2 of 1993 arising out of Sessions Case No.74 of 1989 convicting the appellants Rupchand Mahato, Gauranga Mahato and Jitu Mahato and acquitting Shrimati Lalita Mahato for the charges punishable under sections 302 read with 34 IPC.The accused Rupchand and Gangadhar were also convicted under section 307 read with section 34 IPC.By an order dated 22nd March 1996 the learned Sessions Judge sentenced all the three accused to life imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.The convicts Gangadhar and Rupchand were also sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 IPC as also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.On 27 August 1987 in the morning at about 7'O clock Kista Rajwar and his son Bhiguram Rajwar went to their field.They excavated a nala (outlet) to bail out the excess water.When the excavation of the nala was almost complete and they were preparing to go back the accused Jitu, his wife Lalita and their sons Rupchand and Gauranga, three of them armed with tangee (sharp cutting weapon), appeared on the scene and protested against the excavation of the outlet.After an initial altercation Jitu, Rupchand and Gangaram inflicted fatal injuries on the head of Kisto, as a result thereof he died on the spot.One sharp cut injury, 6"X2"X brain deep, over left tempero parietal region membrane and brain matter injured.One sharp cut injury obliquely placed over right side of anterior aspect of upper part of neck, 3"X2"X bone deep.Carotid sheath with its contents cut, trachea cut and 3rd cervical vertebra cut."Bhriguram, son of Kisto, was also severely wounded.The villagers shifted him to Kotshila Public Health Center where he was examined by Dr. Subhendu Roy who found as many as 8 injuries which are as follows:-Fresh bleeding present from lateral side upto skin over the medial size.One lacerated injury, 1"X " X th, one and half inches above mallatolar process of right tibia.Only skin is cut.3. Lacerated injury, 1" X " X ", two inches below head of right fibula.Skin and subcutaneous tissue cut.Lacerated injury, 1" X " X " over left phenar eminance, skin, subcutaneous-tissues and muscles are cut.Lacerated injury 1" X " X ", one inch above left elbow over the lateral aspect of left arm, skin, subcutaneous tissue are cut.Lacerated injury of 2" X 1" X " over middle of right shoulder, skin, subcutaneous tissues and muscles are cut.Lacerated injury, 1" X " X ", half inch above right wrist, only skin over extensar aspect of right forearm cut.Lacerated injury, 1" X " X " one inch below of inferior angle of right scapula.Skin and subcutaneous tissues are cut."According to Dr. Roy all the injuries were inflicted by sharp cutting weapon like tangee and were grievous in nature.Bhriguram was immediately sent to Purulia SD Hospital where he was examined by Dr. Dilip Sen (P.W.7).Opinion of the P.W.7 as regards the injuries inflicted upon Bhriguram is as follows:-"From these injuries I have the impression that those were the result of some violent attack on the person of the victim.Such injuries might be caused by sharp cutting weapons like Tabla, tangies etc."It appears from the evidence of the P.W.7 that after the victim Bhriguram was treated in the Purulia Sadar Hospital for a week he was referred to Bankura Medical College for better treatment.The accused Lalita also received a cut injury above her left eyebrow which according to P.W.6, Dr. Roy, was a simple injury.The accused Rupchand received a lacerated injury above the right-elbow over the anterior aspect which according to Dr. Roy (P.W.6) was grievous in nature.Rupchand was also referred to Purulia Sadar Hospital.P.W.10, Sub-Inspector Subhajit Chowdhury got a telephonic message from the Station Master, Jhalda Railway Station, intimating a clash and nothing more.Based on that information he went to the P.O.; saw the dead body, cordoned off the place of occurrence; headed to the Kotshila Public Heath Center and interrogated Bhriguram Rajwar who had already been hospitalized.He recorded the statement and on that basis a formal FIR was drawn and Jhalda P.S. Case No.4 dated 27th August 1987 was started under sections 302,307, 326 read with section 34 IPC.P.W.10 thereafter went to the Purulia Sadar Hospital and recorded the statement of Rupchand and on that basis drew up a formal FIR and started Jhalda P.S. Case No. 5 dated 27th August 1987 under section 326 read with section 34 IPC.The case and the counter-case were both tried.We are told that the counter-case arising out of Jhalda P.S. Case No.5 dated 27th August 1987 resulted in acquittal and the case arising out of the Jhalda P.S. Case No.4 dt. 27th August 1987 culminated in conviction as indicted hereinabove.Mr. Sengupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dey, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants advanced the following submissions:-a) Place of occurrence has not been identified by the prosecution.It would appear from the evidence of the P.W.2 Hemola Rajwar "that the incident took place on the danga land which was by the side of our khet (paddy field)".The defence may be interested in claiming title over the field possessed by the deceased.The contents of the GD Entry obviously were based on the basis of the information.It was a message as regards a clash.It is this message on the basis of which the P.W.10, Sub-Inspector of Police, had set out from the police station to work out the information.P.W.10 was not called upon to produce the GD Entry.d) The fourth submission advanced by Mr. Sengupta was that the accused persons in exercise of their right of private defence inflicted the injuries and for that they were not liable.P.W.1 Bhriguram in the present case was, during his cross-examination, suggested as follows:-"Not a fact that on that day I along with my father was armed with tangi, spade and Gainti and came to the field of the accused persons.Not a fact that we were damaging the standing paddy crops on the land of the accused persons by cutting a nala, or that the accused persons then protested or that my father Kista at that time assaulted lalita with Gainti or that as a result, she fell down or that at that time Rupchand went to save lalita and then I hit him with tangi.The accused Jitu Mahato during his examination under section 313 CrPC in answer to question no.2 has admitted as follows:-"Yes, my land was situated at a place higher in level than the land of Krista or that is still so."P.W.1 during his cross-examination admitted as follows:-He also admitted that a criminal case had been filed against him by the accused Rupchand and that he was on bail.They reached the place of occurrence armed with sharp cutting weapons like tangee.We are inclined to think that the victims who had gone to the field for the purpose of excavating a nala had only spades with them.When they were attacked by the accused persons they may have tried to save themselves with the spades they had in their possession and that explains the reason why the injuries inflicted upon the P.W.1 and his father Kista who died on the spot and the injuries found on the body of the victim Bhriguram were grievous in nature.These injuries mostly on the limbs of the victim Bhriguram go to show that they were suffered during defence.The accused persons during their examination under section 313 stated that they wanted to adduce evidence.The records reveal that innumerable adjournments were taken by the defence for the purpose of bringing their witnesses.On one occasion they prayed for issuing summons.Summons were issued, the witness appeared but he was not ultimately examined.Some documents were tendered without objection.In the result the appeal fails.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,046,936 |
They are doing separate business and residing separately.Nagraj is having jewelry shop named and style as Najraj::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 7 Jewelers at 501, Ganesh Peth, Kasturi Chowk, Pune.He is dealing in sell and purchase of gold and silver.So also he is doing money-lending business against gold, but he is not keeping record of money-lending business transaction.Time of shop of Nagraj Jewelers is 9.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Accused no.1 Bharat Kaluram Ghelot, resident of village Padiv, Rajasthan was serving in the shop of Nagraj.Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) used to go to the house of Nagraj at 8.45 a.m. for household work and thereafter used to go to shop at 9.45 a.m. One Mahendra Parmar was also employed by Nagraj in his shop since last seven years preceding of the incident.However, one and half months prior to the incident, Mahendra Parmar proceeded on leave.As per the prosecution case, Mahendra Rajput was employed on the recommendation of Bharat::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 8 Kaluram.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::B) On 6th October, 2010 as usual Nagraj left house for shop at 9.00 a.m. Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) arrived in shop at about at 09.30 a.m. At about 10.30 a.m. Nagraj contacted his wife on phone, and in reply she informed him that one person came at house and was making inquiry about Mahendra.The informant Nagraj told her not to open the door of the house to an unknown person.At about 11.00 a.m. on the date of the incident Nagraj sent Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) to spectacles shop for repairing his spectacles.Bharat Kaluram returned within half an hour after repairing spectacles.As the wife of Nagraj has to go to hospital, therefore,he tried to contact her so as to ascertain whether she has gone to hospital, at 12.00 noon, 12.30 noon and 1.30 p.m., but she did not give response, so presuming that she might have gone to hospital, Nagraj after::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 9 closing shop went to the hospital of Dr. Sachin Oswal at about 1.30 p.m. Doctor told him that his wife has not come to the hospital, so Nagraj returned to his house.He noticed that door of the house was closed from the inside.He opened the door with key which was with him.He entered in the house and saw that his wife was lying in the pool of blood in bed-room.He sent two boys to Police Station.Police came there within five minutes.Police called Ambulance and sent wife of Nagraj to the hospital, where she was declared dead.Nagraj noticed that ornaments of money- lending business of the customers worth Rs.32,00,000/-(Thirty two lakhs only), kept in 100-125 small pouches along with name of the customers, weight and amount of the ornaments written on the chit, kept in the cupboard, are stolen.Nagraj contacted Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) on mobile and asked him to come to his house.Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) assured him::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 10 that he will come to house, but did not come, so after 20 minutes Nagraj again contacted him on phone.At that time it was realized by the informant that Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) had switched off his phone.So Nagraj along with police went to the place where Bharat Kaluram was residing.They came to know that Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) left the room with his bag and all his belongings.C) Sunil Gaikwad, API attached to Samartha Police Station, after receiving information from Nagraj, went to the house of Nagraj along with police staff.Shri Gaikwad prepared spot panchanama and took blood samples lying on the spot.He seized articles found on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 11 Investigation was handed over to Sunil Gaikwad.On 6th October, 2010, he along with police staff went to Rajasthan in search of accused.The custody of accused Bharat Kaluram was taken at the house of his sister at village Noon, Dist- Siroli.Then accused Bharat Polaji was taken in custody from Siroli bus stand, and thereafter, the Investigating Officer gave information about arrest of the accused No.2 to Kalindri Police Station.Thereafter, he brought both the accused to Pune.PW-1 Ashok Baban Deshmukh is a panch witness to the seizure panchnama of clothes of deceased Jayanti.He deposed that on 7 th October, 2010, lady police constable produced clothes of deceased Jayanti which were consisting of pink coloured sari in four pieces, pink coloured petticoat stained with blood and pink coloured blouse stained with blood.Police seized those clothes and wrapped in a paper and obtained their signatures on seal.He proved seizure panchanama (Exhibit-45).PW-2 Ritesh Sohanlal Parmar is a panch::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 22 witness to the spot panchanama.He deposed that on 6th October, 2010 he was called by Police for panchanama at Shubham Apartments, Rasta Peth, Pune.They went in the flat of Nagraj Chhajed situated on 4th floor.To the side of passage there is kitchen and thereafter there is toilet.In the kitchen at some places blood was spilled on the floor.The napkin was there to which the hand of blood stains were cleaned.On the basin also there were blood stains.After the kitchen there was bedroom.They went in the bedroom.Chhajed told them that his wife was lying::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 23 in injured condition and thereafter she was referred to hospital before they went on the spot.In the bedroom there were stains of blood.Still cupboard was having door opened.Key was on the door of the cupboard itself.The observation of bedroom was indicating that the blood spilled on the floor was tried to wipe off.The bed and bed cover of the bed in the bedroom were stained with blood.That bed-sheet and napkin were seized by Police.Photographer came there and he took photographs.He further deposed that with the help of cotton swab, the blood lying on the floor was collected from 10 to 12 places.Those cotton swabs were sealed.Finger print expert was also called.Seized articles were sealed and they signed on that seals.Police prepared detailed panchanama (Exhibit - 47).::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::PW-3 Rakesh Chandrakant Gaikwad is the panch to memorandum panchanama (Exhibit-60) of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.He deposed that on 15 th October, 2010 Police called him for panchanama.Inspector Gaikwad and other staff members were present in the Police Station.Accused No.1 was also present in the Police Station.PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that accused No.1 gave statement that he will show the stolen articles concealed by him at his village.Accused No.1 gave statement which was reduced in writing by the police.The statement of Accused No.1 was read over to him.He further deposed that he also read the statement, it bears his signature, signature of another panch and P.I. Gaikwad.Thus he proved Memorandum Panchanama (Exhibit - 60).PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that thereafter, he along with another panch, two accused and Police staff started by private vehicle to Rajasthan, at village Padiv, Dist.Siroi and on next day in the evening they reached::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 25 village Padiv.After they reached at village Padiv, accused told to stop their vehicle.On inquiry, Accused No.1 told that the said house was of his brother-in-law namely Chhaganji Ghanchi.There was a window to southern side of that room.After going 4-5 feet, accused started digging the ground and digged upto one and half feet by hand.Accused No.1 removed a plastic bag from that place.There was big plastic bag in which there were about 113 small plastic bags containing gold ornaments having chits of weight and name of the owner of ornaments.Police wrapped those ornaments in brown paper.Their signatures were obtained on that brown paper.PW-3 - Rakesh further deposed that Accused No.1 again entered in that room.There was a drum.By the side of the drum, Accused No.1 produced one Military colour bag having sticker "One Polo".That bag was also::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 26 seized by the Police and shooting and photos of seizure of the ornaments were taken.He proved the seizure panchanama (Exhibit - 61).19. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that there were variety of articles and he does not remember description of all the ornaments, but some of the ornaments were pieces of gold belt of wrist watch, Kanthimal, necklace, chains etc. When gold articles being Article Nos. 16 to 27 were shown to him, he identified the same.PW-3 - Rakesh further deposed that on 19th October, 2010, Accused No.2 made statement in Kalinde Police Station at Kalindi, Tq.Siroha in presence of the panchas and P.I. Gaikwad.Accused No.2 stated that he melted the stolen ornaments and prepared a gold bar and some of the ornaments sold to goldsmith and received a cash of Rs.1,85,000/-.Accused No.2 further told that he forgot Rs.1,50,000/- in a taxi and concealed a bar of gold in his village::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 27 and he was ready to show that taxi and the place where gold bar was concealed.He proved the Memorandum statement (Exhibit-62).::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::20. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that thereafter Accused No.2 took them to his village Padiv, Tq.Sirohi and from the bed of a river, he dug sand and took a plastic bag.In that bag, there was a golden biscuit on which, "100 g" was written and on another side 074784 was written in English having weight 100 gms.That gold bar was seized by the Police and wrapped in brown paper and label was also affixed and seizure panchanama was prepared.He proved seizure panchanama (Exhibit -63).PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on the very day, they went to Mount Abu.Accused No.2 shown the said Taxi.The Taxi driver told them that the bag found in the Taxi was handed over to Mount Abu Police Station.Then they went to Mount Abu Police Station and saw the bag.There were::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 28 currency notes of Rs.1,50,000/- in the said bag.That amount was seized by the Police and seizure panchanama (Exhibit-64) was prepared.When Muddemal Article No.28 - bag produced by Accused No.1 from the house nearby drum and Article No.29::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::- bag seized from Taxi were shown to him, he identified the same.21. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on 17 th October, 2010, again Police called him for panchanama at village Sirohi near Mayur hotel.He deposed that Accused No.2 halted in Mayur hotel by name Vinod and when Accused No.2 was residing in that hotel, he gave his clothes for washing to Laundry and thereafter Accused No.2 left hotel without taking his clothes.He further deposed that Police collected the said clothes of Accused No.2 from the owner of said hotel and prepared seizure panchanama (Exhibit-65).Said clothes consist two shirts and one pant.He further::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 29 deposed that the said clothes were shown to Accused No.2, who identified the same.When Article 30 - Pant and Article 31 and 32 - shirts were shown to him, he identified the same.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on 21 st October, 2010, Police again called him for panchanama in Police Station.Police called him and another panch for the purpose to show 113 gold ornaments which were seized from Accused No.1 and also for the purpose to take weight of the said ornaments from goldsmith.He deposed that the ornaments were shown to the informant who identified the same.He further deposed that thereafter they all went to Sonya Maruti chowk, Budhwar Peth, Pune in the Government recognized Goldsmith shop of Vasudeo Narayan Parkhi.In the said shop, they took weight of every ornament on weighing machine.He further deposed that police prepared panchanama (Exhibit-66).When 10::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 30 ornaments shown to him in the Court, he deposed that the same were out of 113 ornaments which were seized.He further deposed that the weight of gold bar (Biscuit) was also taken in the same shop and panchanama (Exhibit-67) was prepared.23. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on 27 th October, 2010, Police called him at Police Station.At that time Accused No.1 made memorandum that he is ready to show the shop from where he had purchased the bag having "One Polo" mark on the said bag and which he produced at village Padiv before the Police.He showed the said shop namely "Siddheshwar Bags", situated at Doke Talim and one Kamble was the owner of the said shop.Police showed the seized bag to the shop owner, who identified the said bag as also the accused.The shop owner told that Accused No.1 had purchased the said bag from his shop.He further deposed that seizure panchanama (Exhibit-68) was::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 31 prepared in his presence.The defence has extensively cross- examined PW-3 Rakesh, but nothing contrary was brought on record and his evidence remained in tact and un-shattered.The prosecution has examined PW-4 Sadashiv Baba Dhanawade.His evidence shows that on 23rd October, 2010, he was called by Samarth Police for panchanama at Samarth Police Station.His evidence further shows that he along-with other panchas and accused, went by police jeep to the house at Shubham Apartment near::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 32 MSEB office.His evidence further shows that accused No.2 shown them where he had initially concealed himself in gallery and then shown how the accused came from gallery to the hall.Accused No.2 shown the cupboard in which the ornaments were kept.The police conducted panchnama and obtained his signature.26. PW-5 Sachin Nagraj Chhajed is the son of the informant.His evidence shows that he knows accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi who was working in their shop.His evidence further shows that accused No.1 used to come at their house at 8.30 a.m. and was doing the household work till 9.30 a.m., and thereafter accused No.1 used to go to the shop.His evidence further shows that::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 33 after the incident he went to the spot and thereafter his father contacted their servant Bharat Kaluram i.e. accused No.1 in his presence.Accused No.1 answered that he would come within 15 minutes, but did not come, and thereafter the phone of accused No.1 was switched off.During the course of cross examination, PW-5 Sachin has stated that, when he came to the house, his father told him that he made telephone call to accused No.1 and narrated him about the incident and called him in the house.PW-5 has further stated that his father has not contacted with Bharat in his presence.The prosecution has examined Ritesh Sohanlal Parmar as PW-6, who was already examined::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Accused No.2 showed the way via power house, 7 Levels Chowk, Swargate, took "U" turn at Mahalaxmi Mandir, near Sarasbaug and accused No.2 took them down from iron stair case.There was compound wall of iron wire.Accused No.2 dig at said place by hand and took out one polythene bag from that place.Thereafter, he took out sword- stick (Gupti) from the said bag.There was piece of cloth stained with blood.At that time he was residing at Shubham Apartment, Rasta Peth, Pune, along with his wife.He had two sons but they are residing separate.His shop namely, "Nagraj Jewelers" is situate in 521, Ganesh Peth, Kasturi Chowk, Pune.He is also doing business of money lending and possessing valid license for doing business of money lending.Working hours of his shop were from 9.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., and from 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. The distance between his::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 37 house and shop is 1.5 to 2.00 k.ms.His evidence further shows that in the month of October, 2010, there were two workers in his shop viz. Mahendra Rajput and Bharat Kaluram Ghelot (accused No.1).Both the said workers were native of Rajasthan State.His evidence further shows that Accused No.1 was residing in his room.Accused No.1 used to come to his house for doing household work.Accused No.1 used to come to his house at 8.00 a.m., and used to leave the house at 9.00 to 9.15 a.m., and thereafter used to attend at the shop.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::The evidence of the informant further shows that on the day of incident at about 9.00 a.m., he left the house for shop.On that day Accused No.1 had come to his house for routine work before he went to the shop.His evidence further shows that he left the house when accused No.1 came to his house.The evidence of informant further shows that when he left the house, his::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 38 wife Jayantiben and accused No.1 were only in the house.At about 9.30 a.m. accused No.1 also came in the shop from the house.At about 10.30 a.m. the informant received phone of his wife informing that one person was making enquiry of Mahenra Parmar from outside of the house as the door was closed, and informant told her not to open the door.Thereafter informant made phone call to his wife at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon for 2-3 times, but there was no response from his house.His evidence further shows that he sent accused No.1 to repair his spectacles and after 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon accused No.1 had come to the shop after repairing spectacles.The evidence of the informant further shows that as his wife was not giving response to the phone calls, he felt that she might have went to the hospital.At 1.30 p.m., he closed the shop and went to hospital, but doctor told him that his wife had not come to the hospital.Thereafter the informant went to the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 39 house.The door of the house was bolted from the inside, and though he knocked the door, no one opened the door.The informant was having spare key of the house and so he opened the door by the said key.When the informant entered in the hall, he saw blood stains in the hall.Then informant went in the inner room from the hall and saw that his wife was lying in unconscious condition in the pool of blood on the floor.Steel cupboard in the said room was open.The evidence of informant (PW-8) further shows that, he saw steel cupboard and noticed that two cotton bags containing ornaments of money lending transactions were missing.In the said cotton bags, ornaments were kept in 100 to 125::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 40 small plastic pouches having name, amount of money lending and weight of ornaments.The evidence of the informant further shows that he called accused No.1 on his mobile phone and asked to come at house.Accused No.1 assured to come but did not come.Thereafter, the informant made phone call to accused No.1 in presence of police, but accused No.1 did not give any response, and thereafter the mobile phone of accused No.1 was switched off.Thereafter informant and police went to the place where accused No.1 took food and they came to know that, accused No.1 left that place with his bag and all belongings.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::The evidence of the informant further shows that, thereafter police arrested accused::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Police had shown seized ornaments to him, he identified the said ornaments.On 26th October, 2010, the informant told the police in respect of theft of gold ornaments on the person of his wife, with description.Total ornaments of Rs.84 Lakhs were stolen.Ornaments of money lending transactions were seized by the police.His evidence further shows that, he had received those ornaments from the Court on Supratnama.Some of the ornaments which were demanded by the customers were given to them and some of the ornaments were with the informant.When the ornaments, i.e. Article Nos.16 to 27 were shown to him in the Court, he identified the same as the ornaments which were stolen from his house.He received those articles from the Court on bond.Those articles are pertaining to money lending transactions.The ornaments were having names of the concerned owners, weight and amount.His evidence further shows that the ornaments, article::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 42 Nos.16 to 17 were brought by him in the Court, on the day of recording his evidence.The evidence of the informant shows the details of the said ornaments, like name of the owner, description, weight and price of said golden ornaments.The evidence of the informant further shows that Article Nos.16 to 27 were received by him.The prosecution examined PW-9 Afsar Mohamad Mulani.His evidence shows that since 7 to 8 years he was serving with Samruddhi Tours and Travels and his duty was to book seats of the bus.His evidence further shows that, on 6th October, 2010, he was on his duty.At about 2.30 p.m., two::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.36. PW-10 Kumar Shantaram Kamble deposed that he runs a shop of sell and service of bags by name, "Sateshwar Bags" at 303, Nana Peth, Pune.His evidence shows that working hours of his shop are from 9.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On 27th October, 2010, police of Samarth police station came to his shop, and he went to police station to identify the sack.There was one bag having monogram, "one polo", having military colour.His evidence shows that, the said bag was purchased by accused No.2, from his shop for Rs.180/- but he has not issued bill of said bag.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 45PW-11 Kirtiraj Popat Kamble was the person who was doing business of video-shooting and photography.He deposed that on 23 rd October, 2010 he was called by police and at the instance of accused No.1 one sword was seized, which was concealed by accused No.1 on the stair case of Shankar Parvati Apartment, Ganesh Peth, Pune.The evidence of PW-11 further shows that on the same day i.e. 23 rd October, 2010, police took him to Shubham Apartment along with accused persons where the incident of theft and murder took place.His evidence further shows that the accused showed demonstration how they committed murder and video recording of demonstration was made by him.Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 while sharing common intention with 10 (2008) 16 SCC 166::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 60 Accused No.2 had committed theft in the house of the informant and took away golden ornaments which were belonging to the informant.JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2014 filed by accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot, is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 2 nd September, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune thereby convicting accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The Trial Court also convicted accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 4 for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 filed by accused No.1 Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 2 nd September, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The Trial Court also convicted accused No.1 Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 5 for three months.All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::The Applicant has further prayed to return him the 10 ornaments as mentioned in Annexure C to the Application.Both these Criminal Appeals are arising out of one and the same Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court, hence the same are being decided by this common Judgment.Before the Trial Court there were in all three accused i.e. Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot, Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot and Accused No.3 - - Machharam Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot.The Trial Court convicted::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 6 and sentenced Accused Nos.1 and 2 as afore-stated.However, the Trial Court acquitted Accused No.3 from all the offences with which he was charged.Therefore, these two appeals are preferred by Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi and Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi, challenging their conviction and sentence.(for the sake of brevity, hereinafter we would refer Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot as "accused No.1" and Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot as "accused No.2").::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:A] Nagraj Chandmal Chajed, a Goldsmith resides in Shubham Apartment, Block No.13, Rasta Peth, Pune, along with his wife Jayanti.He has two sons viz : Sachin and Ankush.Nagraj lodged complaint in Samarth Police Station.On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.154 of 2010 came to be registered under Section 302, 381 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::On 13th October, 2010, he formerly arrested both the accused.Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 during an interrogation disclosed some relevant facts in relation to the incident.Pursuant to their disclosure statements, the Investigating Officer seized stolen gold ornaments from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 under seizure panchanama.He has also seized weapon used::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 12 by accused No.2 while committing the offence.The seized muddemal was sent for analysis.He recorded statements of various witnesses.He has also arrested accused No.3 - Machharam Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot.D) As the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1 committed the matter to the Sessions Court vide order dated 8th February, 2011 for trial.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::E) A charge under Section 302 and 381 read with Section 34 of the IPC, under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 13 Act against accused persons was framed vide Exhibit-31 and the same was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::After recording the evidence and conducting full-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants - Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences.Hence Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2014 is preferred by appellant Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot and Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 is preferred by appellant - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot challenging the conviction and sentence.Criminal Application No.953 of 2018 is preferred by the informant for intervention in the Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2014 and for return of the 10 ornaments as mentioned in Annexure C to the Application.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 14Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2014 submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence.There is no direct evidence against the accused.She further submitted that chain of circumstances on which reliance was placed by the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not proved the possession of ornaments with the informant on the day of incident.The prosecution has not proved that the informant is money-lender having valid license at the time of incident.The prosecution has not examined any customer of the informant to whom money was lend on depositing the ornaments with him.The informant has not mentioned the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 15 description of ornaments in the FIR.The prosecution has not produced any Register or receipt book showing money lending transactions in respect of the alleged stolen ornaments.There was no test identification parade of the Accused during the course of investigation.The recovery is not duly proved by the prosecution.The presence of the Appellants - Accused in the house of the informant is not duly proved by the prosecution.There was not test identification parade in respect of the recovered ornaments.During the course of trial, all the ornaments were not produced by the informant, and therefore all the ornaments were not shown to any witness and thus the prosecution failed to prove all the ornaments allegedly seized in the evidence.The photographs and video shooting of seizure of ornaments were recorded but the same were not produced on record.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 16Learned counsel further submits that, the informant stated that the ornaments on person of deceased Jayanti were also stolen, but the record shows that in fact the ornaments on person of the deceased were handed over to one Parmar at the time of inquest panchanama.The name of one Mahindra Rajput was mentioned in the FIR, but neither he was interrogated nor any inquiry was made about him during the course of an investigation.The prosecution has not examined any witness from the shop of the informant to prove the knowledge of Accused No.1 regarding family members of the informant, money lending transaction and also fact of keeping said ornaments in the house of the informant.Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that Accused No.2 has knowledge about the house of deceased or about the family members of deceased.No evidence is brought on record showing that::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 17 there was any communication between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 prior to the incident or after the incident.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Learned counsel further submits that there are several contradictions, omissions, discrepancies and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of various circumstances and therefore reliance could not be placed on the oral testimony of said witnesses.Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and came to the wrong conclusion.In support of her aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon the observations made/ratio laid down in the case of (i) Madhu @ Madhav Nivruti Pawar V/s the State of Maharashtra 1, (ii) Arjun Puna Soni V/s the State of Maharashtra 2, 1 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 655 2 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 157::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 18::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Learned counsel therefore submits that the Appeal may be allowed.In addition to that, 3 2018 ALL SCR (Cri) 472 4 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 7 5 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 62 6 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 820 7 2018 ALL SCR (Cri) 1108 8 1984 RLW (Raj) 225 9 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3130::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.The present case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is absolutely not sufficient to bring home the charge of conviction against the Appellant.The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive against the Appellant.Learned counsel therefore submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::She further submits that, since prior to the incident, Accused No.1 was serving in the house as well as in the shop of the informant and::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 20 was having knowledge regarding the ornaments kept in the house of the informant and the prosecution has proved that in furtherance of their common intention, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have killed wife of the informant and stolen the ornaments kept in the house.Learned A.P.P. further submits that after considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted both the accused and findings recorded by the Trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record.Learned A.P.P., therefore submits that both the Appeals may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective Appellants and learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State, at length.With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the entire notes of evidence so as to find out whether the findings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record or::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 21 otherwise.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Now we would discuss the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses.Police were present there.He knows Darshan Parekh, who was present on the spot and resides in the same Apartment on 5 th floor.His evidence shows that the flat of Chhajed was facing towards west side.The door of flat was wooden.Name plat of Shri Nagraj Chhajed was on the door.After entering in the flat, firstly there is a hall.Blood was stained on the floor of the hall.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Accused took them to a partly constructed house.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Article 28 - bag when shown to him, he identified the same.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi was in the police station, who told that he is ready to show the place of offence and how he has committed the offence.Police reduced the statement of accused No.2 into writing.He proved the statement (Exhibit-70).He proved the said panchnama.He identified accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi, who was sitting in the Court Hall.But, according to us no much importance can be given to his evidence.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::His evidence further shows that then he went to the room of accused No.1 and noticed that accused No.1 has left the room with his bag and all belongings.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::His evidence shows that he was called in the police station to act as Panch.His evidence further shows that accused No.2 told that the weapon used by him was concealed by him and he was ready to show that place.Police reduced the statement of accused No.2 into writing.His evidence further shows that thereafter he along with another panch, police, photographer and accused No.2, went by police Jeep.Police seized that weapon and earth from the said place in polythene::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 35 bag.Police prepared the panchnama of the spot.PW-6 proved the panchnama of the said spot (Exhibit-78).During the course of his evidence, when the sword stick was shown to him, he identified the said sword stick.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::PW-7 Anil Mahadeo Sabale is another panch witness.His evidence shows that on 23 rd October, 2010, he was called by Samarth police in the police station for panchnama.His evidence shows that accused No.1 took them to Kasturi Chowk, near Nagraj Jewelers shop and further took them from the staircase on third floor and produced one empty cement bag in which, in newspaper sword was wrapped.Police seized the sword and seizure panchnama (Exhibit-83) was prepared.Police also took video shooting of the entire episode.However, according to us no imporance can::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 ::: Cri.Since during the course of cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that the sword was in the corner of the stair case.PW-7 further admitted that said sword was visible to persons passing by stair-case.PW-7 further admitted that police did not make enquiry who was residing in the said building.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::PW-8 - Nagraj Chandmal Chhajed is the informant.His wife had injuries on her neck.The informant made phone call to police station, police came on the spot and shifted his wife to hospital.Doctor of Sasoon Hospital declared his wife as dead.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Thereafter informant lodged the complaint (Exhibit-85).The informant identified the accused persons who were present in the Court.The informant also identified the clothes which were on the person of his wife at the time of incident, shown to him in the Court, those were Article Nos.1 to 3 - saree, petticoat and blouse.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:57 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 43 boys came to the office and asked him, whether there was any bus for Ahmedabad, and he told them that departure of bus would be at 5.00 p.m. The said boys told him that as their father expired, they required urgent bus.The evidence of PW-9 further shows that he provided one taxi on rent of Rs.9,000/- for dropping the said boys at Ahmedabad.One of the boy was having sack with him.His evidence further shows that they paid Rs.5,000/- as advance.His evidence further shows that those boys were in hurry to leave for Ahmedabad.The evidence of PW-9 further shows that on 24th October, 2010, he was called by Samarth Police station.Police arrested some accused and showed him those accused.His evidence further shows that those accused were the same persons who came to his office on 6th October, 2010, for booking car.His evidence further shows that, he identified the accused persons when they were shown to him in the Court.During the course of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 44 recording his evidence, when PW-9 was shown the sack, he identified the said sack, which was with the accused when they visited his office for booking car.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::During the course of recording his evidence, PW-10 identified accused No.2 as the person who had purchased the said bag from his shop.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::His evidence further shows that as per the instructions he made video shooting of the seizure of sword which was::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 46 seized at the instance of accused No.2, concealed under fly over constructed in Sarasbaug, Pune.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::PW-12 Dr. Ajay Aniruddha Taware is the medical officer who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Jayanti Nagraj Chhajed on 7th October, 2010, between 9.30 a.m. to 10.45 a.m., along with another medical officer, namely Dr. Nitin Patil.The evidence of Dr. Ajay Taware (PW-12) shows that on external examination, he noticed following injuries on the person of deceased Jayanti:-1) Linear abrasion over lower tip, outer aspect, oblique 0.8 X 0.5 cm.,2) Abrasion over chin in the midline horizontal 1 X 0.3 cm.,3) Incised wound 4 cm.Below left angle of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 47 mandible, 2 X 0.3 muscle deep,::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::4) Incised wound starting from 5 cm.below chin, in midline, running horizontally on left side, 8 X 1 cm.trachea deep.5) Incised wound over right supraclavicular region, extending upto suprasternal region, vertically oblique 9 X 2 cm.cavity deep.6) Stab injury, 5 cm., below right clavicle, 3 cm., away from midline, vertically oblique 3 X 1 cm., cavity deep.7) Linear abrasion 8 cm., below left nipple, 11 cm., away from midline, horizontal 5 X 0.3 cm.,8) Stab injury 16 cm., below left clavicle, 2 cm., away from midline, 3 X 1.2 cm., cavity deep, ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 48::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::9) Stab injury over epigastirium, 22 cm., below suprasternal notch, 13 cm., above umbilicus, in midline, vertical, 3 X 2 cm., cavity deep.10) Incised wound over dorsum of right thumb, proximal phalynx, 3 X 1 cm., bone deep,11) Incised wound over base of right thumb lateral aspect, 1.5 X 1 cm., muscle deep.The evidence of PW-12 shows that all the above injuries were fresh.Margins and angles of above mentioned injuries were acute and clean.Both cavities contain 250 cc., blood.Stab injury underneath injury Nos. 6 and 7 over upper lobe.Stab injury underneath injury No.8 over upper lobe.His evidence further shows that on internal::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Cavity contains 1200 cc., blood.Stab injury underneath injury No.9, vertical, left lobe.His evidence further shows that as per his opinion, cause of death was "due to traumatic and haemorrhagic shock due to stab injuries".He proved postmortem notes (Exhibit-::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::95).His evidence further shows that stab injuries mentioned in Column No.17 of postmortem notes, corresponding to internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course, and said injuries were possible due to sword.PW-13 Sunil Pandurang Gaikwad, the then A.P.I. attached to Samarth Police Station, Pune, was the investigating officer, who deposed about the manner in which he has carried out the investigation of the crime.PW-14 Dr. Sunil Pralhad Jogdand is the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.All the injuries were abrasions and incision and were of simple nature.The age of injuries was within one week, caused by sharp edged tip, rough and irregular objects.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::We have discussed the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution.The evidence of the medical officer (PW-12) shows that deceased Jayanti received multiple internal and external injuries, including stab injuries and thus her death was homicidal.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 51Admittedly, in the present case there is no eye witness to the incident and the entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence.For connecting the said offences with accused No.2, the prosecution has brought on record overwhelming circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has brought on record medical evidence showing that, accused No.2 had as many as 11 injuries on his person and most of the injuries were to his palm.The medical officer who has examined accused No.2, has opined that the age of injuries was within one week.Learned A.P.P. argued that while accused No.2 assaulted deceased Jayanti, she might have resisted and during the said course accused No.2 has received those injuries.The evidence on record further shows that, at the instance of accused No.2 sword stick was seized which was concealed by him beneath the ground, and by digging the ground accused No.2 had took out the polythene bag in which sword stick::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 52 was kept.The evidence on record shows that along with the sword stick, there was piece of cloth stained with blood.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::The prosecution has brought on record the evidence showing that after the incident accused No.2 stayed in the hotel at Sirohi (Rajasthan State), by falsely stating his name as Vinod, and gave his clothes for washing to laundry.Accused No.2 left the said hotel without collecting those clothes, which were seized by the police, which were having blood stains.The C.A. report shows that DNA profile matched all the obligate alleles present in the DNA profile obtained from the pant::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that said clothes of accused No.2 were given for washing and it was not possible to detect blood stains on the clothes when the clothes were washed.We are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, for the simple reason that the expert has given opinion that there were blood stains on the clothes and the DNA profile was matched.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::Though the prosecution has relied upon the circumstance that one bag having monogram "One Polo" was purchased by accused No.2, but the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence showing that the said bag was having any special marks.The said Polo bag is easily available in the market.Further, it is pertinent to note that it has come in the evidence of another prosecution witness (PW-3) that said Polo bag was seized at::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::The prosecution has also relied upon another circumstance that at the instance of accused No.2, cash amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was recovered from Mount Abu police.It is the case of the prosecution that accused forgot a bag of Rs.1,50,000/- in the taxi at Mount Abu and the said taxi driver had deposited the said amount with Mount Abu Police Station and the said amount was recovered by the Investigating Officer in the present case, from Mount Abu police station.In this respect, it is significant to note that neither the said taxi driver nor the police personnel from Mount Abu police station was examined by the prosecution to prove the said circumstance.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 55The evidence on record shows that an accused No.2 had melted some of the stolen ornaments and prepared a gold bar.The evidence on record shows that at the instance of accused No.2, from his village Padiv, Tq-Sirohi, the said golden bar was recovered.The said golden bar was seized from the bed of a river which was concealed by accused No.2, 1½ to 2 feet beneath the sand.Further, accused No.2 had not given any plausible explanation how such golden bar came into his possession though he was obliged under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to offer plausible explanation.In his statement recorded u/s. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, except simple denial or he does not know, is the reply given by him when all the adverse circumstances were put to him.Thus, the prosecution has brought on::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 56 record overwhelming circumstantial evidence against accused No.2, and proved that he has committed theft of the golden ornaments from the house of the informant belonging to the informant, and during the process of said theft when wife of informant resisted, accused No.2 committed her murder.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::The evidence on record shows that accused No.1 was serving in the shop of the informant.Accused No.1 used to work in the house of the informant from 8.45 a.m. till 9.45 a.m., and thereafter he used to go in the shop of the informant for work.Thus, the prosecution has proved that, accused No.1 was well conversant to the situation of the house of the informant and also about the family members residing in the house.The evidence on record::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 57 shows that, on the day of incident, at 9.00 a.m., when the informant left for his shop, at that time only accused No.1 and deceased Jayanti were present in the house.So, also the evidence on record shows that after the incident the conduct of accused No.1 was not natural.The evidence of the informant shows that, soon after the incident he made phone call to accused No.1 and asked him to come to the house.Accused No.1 assured to come, but did not come to house of the informant and thereafter accused No.1 switched off his mobile phone.The evidence on record further shows that soon after the incident, the accused has left his rented residential place and went to his native place.The evidence on record shows that, accused No.1 did not wait for bus which according to PW-9 was supposed to depart at Ahmedabad at 5.00 p.m., and hired taxi for an exorbitant amount of Rs.9000/- and left Pune.In fact, accused No.1 alongwith another co-accused went at Samruddhi::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 58 Tours and Travels at about 2.30 p.m. and at 5.00 p.m. there was bus to go to Ahmedabad.But they did not wait even for 2½ hours more.Thus, the prosecution has proved that soon after the incident, accused No.1 hurriedly left Pune.Thus, the prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence showing that soon after the incident, the conduct and behaviour of accused No.1 was suspicious.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::The evidence of PW-3 Rakesh Gaikwad, supported with the evidence of investigating officer (PW-13) shows that, at the instance of accused No.1 ornaments were seized at village Noon, Tq-Sirohi, Rajasthan State.The said ornaments were concealed by accused No.1 in the house of his sister, beneath the floor of the house.The prosecution has brought on record the evidence showing that at the house of his sister, accused No.1 digged upto 1 and ½ feet on the floor::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 59 and thereafter took out plastic bag in which there were about 113 plastic bags containing golden ornaments.Accused No.1 has not given any explanation how such huge golden ornaments came into his possession.Further, the said ornaments when seized, were identified by the informant as belonging to him.In the case of Praveen vs. State of M.P.10, the Supreme Court has held that in absence of any explanation from the accused as to the possession of the articles belongs to the victim, the recovery of articles is reliable.It is significant to note that, the accused No.1 in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure did not offer plausible explanation, how he came in to possession of such huge quantity of gold.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 had committed an offence under Section 380 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::Thus, the prosecution has brought on record overwhelming circumstantial evidence showing the involvement of both the accused in the crime of theft of an ornaments.Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 and accused No.2 in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of golden ornaments from the house of the informant, and in the said process Accused No.2 has committed murder of Jayanti Nagraj Mehta.After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we are of the view that circumstances brought on record by::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 61 the prosecution are not sufficient to connect accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.The evidence of the informant shows that, though on the day of incident accused No.1 visited the house of the informant, but as usual at routine time at 9.30 a.m. accused No.1 attended the shop of the informant.The evidence of informant further shows that at 10.30 a.m. he received phone call of his wife.Thus, it is clear that when accused No.1 left the house of the informant and thereafter also till 10.30 a.m. wife of the informant was alive.Though the evidence of the informant further shows that, thereafter he sent accused No.1 to repair his spectacles, but he stated that at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon accused No.1 had came back to the shop after repairing spectacles.The prosecution has also not brought on record cogent evidence showing that during said period, accused No.1 visited the house of the informant and::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 62 committed murder of wife of the informant.Though the evidence on record shows that, every day in the morning hours accused No.1 used to attend the house of the informant for doing household work and was having knowledge of the house, the prosecution has not brought on record an evidence showing that, accused No.1 was having spare key with him of the house of the informant.On the contrary, evidence of the informant shows that when he went to the house after returning from the Doctor, the door of the house was not opened even after door was knocked by him.Therefore, the informant opened the house by the spare key which was with him.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::So far as the alleged recovery of the sword at the instance of accused No.1 is::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 63 concerned, the evidence on record shows that the said sword was recovered from the stair case, and the said place was visible and accessible to the persons using said stair case.The prosecution has not brought on record any clinching evidence to connect accused No.1 with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::In the case of Sanwat Khan vs. State of 11 1996 [3] All M.R. 439::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::"7....... In our Judgment no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance.Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murder.Suspicion cannot take the place of proof."In the present case also, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 and accused No.2 had committed theft of the golden ornaments which were owned and possessed by the informant.But the circumstances on record does not at all indicate 12 AIR 1956 S.C. 54::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 65 that at the time of commission of offence of murder, accused No.1 could have been present at the spot of incident.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::In Limbaji and others vs. State of Maharashtra13, the Supreme Court in Para 28 and 29 of the Judgment, while discussing the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, held as under:Whether the presumption could be further stretched to find the appellants guilty of the gravest offence of murder is what remains to be considered.It is in this arena, we find divergent views of this Court, as already noticed.In Sanwat Khan case14, the three-Judge Bench of this Court did not consider it proper to extend the presumption beyond theft (of which the accused were charged) in the absence of any other incriminating circumstances excepting possession of the articles belonging to the deceased soon after the crime.However, we need not dilate further on this aspect as 13 (2001) 10 SCC 340 14 AIR 1956 SC 54::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 66 we are of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of murder, assuming that murder and robbery had taken place as a part of the same transaction.The reason is this.Going by the prosecution case, the deceased Baburao was hit by a heavy stone lying on the spot.There is every possibility that one of the accused picked up the stone at that moment and decided to hit the deceased in order to silence or immobilise the victim.If the idea was to murder him and take away the ornaments from his person, there was really no need of forcibly snatching the earrings before putting an end to the victim.It seems to us that there was no premeditated plan to kill the deceased.True, common intention could spring up any moment and all the three accused might have decided to kill him instantaneously, for whatever reason it be.While that possibility cannot be ruled out, the possibility of one of the accused suddenly getting the idea of killing the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 67 deceased and in furtherance thereof picking up the stone lying at the spot and hitting the deceased cannot also be ruled out.Thus two possibilities confront us.While drawing the presumption under Section 114 on the basis of recent possession of belongings of the victim with the accused, the court must adopt a cautious approach and have an assurance from all angles that the accused not merely committed theft or robbery but also killed the victim.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::(29) In the result, we set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC.We find the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly convict the accused under Section 394 and sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months.The appeals are thus partly allowed."::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 68Applying the said ratio to the present case in hand, in the facts of the present case though it is proved that accused No.1 had committed theft of the ornaments of the informant, the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence even remotely showing the involvement of accused No.1 in the commission of offence of murder.The record of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 shows that by order dated 28 th June, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.R. GAVAI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.), the Appellant - Accused No.1 has already been released on bail.It is also observed in the said order that Appellant - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot was in custody for more than seven years.Thus, it::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 69 is clear that Appellant has already suffered sentence for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::For the reasons afore stated, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved that, accused No.2 had committed theft of the golden ornaments of the informant and during the process of said theft, he has committed murder of Jayanti, wife of the informant.Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.2 had committed an offence under Section 380 and 302 of the IPC.So far as accused No.1 is concerned, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 has along with accused No.2 committed an offence under Section 380 of the IPC.But the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 had committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC.So far as Criminal Application No.953 of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 70 2018 filed by the informant - Nagraj Chandmal Chajed, praying therein to return the ornaments to him as mentioned in Annexure-C of the Application is concerned, the same deserves to be allowed, by giving certain directions.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::In the result, we pass the following order:O R D E R (I) Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2014 filed by Appellant - Original Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot is hereby dismissed.The impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.146 of 2011 convicting the Appellant - accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 71 sentencing him under said Section is confirmed.So far conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court of accused No.2 under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, same stands modified and instead of conviction and sentence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, accused No.2 is/stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor.As ordered by the Trial Court, both the sentences shall run concurrently.The Appellant - accused No.2 be given set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::(II) Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 filed by Appellant - Original Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot is::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 72 partly allowed as follows :::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::(a) The impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.146 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the Appellant - Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the Appellant - Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Fine amount, if any paid by the Appellant be refunded to him.(b) The impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.146 of 2011 convicting::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 73 and sentencing the Appellant - Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months stands confirmed.The accused No.1 has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The bail bonds of Appellant - accused No.1 shall stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::On executing indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the trial::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 74 Court i.e., the Court of Sessions, Pune by the Applicant - Nagraj Chandmal Chajed, Muddemal property (i.e. the ornaments as mentioned in Annexure C to the Application) be returned to the Applicant, after the period of filing the Special Leave Petition, as provided under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 is over.The Record and Proceedings along with Muddemal property be sent to the trial Court.The trial Court, after verifying indemnity bond and completing all other formalities, shall return Muddemal property to the Applicant - Nagraj Chandmal Chajed.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::[A.S. GADKARI, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:36:58 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,704,745 |
(18) There is another asect.When Public Witness .Si Bishamber Dass arrived in the Village after receiving message from the main control room about the occurrence a little after 8.30 P.M. on 5th January, 1982, he did nut find anyone of the eye witnesses at the spot.Only the Pradhan of the village was present and Bishamber Dass Along with the Pradhan took the injured to the hospital.JUDGMENT Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) It appears that two of the appellants, i.e.. the parents of Leela Ram were also found injured after the said occurrence It is not clear as to on whose information, Chandi and his wife Smt. Chanda were removed to the Safdarjung Hospital.However, vide Ex. Public Witness 16/A, the M.L.C. in respect of Chandi, it is shown that he was admitted in the hospital at 10.15 P.M. with the alleged history of assault.It was found that he hail numerous injuries on his legs, arms and the scalp.In fact both his legs and one of his arms were fractured.Smt. Chanda was examined in that very hospital on 6th January.1982 at 5.45 A.M. vide Ex. DX.her M.L.C. This M.L.C. shows that she had.received one lacerated wound in the left parietal region of 40 cm X O.5 cm and another minor injury in the right scapule.One of the witnesses, viz. Public Witness 2 Sis Ram Las tried to give some explanation, which on scrutiny seems to be against the record.(7) Another fact may also be noticed on this aspect.Sis Ram in his statement of 17th March, 1988 had attributed the snatching of the ballam to Deepa, the other person (since deceased) and not Har Lal.It has to be re-emphasised that the investigating agency knowing fully that Chandi had received grievous injuries, at the time of occurrence or most probably during the scuffle, did not consider it proper or fit to investigate that aspect.It further appears that it was only when the Legal Branch of the Police found out this infirmity that a supplementary statement of Sis Ram (P.W. 2) under Section 161 of the Code was recorded.Put even that witness did not utter a word about it during his examination-in-chief.(8) Mr. I. U. Khan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution having suppressed the genesis and the origin of the incident, has not presented the true version; the version unfolded is unreliable and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to acquittal.He relies on Laxmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, .(1) (9) In the present case, two out of the three eye witnesses are interested witnesses.They are interested in the outcome of the case as they were related to the deceased.Public Witness L Veer Wati at the time of occurrence was a young girl of about 14 years.The deceased Har Lal was her father and the other deceased Deepa was her Mausa (Mother's sister's husband).(10) Public Witness 2, Sis Ram admitted that both the deceased were his relations.According to him, immediately after witnessing the occurrence, he left the spot and went to inform the brother of Har Lal, who lived in a Village, Brahampur.about 15 miles away in the District of Gurgaon.(11) The third eye witness, Public Witness 6 Smt. Ratti was a neighbour of the accused as she lived across the street but no credence can be given to her testimony as according to her after the incident, all the accused ran away.As is clear from the M.L.C. (Ex. P.W. 16(A), Chandi was not in a position to run away or even walk because he had multiple fractures of both his legs.We would revert to the testimony of this witness a little later to discuss the case of the prosecution on merits.But suffice it to say at this stage that this is one of those cases where it was incumbent on the prosecution to have thoroughly explained the injuries sustained by the appellants, specially by the appellant Chandi.The injuries sustained by Chandi cannot be said to be minor or superficial and it is very clear that there is no explanation about the same.The finding of the learned trial court that the eye witnesses were simply suppressing the truth on this aspect but otherwise they were trustworthy cannot be upheld.In our view the testimony of the witnesses cannot be said to be independent or dis-interested or that it outweighs the effect of omission on the part of the prosecution.(12) The injuries sustained by the deceased were found to have been caused by blunt objects like lathi as well as by a sharp object.During the course of investigation, the prosecution had seized two lathies from the house of the appellants and one ballam at the instance and pointing out of accused Leela Ram.It was their case that these were the weapons which had been used by the accused.According to the prosecution, Leela Ram was armed with the ballam and the other two accused with a lathi each.(13) Public Witness 31, Dr. Chander Kant.who conducted the post mortem on the bodies of Deepa as well as Har Lal, was emphatic that the ballam (Ex. P. 1) was not the one with which one of the injuries had been caused to the deceased.Ex. P. 1 the ballam had caused those.But the Doctor, as noticed, declined to affirm this fact.Those injuries have beep.described as follows on Deepa "(9)One punctured wound 3 cms below left shoulder joint, margins are abraded with both angles are acute shape elliptical size 1.5 cms X 1 cm depth 1.9 cms."(14) Thus the ballam (Ex. P. 1) cannot be said to have been used in the occurrence at all either by the appellants or by the deceased in inflicting injuries to anyone.The lathies, it is stated, were found near the entrance door of the appellants house.It is not possible to believe that after use of those very lathies, the accused or anyone on their behalf would so conveniently place them so that they (the accused) could easily be involved.At any rate, one lathi does not look different from another and it is very difficult to pin point or hold that the lathies seized were the ones used in the scuffle.(15) The prosecution case seems to be that after the occurrence, all the three accused had escaped.We have carefully scrutinised the evidence regarding the injuries received by the appellant Chandi.We are of the view and we hold so that he was not in a position to run or walk.It was the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence as to on whose initiative or asking did the Police remove that appellant and from where.According to Public Witness -6 Smt. Ratti, the third eye witness, when she saw that Deepa and Har Lal bad been stabbed with ballam in the street, she closed the door of he', house but according to P.W. 1 Veer Wati, the fight started in the street and eventually ended in the compound of Public Witness 6, Smt. Ratti's house.In fact, some blood and also blood controlled earth were removed from.the compound of the house of Smt. Ratti, the wife of Public Witness 3 Bhag Mal.It may be noticed that Bhag mal does not claim to be an eye witness.If the door of the house, as stated by Smt. Ratti was closed, the injured could not have entered that house but they did in fact reach there and it seems collapsed in that very compound.It is safer to assume that Smt. Ratti was not an eye witness.Public Witness 2, Sis Ram also, to our mind, was not an eye witness.He admitted that immediately after seeing the occurrence, he left the spot.He did not bother to look after the injured, take them to the hospital or inform the police or get a doctor.He thought since a fight had occurred, he must go to the house of one Diga, brother of Har Lal whose house was situated at about 15 miles away and he claims to have gone there on foot.(16) Public Witness 1, Veer Wati in her cross-examination admitted that her statement was recorded in the police station, which she thumb marked.Obviously, she is referring to the statement which is the, basis of the F.I.R. She also admitted that she returned to her house from the police station in the morning of 6th January, 1982 after making a statement.It has come on the record that no special report of this case was sent., as he thought that the case had been registered under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and thus there was no necessity of sending it.who had been admitted in the hospital vide Ex. Public Witness 23/B (M.L.C.) at 9.10 P.M. on 5th January, 1982, died a little after midnight.i.e.. 00.30 hrs.on 6th January.The Investigating Officer was in the hospital at that time and it seems that it was thereafter that the offence was converted into murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Atleast at that time.the necessity of sending the special report to the higher authorities had arisen.(17) It is therefore, not possible to verify exactly as to when the First Information Report was recorded.The M.L.Cs.in respect to Har Lal and Deepa, Ex. P.W. 23/A and Public Witness 23/B show that it was the Pradhan of the village who Along with Bishamber Dass had got the injured admitted in the hospital.(19) In view of the inherent probabilities and the serious omissions, we hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt to the accused.The result is that the appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Cede are set aside.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,172,762 |
This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.T.C.No.532 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode and Quash the same.Further he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143, 341 and 188 ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 IPC as against the petitioners.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.More 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.Heard Mr.On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioner and others staged protest on the road demanding basic facilities for their village without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143, 341 and 188 ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 I.P.C. as against the petitioners.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 341 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.Accordingly, the proceedings in in S.T.C.No.532 of 2011, on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.20.02.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No pds/lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 To
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,173 |
dns In the meantime, fresh notice be issued on the private respondents by registered speed post with acknowledgment due and an affidavit of service in that regard be filed on the next date of hearing.( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,601,762 |
The factual matrix, which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows:a) The deceased Velayudham is used to indulge in the sale of cinema tickets in black market.P.W.2 Natarajan and P.W.3 Ramu are his friends.After finishing their work they used to take bed near Kannagi statue in the Marina Beach.The appellant/accused used to give money to the deceased for the purchase of cinema tickets and after selling the tickets in black market, he used to get commission from the deceased.On 20.2.2000, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused since the commission amount has not been paid to the accused.The next day early morning at 3 a.m., that is, on 21.2.2000, when the deceased, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were sleeping in the platform near Kannagi statute, the accused came there and began to attack the deceased by inflicting injuries on various parts of the body.On hearing the loud cry raised by the deceased, P.W.2 and P.W.3 got up and saw the deceased being attacked.Then P.W.3 intervened and prevented the accused from attacking the deceased further and in that process he also sustained injuries on the hand.In the meantime, since other persons cried aloud, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 also escaped from the scene.On that day early morning at about 5 a.m. P.W. 1 Kuppan, who was residing nearby in a hut, happened to see the dead body of the deceased.Immediately he went to the police station and gave a complaint Ex.P.W. 12 the Inspector of Police took up investigation, came to the scene, observed all the formalities and conducted inquest over the dead body.During the course of inquest, it was found out that the deceased was one 'Maduraikarar'.No clue has been collected during the course of inquest as to the identity of the accused, who caused the death of the deceased.Three days later, that is on 23.2.2000, P.Ws. 2 and 3 came to the police station and gave a statement stating that they were the eye witnesses to the occurrence.On the basis of the statement the accused was searched.ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Veerasamy, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 324, IPC for having caused the death of one Velayudham and simple injury on one Ramu and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Section 302, IPC and three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324, IPC.Challenging the conviction and sentence this appeal has been filed.Ultimately he was arrested on 26.2.2000 and on his confession M.O.I weapon and also the blood stained clothes were recovered.The material objects were sent for chemical examination.Several witnesses were examined.Ultimately he filed a charge sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 302 and 324, IPC.b) During the course of trial P. Ws. 1 to 12 were examined; Exhibits P-1 to P-14 were filed and M. Os.1 to 9 were marked.The plea of the accused for the questions put under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is one of total denial.The Trial Court having evaluated the evidence adduced by the prosecution concluded that the appellant had committed the crime of murder by inflicting injuries found on the deceased.Aggrieved by this judgment, this appeal has been filed.Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused took us through the entire evidence and pointed out various suspicious features found available in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the eye witnesses and contended that the evidence available on record, which is insufficient, would not clinchingly prove the complicity of the appellant/ accused in the crime in question.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who argued in justification of the conviction imposed by the Trial Court.We have considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and also gone through the records.According to the prosecution, on 21.2.2000 at about 3 a.m. the accused Veerasamy attacked the deceased Velayudham, while he was sleeping, with M.O.I knife causing several injuries, including chest injury and while P.W.3, having shocked to see the ghastly scene, came near the accused and tried to prevent him and in that process he also sustained injuries on the hand.But it is to be noted that these witnesses have not chosen to give any information to the police.According to the prosecution, P.W.I, who is working as a watchman, and staying in a nearby hut, saw the dead body at 5 a.m. on 21.2.2000 when he happened to go to a tea shop for having tea and gave the complaint Ex.A case was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police on the complaint of P.W.I. When the dead body was lying down in the Marina Beach, sniffer dogs were brought to the scene and inquest was held.However, the panchayatdars were not able to decide as to who caused injuries.Ultimately the police were able to get a statement from P.Ws. 2 and 3 only on 23.2.2000 and find out that the accused has perpetrated the crime.Thereupon, after three days the accused was arrested on 26.2.2000 and the weapon was recovered.So, the entire case is based upon the reliability of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, eye witnesses, who were examined three days later.On going through the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 it is to be stated that we are not able to place any reliance upon them in view of their conduct.It is not in dispute that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are close friends of the deceased.As a matter of fact P.W.3 would state that while he tried his best to save the deceased from the further attack by the accused, he was also attacked and sustained injuries.When such being the case, there is no reason as to why P.W.3 did not choose to inform to the police.P.W.3 would admit even in chief examination that immediately after the occurrence the accused ran away and when he went near the deceased he found that Velayudham was already dead.He also would state that on 21.2.2000 itself in the evening, in 'Malai Malar' he saw the news that the deceased died and the dead body is lying down in the Marina Beach.When P.W.3 is the very close friend of the deceased, the natural conduct of that person would be to go to the police station to inform the incident and also to take treatment from the General Hospital through the police.It is contended that P.Ws. 2 and 3 were afraid of police and that was the reason for not giving the statement to the police, this explanation, in our view, does not merit acceptance.It is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 2 and 3 voluntarily went to the police, who enquired the witnesses on 23.2.2000 at 1 p.m. and recorded their statements.When they chose to voluntarily go to the police personnel, who examined the witnesses on 23.2.2000 at 1 p.m., there is no reason as to why they have not chosen to got to the police station to inform about the incident even after knowing about the death of the deceased at the hands of the accused.Further, P.W.3, who sustained injuries did not take steps to get treatment either from the General Hospital or from the private doctor.It is true that P.W.3 stated to the doctor P.W.7, as mentioned in Ex.P-5 accident register, that he was attacked by a known person on 21.2.2000 at 3 a.m. near Kannagi statue.But this statement made to the doctor by P.W.3 cannot be made use of in favour of the prosecution to accuse the accused especially when the said statement had been made by him only on 23.2.2000 in the presence of the police.In view of the suspicious features as noted above in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, we are unable to rely upon their evidence and convict the accused.Mere recovery of M.O.I from the accused with blood stains would not, in our view, be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of murder.Under these circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.This appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,177,344 |
smn2 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10064 of 2020 22.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking direction, to direct the respondents to collect the footages of C.C.T.V. Cameras as indicated by the petitioner in her representation dated 04.09.2020, forthwith, and based on the Videos so collected, the investigation of the case in Crime No.773 of 2020, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cumbum South Police Station, Theni District, may be directed to proceed with.2.The case of the petitioner is that her son Madhan was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.147 of 2020, pending on the file of the Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District.The said case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B and 109 I.P.C. The averments found in the said F.I.R. would clearly disclose the fact that the petitioner had participated in the alleged conspiracy, which had been arranged for killing one Advocate viz., Ranjith Kumar.In fact, the said conspiracy was enlightened only during the time of investigation made in Crime No.773 of 2020, pending on the file of the third respondent Police.In fact, when at the time of alleged conspiracy, the petitioner's son has gone to Uthamapalayam Court athttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10064 of 2020 Uthamapalayam, in order to appear before the Court and immediately, he had returned to his home, as his wife was not feeling well.One another allegation levelled against the petitioner's son is that, on 10.02.2020 at 02.00 p.m., the deceased Ranjith Kumar went to R.R.C. Bar, which is situated near Cumbum New Bus Stand, to meet his friend, at that time also, it is alleged that the petitioner's son and others had assaulted the said deceased Ranjith Kumar.In the said circumstances, in order to disprove the said allegation levelled by the third respondent Police and others, it is necessary to secure the C.C.T.V. Footages from the C.C.T.V., which is situated near to the Combined Court Campus at Uthamapalayam and in R.R.C. Bar, situated near to Cumbum New Bus Stand, Theni District.3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents.More than that the petitioner, being the third party, she is not at all having any locus standi to file this Petition.1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam Sub-Division, Theni District.3.The Inspector of Police, Cumbum South Police Station, Theni District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10064 of 2020 R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,182 |
Aggrieved against the conviction andsentence, the appellants/A1 to A5 in the case, preferred the present appealbefore this Honourable Court.The case of the prosecution as per the first charge framed by the trialJudge is that on 25.08.1995, at about 11.00 a.m., all the accused armed withsticks, joined togetherand formed an unlawful assembly near the Tamarind Tree at the northern side ofUchimahakaliammal Temple in K.P.Thalavaipuram with the common intention tomurder the deceased viz., Subburaj, who is the son-in-law of the first accusedand husband of the sixth accused and indulged in rioting; thereby, all theaccused have committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the IndianPenal Code.As per the second charge, all the accused armed with stick (Oolikambu), assaulted the deceased indiscriminately and caused injuries on his head,back, chest, right cheek, right and left knee and caused his death; thereby,committed an offence under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the third charge, the appellants/A1 to A5 in the case, at about12.00 noon, on the same day, with a view to screen the offence, had taken thedead body of the deceased to the graveyard and cremated the same; therebycommitted an offence under Section 201 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.P1 to P15 were marked and MOs.1 to 6 were produced.It is the case of the prosecution that the marriageof the deceased with A6 was performed about one year prior to the date ofoccurrence.It is also the practice prudent in theircommunity that a house will be set up for the couple by the father of the bride.Under such circumstances, on 23.08.1995 the deceased, along with A6, attendedthe betrothal of his younger sister with the brother of PW2 at Tuticorin.Onthe next day, A6 left Tuticorin and went to her father's house at Thalavaipuramand the deceased also returned back a little later.On 25.08.1995, at about11.00 a.m., at Thalavaipuram there was a wordy quarrel between the first accusedand the deceased since the deceased demanded a separate house as assured by thefirst accused and PWs.2, 4 and others were present at that time.In pursuance ofsuch wordy quarrel, all the accused took sticks (Ooli kambu) from the nearbycart and assaulted the deceased indiscriminately and caused the injuries and thedeceased died instantaneously.Immediately thereafter the accused took thedeceased in the cart and proceeded to the graveyard for cremation.At thattime, PWs.2 & 4 were also threatened by the accused.PW1, who is the mother ofthe deceased was informed about the occurrence by PW4 and on hearing the news,she immediately rushed to the village on the same day.After knowing that thedead body of the deceased was placed in the graveyard, she went there and foundthe dead body of the deceased being cremated by the accused.Since the accusedthreatened PW1 and drove her away, she returned back to Tuticorin by walk and onreaching there, she went to the house of her brother, PW9, who was working asPolice Constable at Tuticorin South Police Station to inform him as to what hadhappened and found him not there as he had gone to a relative's house.7.PW14, after receiving a copy of the First Information Report, deliveredthe same to the Inspector of Police and thereafter, to the Court.On 25.08.1995, PW1 went to Thalavaipuramand PWs.2 & 4 informed her that the deceased was murdered and the dead body ofthe deceased was taken to graveyard.At the time when PW1 reached thegraveyard, arrangements were made by the accused to cremate the dead body.WhenPW1 questioned about the same, the first accused pushed her away and A1 to A5also drover her away and thereafter, the accused cremated the dead body bypouring kerosene.PW1 returned back to Tuticorin by walk and went in search ofPW9 viz., her brother.Finding that PW9 was not available at his residence, shereturned back.9.PW2, in his evidence, stated that on 25.08.1995, at about 11.00 a.m., hewas present in the village viz., Thalavaipuram and had seen the quarrel betweenthe deceased and the accused.At that time, all the accused causedindiscriminate injuries on the deceased and fourth accused has poked thedeceased by using a stick on the right eye and thereby, his eye ball gotprotruded.When the deceased asked for water, A3 & A5 have poured kerosene inhis mouth and subsequently, again the deceased was assaulted by them.PW2 wasthreatened by them and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was taken in acart to the graveyard for cremation.PW2 further states that this fact wasinformed to PW1 when she came to the village at about 12.00 noon and at thattime, PW4 was also present.10.According to PW4, he was also present and witnessed the occurrence.11.PW5, who is alleged to have attested the Observation Mahazar preparedby the investigating officer, turned hostile.12.PWs.6, 7 & 8 have been examined as motive witnesses, who spoke aboutthe dispute between A1 and deceased on account of refusal of A1 in arranging aseparate house for the deceased.PW9accompanied PW1 to the Police Station for lodging report and he has attestedEx.14.PWs.10, 11 & 12 also alleged to have witnessed the occurrence.P11, sample earth, MO.5under Athatchi Ex.P12 and bullock cart, MO.6, and prepared Observation MahazarEx.P13 and examined the witnesses, who were present while conducting inquestover the ashes, and prepared inquest report Ex.On 31.08.1995, at about11.30 p.m., A1, A2 & A6 were arrested in the presence of the VillageAdministrative Officer.Before the learned trial Judge, on the side of the prosecution, PWs.1to 16 were examined, Exs.In pursuance of suchstatement, MO.1 was produced by the accused and the same was recovered undercover of mahazar Ex.16.PW14, Police Constable, on 26.08.1995 received the First InformationReport and handed over the same to the investigating Officer and thereafter, at12.50 p.m., he has delivered a copy of the same to the learned JudicialMagistrate No.I, Tuticorin.17.PW15, another Police Constable, who had taken the material object fromthe scene of occurrence, produced the same with a requisition before the learnedJudicial Magistrate.18.PW16 is the investigating officer, on receipt of the First informationReport on 27.08.1995 at about 9.00 a.m. through the Constable, proceeded to thescene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P10 and recoveredashes, MO.4 from the cremation ground under athatchi Ex.In pursuance of the statement given by the firstaccused, sticks and can were recovered.On 12.09.1995, A3, A4 & A5 werearrested and sent to judicial custody.Further, he sent a requisition letterto the learned Judicial Magistrate to forward the material objects for chemicalanalysis.PW3, the Court clerk, despatched the material objects for chemicalanalysis as per Exs.P4 is the chemical analysis report and Ex.P5 isthe opinion of the Forensic Doctor.On conclusion of the investigation, PW16filed the final report against the accused on 20.06.1996 for the offences underSections 147, 302 read with 149, 201 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.19.The learned trial Judge, on conclusion of the evidence by theprosecution, questioned the accused under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, regarding the incriminating materials produced, for which all theaccused claimed innocence and pleaded not guilty.Neither oral nor documentarymaterials was produced on the side of the defence.After considering thearguments advanced by the defence as well as the prosecution and the materialsplaced, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as statedabove.Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal hasbeen preferred before this Honourable Court.20.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the occurrencetook place on 25.08.1995 at 11.00 a.m. and the complaint was given to the Policebelatedly i.e., only on 26.08.1995 at 09.00 p.m. Admittedly, the Police stationis at a distance of 8 k.ms.away from the scene of occurrence and PW1, themother of the deceased, could have immediately given the complaint to the policewith the assistance of PWs.2 & 4, instead, it is the case of the prosecutionthat she went back to Tuticorin by walk covering thirty kilometres to meet herbrother, PW9, who is a Police Constable and finding that PW9 was not availableon that day, she returned back and on the next day only, she was met by PW9 ather residence and only thereafter, accompanied by PW9 she is said to have goneto the Police Station and lodged Ex.Such a perusal of Ex.P1, would revealthat it is obsessed with concoction, implicating all the accused.Though PWs.2& 4 are said to have witnessed the occurrence, they simply stated that thedeceased was attacked indiscriminately.Thus, according to the learned counsel,the occurrence would not have taken place in the manner put forth by theprosecution.He further pointed out that the occurrence had taken place in broadday light at 11.00 a.m. in the presence of several eye-witnesses and at avicinity where the Municipality, public school and several houses are situated.Moreover, though PWs.9 to 13 were examined in the case as independent witnesses,none of them supported the prosecution case.PW2 is none else than the brother-in-law of the deceased.He would not have witnessed the occurrence at all.Ifreally he had witnessed the occurrence, he would have accompanied PW1 to thePolice station and lodged a complaint.The presence of PW2 in the scene ofoccurrence was not mentioned in Ex.P1 and it has been mentioned only in theevidence.PW2 resides at Tuticorin and the explanation offered by theprosecution to the effect that he visited the scene of occurrence for thepurpose of selling lottery tickets, is on the face of it, quite wispy.It isglaring that only because of the reason that PW2 is closely related to thedeceased, he has been planted as an eye-witness in the case.PW4 is alsoclosely related to the deceased.Though PW4 is also closely related to thedeceased and PW1, he too never accompanied PW1 either to the graveyard or to thePolice Station for giving complaint.Therefore, the conduct and attitude of PW4also creates doubt and the prosecution has purposely planted him as aneyewitness to the occurrence.The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that though thestick has been recovered and it has been stated that it was stained with blood,the chemical analysis report states otherwise to the effect that no blood stainswere detected.In so far as the opinion which has been received with regard tothe ashes and bones sent for Forensic examination is concerned, it has beenstated that it is difficult to ascertain the race, age and sex of the availablespecimens.Under such circumstances, it is contended that because of the enmitybetween the deceased and the accused, PWs.1 & 9 with the help of PWs.2 & 4, afalse case has been foisted on the accused and that the prosecution has failedto substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt.21.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that evenin the First Information Report, the occurrence put forth by the prosecution hasbeen fully narrated including the motive.Moreover, it has been furthernarrated as to how PW1 came to know about the occurrence, reached the scene ofoccurrence and lodged the First Information Report.Merely because of thereason that PWs.2 & 4 are related, in a grave case like this, their evidencecannot be discarded on the ground that they are interested witnesses.PWs.6 to8 speak about the motive part of the case of the prosecution to the effect thatthere used frequent quarrels between A1 and the deceased since the deceaseddemanded allocation of a house by the first accused.Though there is a delay inlodging the First Information Report, such delay has been explained by theprosecution to the effect that in view of communal clash, PW1 could not get anyvehicle.Therefore, she returned by walk and since she happened to be a lady,there is nothing wrong in getting assistance of her brother, PW9 and with hisassistance, without much delay, she gave the complaint Ex.P1 to the Police.The evidence of PW1 has been corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 & 4 and theirtestimonies are cogent and convincing.22.We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for theappellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor.23.The occurrence had taken place in broad day light and had beenwitnessed by several persons.Though the occurrence has taken place on thestreet, near Municipality, public school and houses, except PWs.2 & 4, thepersons who were examined as independent witnesses did not support theprosecution case.PW2 is the brother-in-law and PW4 is a close relative of thedeceased.PWs.2 & 4 alone have given graphic pictures about the occurrence toPW1 and therefore, the name of PW2 could not have been omitted in the FirstInformation Report.But the name of PW2 has not been mentioned in the FirstInformation Report.Under such circumstances, we could infer that PW2, who isthe brother-in-law of the deceased, has been purposely planted as an eyewitnessin the case.As rightly pointed out, if really PW2 is an eyewitness to theoccurrence, he would have accompanied PW1 to the Police Station from the sceneof occurrence and under such circumstances, the complaint could have been givenimmediately without any loss of time.There was communal riot and PW1 allegedto have walked all the way for 30 k.m.to Tuticorin instead she could havereached the Police Station with the help of PWs 2 & 4 which is situated within 8k.m.24.Further, it appears that the occurrence would not have taken place inthe manner as put forth by the prosecution There is no reason as to why PW1walked all the way to Tuticorin to seek the assistance of PW9, who is a PoliceConstable.A graphic narration has been given in the First Information Reportand concoction is looming large on the perusal of the First Information Report.PWs.2 & 4 are also closely related to the deceased.They would have accompaniedPW1, but they did not do so.It is the case of the prosecution that PW1, afterreceiving information from PWs.2 & 4, went alone to the graveyard andsubsequently returned back by walk to Tuticorin which is situated thirtykilometres away.Though she has stated that she reached the scene of occurrencethrough bus, she has stated that such bus facility was not available forreturning back to Tuticorin.The reasonassigned is that there was some communal riots.At any rate, PW1 walking backthirty kilometres in an agonizing moment is unbelievable.The First InformationReport also had reached the learned Judicial Magistrate much belatedly.Theexplanation offered by the Constable that he first went to the Inspector ofPolice and subsequently, to the Judicial Magistrate to deliver copy of the FirstInformation Report, is also unbelievable.Under such circumstances, it is verymuch apparent that the prosecution case has been foisted with deliberation andconsultation and all the accused were purposely implicated in the case.Thoughashes have been recovered from the graveyard, the prosecution has notestablished that they are the burnt ashes of the deceased.Though it has beenstated that the weapons of offence were stained with blood, such aspect has notbeen substantiated through chemical analysis/Forensic report.25.In the light of the above discussion, We hold that the evidence ofPWs.2 & 4 are unreliable and the result would be that we have to necessarilyhold that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonabledoubt.The reasons assigned by the trial Judge for convicting the accused areunacceptable.The evidence of PWs.2 & 4 and that of PW1 is highly artificial.Under such circumstances, we are left with no other option except to acquit theaccused.26.In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trialCourt is set aside.Fine amount, if paid, is ordered to be repaid.Bail bondsexecuted stands cancelled.27.With the above observations, the appeal is allowed.1.The Additional Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Thattaparai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,601,847 |
(a) A.1 and A.2 are the brothers.They had a sister by name Jameela.PW.1is the son and PW.2 is the son-in-law of the deceased Chelliah.Chelliah wasdoing black magic.The deceased Chelliah even after his marriage had illicitintimacy with Jameela.A.1 and A.2 warned him.Despite the same, they had achild.Chelliah took the Jameela to Ambasamudram and he was living with her.Thus, both the accused were on inimical terms.(b) On the date of occurrence i.e. on 16.11.2004 at about 2.30 hours PW.1and PW.2 went to the field to drive away pigs and rats.At that time, thedeceased was inside the hut.They heard a distressing cry from the hut.Theyhad a torch light, switched on and with that, they found both the accused armedwith aruval attacking Chelliah on different parts of the body.They wereweeping for a long time and the accused persons fled away from the place ofoccurrence soon after the occurrence.P.17and a Rough Sketch, which was marked as Ex.He conducted inquest on thedead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and heprepared an Inquest Report, which was marked as Ex.The dead body of thedeceased was subjected to post-mortem.PW.7, Doctor attached to ShencottaiGovernment Hospital, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased andhe found injuries as described in the Post-Mortem Certificate issued by him andthe same was marked as Ex.P.9 wherein he has opined that the deceased would havedied of massive haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) Challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast TrackCourt No.1, Tirunelveli dated 24.10.2005 in S.C.No.44 of 2005, whereby both theaccused stood charged, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awardedimprisonment for life under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, have brought-forth thisappeal.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be statedthus:(c) PW.1 proceeded to the respondent police where PW.10, the SubInspector of Police was on duty, received a complaint from PW.1 and the same wasmarked as Ex.On the strength of Ex.P.1, a case was registered in crimeNo.279/2004 under Section 302 of IPC.F.I.R. Ex.P.14 was despatched to thecourt.(d) On receipt of copy of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer took upinvestigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared anObservation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses, which was marked as Ex.(e) Pending investigation, on 17.11.2004, both the accused were arrested.The second accused gave a confessional statement in the presence of witnessesand the admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.Pursuant tothe confession, Aruval MO.12 was produced by the accused and the same wasrecovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.While the other aruval wasrecovered from the place of occurrence.Both the accused were sent for judicialremand.All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence andfrom the dead body were subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in tworeports viz., Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.12 and Serological Report Ex.(f) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed afinal report against both the accused.The case was committed to the Court ofSessions.Necessary charge was framed.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused, theprosecution has marched 13 witnesses, also relied on 23 Exhibits and 12 MOs.On 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 prosecution witnesses and they deniedthem as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced on either side andlooking into the materials available, took a view that the prosecution hasproved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and found both the accused guiltyof the charge and awarded imprisonment for life, which is the subject ofchallenge of this appeal.Advancing his argument on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel,Mr. M.S.Pandiyan would submit the following submissions:(a) In the instant case, PW.1 and PW.2 could not have witnessed theoccurrence as claimed by them.PW.1 is the son and PW.2 is the son-in-law ofthe deceased.Even according to them, they were standing within a distance of 2feet from the place of occurrence and they were also armed with sticks in theirhand.If to be so, in an incident where a close relative was being attacked byA.1 and A.2, naturally, the conduct of PW.1 and PW.2 would have been to rescueand save the deceased but they did not done so but they were mere passivespectators and thus, it would be an indicative of the fact that they could nothave witnessed the occurrence.(b) PW.1 went to the police station to give a complaint at about 11.30a.m., when the occurrence had taken place at about 3.00 a.m. and thus, the F.I.Rcame into existence after a long delay and the delay remains unexplained by theprosecution.(c) Insofar as the motive part, Chelliah had illicit intimacy with Jameelafor the past four years but they were on cordial terms.While the matter stoodthus, there was no occasion for A.1 and A.2 to commit the offence.The deceasedwas doing black magic.He had a number of enemies.He got illicit intimacywith a number of persons and he got inimical terms with so many persons andthus, actually, the deceased should have been killed by some one else.(d) The medical opinion was not in favour of the prosecution.(e) Insofar as the arrest and recovery of the weapon from A.2, it isnothing but false introduction and hence that should have been rejected by theCourt but did not do so.(f) In the instant case, for the aforesaid reasons, the lower Court shouldhave rejected the case of the prosecution outrightly.Hence, the judgment of thelower Court has got to be set aside and the accused are entitled for acquittalin the hands of this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.It is not a fact in controversy that one Chelliah, father of PW.1 wasdone to death in the incident that took place on 16.11.2004 and following theinquest made, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by the Doctor PW.7, whohas issued Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.9 wherein he has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to multipleinjuries sustained.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violencewas never questioned by the accused/appellants at any stage of the proceedings.Hence, the fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence could befactually recorded and so recorded.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that these twoaccused shared the common intention with each other to cause the death of thedeceased Chelliah, the prosecution has marched 13 witnesses among them PW.1 andPW.2 are the eye-witnesses.PW.1 is the son and PW.2 is the son-in-law of thedeceased.According to both the witnesses, they were in the field nearby thehut where they heard a distressing call from inside the hut, they put on thetorch light when they found both these accused persons armed with aruvalsattacking the deceased Chelliah.Despite the cross-examination in full, theirevidence stood the test.Naturally, in an incident in which father ofPW.1 died, both the witnesses were weeping.Pursuant to the occurrence, PW.1gave a complaint to the respondent police and following the same, a case came tobe registered.Thus, the evidence of both the witnesses, viz., PW.1 and PW.2who happened to be in the field at the time of occurrence and saw the occurrencenearby the hut are natural, convincing and inspiring the confidence of theCourt, which was rightly accepted by the trial Court.PW.4 was theJamath leader.According to whom, he produced both the accused.He was treatedas hostile.It could be easily inferred that he happened to be the Jamathleader of which these two accused belonged to, but the prosecution for itsbenefit had the evidence of PW.6 V.A.O.,.According to whom, on 17.11.2004 boththe accused were arrested and A.2 gave a confessional statement in theirpresence and the admissible portion of the same were marked as Ex.Therecovery of MO.12 Aruval from the second accused pursuant to the confession wasalso pointing to the nexus of the accused in the crime.Coming to the act of the accused, it would only attract the penalprovisions of murder for the simple reason that the occurrence had taken placeat about 3.00 a.m. in the place of occurrence i.e. in a hut on 16.11.2004.These two accused persons armed with aruvals went to the spot and attacked thedeceased Chelliah.The criminal appeal has got to be dismissed andaccordingly dismissed, sustaining the judgment of the trial Court.2.Inspector of Police, Achanpudur Police Station.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,194,145 |
The facts, which give rise to the present appeals, are as under :-::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::Deceased Nanaji Hanumantu Soyam was cultivating a land encroached by him.He had two brothers, Maroti Hanumantu Soyam and Namdeo Hanumantu Soyam.The report was lodged against acquitted accused Sugandhabai and her relatives on account of suspicion.Oral report of Vimal states that agricultural land was originally owned by Hanumantu, her father-in-law, who is no ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 5 more.The said land stands in the name of three sons.However, in the revenue record sub-division of that land was not effected.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::It is also reported in the First information Report that since deceased was cultivating the land encroached by him (Jabranzot), acquitted accused Sugandhabai was disputing in respect of giving due share in the land of Hanumantu.On that, she extended threats to deceased as well as the first informant that she will kill them with the help of her son-in-laws.The First Information Report also states that a report was lodged against the first informant by Sugandhabai.The First Information Report further proceeds that on 12th of July, 2011 at 12.00 noon, deceased took his bullocks for grazing.In the evening, in between 5 to 6, only the bullocks returned to the house therefore she sent her son Vasanta towards the field.After some time, Vasanta came back without any result.On 13th of July, 2011, in the morning, when she, her son Vasanta and her brother Vitthal (PW 3) started search, that time they noticed from the field of Maroti Dhodare (PW 4) that there is a ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 6 evidence of dragging and therefore, they followed the same and noticed the dead body of Nanaji near two Ranzi trees.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::That time, Vimal (PW 1) came to Kothari Police Station and filed her report.On the basis of the same, a Crime was registered vide Crime No.8 of 2011 and investigation was handed over to API Swapnil Dhule (PW 13).He visited the spot and prepared Spot Panchanama (Exh.12) in presence of panch witness Rushi Dhodare (PW 2).Inquest was also done by preparing Inquest Panchanama (Exh.43).Dead body was sent for Post Mortem.He also seized the clothes of the deceased under seizure Memo (Exh.46).During the investigation, he arrested four accused persons under arrest Memos (Exhs.120 to 123).Unsidputedly, accused nos.1 and 2 are son-on-laws of Sugandhabai.The First Information Report and also the evidence of PW 1 Vimal Soyam shows that the agricultural land in possession of Sugandhabai is originally owned by Hanumantu, the father of the deceased.Her First information and her evidence show that there was a dispute since deceased and first informant demanded share from Sugandhabai.ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M.Deshpande, J.)These two appeals are decided by this common judgment.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::All the appellants were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer imprisonment for life on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were directed to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.All the accused persons were also directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- by each of them and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Maroti Soyam predeceased him.Sugandhabai Atram (acquitted accused) is daughter of Maroti Soyam.Accused nos.1 and 2 are the son-in-laws of acquitted accused Sugandhabai whereas accused no.3 is grand son-in-law of deceased.Vimal Soyam (PW 1), the widow, set the Criminal Law into motion by lodging First Information Report with Police Station, Kothari of Distt.During the course of their police custody, accused no.1 Nagendra gave a disclosure statement.Accused Nagendra agreed to show the place whereat weapons and clothes on their persons were concealed.Accordingly, police party along PW 8 Nitin Yellore, in whose presence disclosure was made, followed the accused persons and seized articles under Seizure Memo (Exh.76-A).::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::The Investigating Officer also requested the Magistrate to record statement of three witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Their statements were also recorded by the learned Magistrate.The Muddemal articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gondpipri.The learned Magistrate found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and therefore, he committed the case to the Sessions Court.The learned Additional Sessions Judge Chandrapur, under Exh.8, framed charge against the appellant and acquitted accused Sugandhabai.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Prosecution has also relied upon various documents duly proved in the course of the trial.The learned Sessions Judge also recorded the statements of all accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the line of their cross-examination and from their statements, according to the all accused persons, they were falsely implicated.The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the prosecution case acquitted accused no.4 Sugandhabai from all the charges which she faced, however, convicted the appellants as observed in the opening paragraph of this judgment.Hence, these appeals.The learned counsel for the appellant appearing in Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2013 remained absent when the appeal was taken up for hearing.In both these appeals, the State was represented by ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 9 learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.M.Ukey.Both Shri Bhangde and Shri Ukey took us through the notes of evidence and record and proceedings of the Sessions Case.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::The submission of the leaned counsel for the appellants Shri Bhangde is that the only eye witness PW 4 Maroti Dhodare is not a reliable one.He submitted that this witness is introduced in the persecution case.He further submitted that on the point of discovery the evidence of the prosecution is not reliable one and needs to be discarded.He therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that PW 4 Maroti Dhodare is an independent person.He has identified the accused persons in the Court when they were in dock.He further submits that there was no reason to this ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 10 independent person to falsely implicate the accused persons.He further submitted that in view of the consistent evidence of PW 8 Nitin Yellore, the discoveries are duly proved and there is corroborative piece of evidence in the nature of Chemical Analyzer's report to show the existence of blood on the clothes of appellant Sunil Tekam.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::On scanning the prosecution evidence, the Court can reach to a safe conclusion that there is a motive to eliminate Nanaji.These two Police Officers deposed that on 2 nd ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 11 of July, 2011, Sugandhabai (acquitted accused) came to the Police Station and lodged her report (Exh.110) against deceased Nanaji, first informant Vimal and their son Vasanta.The said report shows that on the day of the incident i.e. on 1 st of July, 2011 when Sugandhabai was working in the field, that time aforesaid three persons entered into agricultural field and tried to assault her.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::The report was registered as N.C.No.155 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.The aforesaid recitals of the report filed by Sugandhabai corroborate the version of Vimal Soyam in her First Information Report and also from the witness box that there was a dispute in between her and Sugandhabai on account of share of land originally owned by Hanumantu.9. Dr.Ritesh Patil (PW 9) when was on duty at Rural Hospital, Gondpipri, he received request from Police Station, Kothari for Post Mortem examination of dead body of Nanaji ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 12 Soyam.Accordingly, he conducted the Post Mortem.He noticed following external injuries on the dead body.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::Incised wound - 5 x 2 cm x 1 cm.Over vertically upward over left side of upper lip.Incised wound - 5 x 2 x 1 cm.horizontal above left side of chin.Incised wound - 3 x 1 x 1 cm.horizontal above left eye brow.Conclusion - 7 x 7 cm.over area including left temporal, left post auricular, left parotid ad pinna of left ear.Contusion - 6 x 6 cm.over area including right temporal right post auricular, right parotid and pinna of right ear.Abrasion - 3 x 2 cm.over right umblical region of abdomen.Abrasion - 6 x 4 cm.over left side of scapular region of back.Incised wound - 3 x 1 x 1 cm.over left cheek, horizontally.He found that all injuries are ante mortem in nature.On internal examination, he found following injuries -"Hematoma of 3 x 2 cm.over temporal region of right side.Hematoma of 3 x 3 cm.over ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 13 temporal region of left side.Brain was congested.There was contusion of 3 x 2 cm.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::Stomach contains semi-digested food with fluid, large intestine contains fecal matter with gases.Spleen and kidneys were congested."He proved the Post Mortem Report (Exh.89).According to the autopsy surgeon, cause of death was head injury with intra cranial bleed.In view of the evidence of Doctor Ritesh Patil (PW 9) and the Post Mortem (Exh.89), there is no doubt in our mind that Nanaji met homicidal death.Now, the question that is posed before us as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against these three appellants.Except PW 4 Maroti Dhodare, there is no other witness ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 14 who has seen actual assault.All other witnesses except Police Officers and Doctor, they are the panch witnesses and the photographer, who has developed the photos of dead body of Nanaji.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::PW 4 Maroti Dhodare is a star witness of the prosecution.His evidence discloses that he was knowing deceased Nanaji.Both these witnesses and deceased are resident of village Aksapur.He also claims that he know the accused persons.Being resident of same village, knowing deceased Nanaji is most natural.Further, Sugandhabai (acquitted accused) also resides in the very same village.The claim of this prosecution witness that he was knowing deceased Nanaji is not at all challenged by the accused persons.According to Maroti Dhodare, time of incident is 2 p.m. He claims that that time he was in his field to see standing paddy crops.There is nothing unusual on the part of this prosecution witness to be in his agricultural field at that time.He further ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 15 claims that after taking the round in the field when he was proceeding towards dam, where he was having bullocks, that time he noticed deceased Nanaji running to his field.He was gasping.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::He was chased by accused no.1 Nagendra Tekam and accused No.2 Sunil Tekam and their friend.He also ascribed weapons in their hands.He further stated that all three made an attack on Nanaji due to which he died.Thereafter, they extended threat to Maroti, the prosecution witness, and thereafter they left the spot.In his examination-in-chief itself he has stated that there may be confusion in telling about the weapons in the hands of the accused persons due to the fact that at that particular point of time he was frightened.A statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of this witness was recorded by PW 11 Shri J.W.Gaikwad, Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gondpipri.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::The cross-examination of this witness would show that his evidence on the point of actual assault is not at all challenged.Certain omissions are tried to be brought on record and those are in respect of the fact that which accused was holding which weapon.In that behalf, this prosecution witness has also given explanation that at the time of incident he was frightened and therefore he could not give the exact account of such weapons.An attack is made on this prosecution witness by the learned counsel for the appellants that he has not disclosed this fact to the family members of Nanaji.However, he volunteers that it was disclosed to some other villagers.The age of this witness was 60 years at the time of evidence.This witness cannot have any control about the reaction of the villagers to whom he has disclosed the fact.Merely because he has not disclosed the fact to the family members of deceased that by itself does not render the testimony of this prosecution witness, who has withstood the searching cross-examination of the learned cross-examiner.As ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 17 observed earlier, the evidence of this man in respect of actual assault has remained unshaken.After scanning the evidence of this prosecution witness, we hold that this prosecution witness is reliable insofar as accused nos.1 and 2 are concerned.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::Once it is found that the evidence of PW 4 Maroti Dhodare is reliable and trustworthy, who is an ocular witness, we see no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in absence of drawing of spot panchanama of the agricultural field of Maroti Dhodare, the prosecution case is doubtful.Merely for certain lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution case cannot be viewed with tainted glasses, especially when before the Court there is a trustworthy and reliable ocular evidence of Maroti Dhodare.For the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer the evidence of such witness need not be discarded.The Court will be making its observation viz-a-viz ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 18 accused no.3 in the later part of this judgment.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::The learned Judge of the Court below has relied upon the discovery statement and its consequent recoveries.After going through the same and the relevant evidence on record, we see no reason to take a different view than the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge.Chemical Analyzer's reports are placed on record.C.A.report Exh.132 shows that blood group of deceased Nanaji was "AB".The clothes of all three accused were sent to Chemical Analyzer.Chemical Analyzer's Report (Exh.131) shows that on the clothes of accused no.2 Sunil Tekam there is a human blood and out of that his full pant is having blood group "AB".The learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per Exh.133, Sunil's Blood group is also "AB".He submitted that even the learned Judge of the Court below has recoded that the C.A. reports are not much help as on the clothes of Sunil the blood might be of his.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::When accused Sunil was answering to the questions put to him by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a specific question was put to him about noticing of blood stains, that time he could have offered explanation.He failed to offer the same.Therefore, in our view, that will be one of the incriminating circumstance corroborative to the prosecution case against the accused persons.During the cross-examination of Maroti Dhodare (PW 4) he has admitted that at the time of ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 20 incident he was not knowing him nor he was knowing his name.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::In the present case, no Test Identification Parade was held by the Investigating Officer.All the three accused persons are identified by Maroti Dhodare in court.Law is settled on this question that there need not be any Test Identification Parade and for that the Identification by a witness in the Court cannot be doubted.However, in the present case, from the cross-examination of Maroti Dhodare it appears that after the arrest of accused no.3, police called Maroti Dhodare in the Police Station and police pointed out accused no.3 to him.In that behalf, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of his cross-examination :-I was not knowing him prior to the incident.Police did not call me for identification parade.I was called in Police Station after arrest of the accused.It is correct to say that police pointed out accused no.3 to me".Thus, it is crystal clear that in the Police Station, Police ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 21 Officer showed accused no.3 to the prosecution witness No.4 Maroti Dhodare and thereafter he has identified him during trial.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::Therefore, in our view, the identification by PW 4 Maroti Dhodare of accused no.3 Krushna Jatwa loses its importance and value.The learned Additional public Prosecutor could not point out anything to show that anything was seized at the behest of accused no.3 Krushna.Further, the scientific evidence also shows that the clothes of this accused, which were sent to Chemical Analyzer, were not having any blood stains.Accused no.3 was arrested on 14th of July, 2011 under arrest Memo (Exh.122).In absence of any connecting evidence against the accused no.3 - Krushna, he is entitled for the acquittal.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::The upshot of the aforesaid discussion leads us to pass following order.ig ORDER Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2013 is dismissed.The judgment and order of conviction, convicting the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2013, is hereby confirmed.Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2013 is allowed.The judgment and order of conviction, convicting the appellant Krushna Ramesh Jatwa for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is hereby quashed and set aside.The appellant Krushna Ramesh Jatwa is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 ::: apeal490.13 23 Penal Code.He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::Order accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 23:59:33 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,602,008 |
4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel raised the following grounds which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the order.According to him, the order came to be passed on 27.3.2010, and the detenu, according to the department, was involved in two adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above.In respect the second adverse case, the same was registered under Sec.302 IPC, and an application for bail was filed in Crl.As far as the ground case was concerned, it was registered under Sections 341, 392, 336 and 506(ii) IPC, and a bail application was filed in Crl.M.P.No.1050/2010 and the same was dismissed on 25.3.2010, by the same Court.The order under challenge came to be passed on 27.3.2010, and thus within a short span of two days therefrom, it was made.The same was also placed before the detaining authority.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 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.
|
160,253,680 |
Since both the above petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings pending in the Court of JMFC, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.343/05 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 406,494,209,211,420, 506 and 120-B of IPC, hence they are being decided by this common order.Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of this matter are that Mukta Agrawal alias Guddi (petitioner no.2 of M.Cr.C.No.2288/07) was married to respondent no.2 Nirmal Lohiya on 11.02.2001 according to Hindu rites at Chhatarpur and she came to reside with respondent no.2 at Tikamgarh.From the first night of marriage, respondent no.2 and his family members started misbehaving, harassing and torturing her and demand of dowry was made.So, she left the company of respondent no.2 and went back to Chhatarpur.She made a complaint at PS-City Kotwali, District-Chhatarpur against respondent no.2 and his family members and police registered offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and filed the Challan ,Criminal Case No.152/2003 is pending at Chhatarpur.It is an admitted fact that petitioner Mukta Agarwal has remarried with petitioner Krashan Kumar Agarwal and she is residing with him and proceedings of Criminal Case No.343/05 have been stayed by this Court from 7.3.07 in M.Cr.The present petitions have been filed on the following grounds :-"(1) That, though the marriage of said Mukta Agarwal was performed with non-applicant no.2 but said Mukta Agarwal has made a complaint against the Non-applicant no.2 and his family members that from the first night she was tortured and harassed by various means and even she was beaten and assaulted by non-applicant no.2 and his family members and on a report the Police of Kotwali, Chhatarpur against the non-applicant no.2 and his family members registered offence under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the said case is still pending before the Court;(2) That, the said Mukta Agarwal has also filed a divorce petition against the Non-applicant no.2 and after obtaining divorce the said Mukta Agarwal has already performed second marriage with Krashan Kumar Agarwal;(3) That, due to the aforesaid reason and to take revenge the non-applicant No.2 has filed a complaint case against the applicant and other near relatives of Smt. Mukta Agarwal;(4) That, the Magistrate has also recorded the statements under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.;(10) That, the articles and other things presented to Smt. Mukta Agarwal at the time of marriage by any person including the non-applicant no.2 are "Stridhan" and non-applicant no.2 has no right to move an application to obtain the said articles or things."I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,253,807 |
On 21st May 1996, PW-7 Kacharabai received a messagefrom her brother i.e. Vithu Kashiram that their daughter Jijabai hasexpired in her matrimonial home.On the same night she went toZarvad by S.T. Bus.The accused were present in the house.Soon after,PW-7 Kacharabai reached the house they had left the house.Tukaramand others had returned to the village.PW-7, being a mother stayed inthe said house.On the next day in the morning Tukaram and theirrelatives returned to the house of the appellant.They saw the deadbody.They had seen ligature marks on her neck, breast and cheekportion which was blackish and bluish in colour.They approached thepolice station and Tukaram lodged a report on 22 nd May 1996 in themorning at about 11.05 a.m. alleging therein that their daughter haddied in her matrimonial house.The police had registered A.D. No. 22of 1996 (Exhibit-29).5. PW-10, Ramesh Pawar along with the police had been tothe spot.He held inquest panchnama in presence of the panchwitnesses.He found that the dead body was wrapped in a quilt andhad become blackish and bluish.The tongue was protruding and therewas a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.The dead body wassent for Post-mortem.205.apeal.611.1997.docbody on 22nd May 1996 at about 5.50 p.m. Rigor Mortis was absent inupper extremities and was present in lower extremities.There weresigns of decomposition, eyelids were contused.The cause of death wasasphyxia due to strangulation.The Doctor had opined that the deathmust have occurred 24-36 hours before performing autopsy.PW.9-Vidya Wagh has specifically stated that she had foundthat body was decomposed.The skin was peeled therefore externalinjuries were not visible.The skin was peeled around the neck.Theneck vessels were ruptured.Fracture in second right rib at sternaljunction and blood clots in front of trachea.Mr. Girish R. Agrawal for the appellantMr.S.R. Agarkar-APP for the State.CORAM : SMT.ORAL JUDGMENT :Hence, thisAppeal.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::The Post-mortem was conducted on the deadVarsha 2 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::After receiving Post-mortem notes, the P.I. ofGhoti Police Station, PW-10 lodged F.I.R. on behalf of the State,alleging therein that the deceased Jijabai has died a homicidal death.On the basis of the said report Crime No. 35 of 1996 was registeredagainst the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 and498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 10witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.The case rests upon evidences of PW.7- Kacharabai Korde,the mother of the deceased, PW.6- Tukaram Korde who happened to bethe father of the deceased and had reported to the police station andon the basis of his report A.D. No. 22 of 1996 was registered.PW.9-Vidya Wagh and PW.10- Ramesh Pawar who is the Investigating Officer.The learned Sessions Court has acquitted the accused of theoffence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian PenalCode and has convicted them for the offence under Section 498 (A)read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::9. PW.6-Tukaram Korde has deposed before the Court that inone year after marriage Jijabai was treated well and thereafter, she wasmeted with ill treatment.The Deputy Sarpanch of their village hadtaken Jijabai to her matrimonial home.Jijabai used to be driven out ofthe house on many occasions.She had given birth to a daughter.Sheused to visit her maternal house on every occasion after beingassaulted by the accused.On receiving the message from VitthalNimbekar they had gone to Zarvad.All the accused were present in thehouse.They saw the dead body.His wife stayed with the dead bodyand the father had to return home to get the other relatives, sinceBrahmanwadi is in a remote place which is not easily accessible.Onthe next day they noticed that there were blackish and blueish markson her breast, neck and cheeks.Therefore, he was constrained to lodgea report.He has specifically stated that the accused persons have killedhis daughter.In the cross-examination he has admitted that he had notstated in the report that his daughter was ill treated by the accusedpersons.He has denied the suggestion that his daughter was sufferingfrom vomiting and loose motion and therefore his wife had been toZarvad to look after her daughter.He has denied the suggestion thatthe accused persons had left the house prior to the visit of his wife.PW.7-Kacharabai who happens to be the mother of thedeceased.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::Tongue was protruding.She opined that the cause of the death was asphyxia due tostrangulation.The Post-mortem notes were also signed by Dr.The age of all theinjuries are within 24 hours.PW.10-Ramesh Pawar, the Investigating Officer who hadrecorded A.D. No. 22 of 1996 and thereafter, had lodged the F.I.R.against the accused persons, arrested the accused persons atBorichiwadi.Hehas specifically stated that village Borichiwadi is only 3 kms.fromvillage Zarvad and village Zarvad is about 25 kms.from villageBrahmavade.That village Zarvad is an interior place and it is not easilyaccessible.That, accused no.2 is the Police Patil of that village and hehad failed to report the incident to the police station.He has deniedthe suggestion that it had transpired during the investigation thatJijabai was ill prior to the registration of A.D. No. 22 of 1996 and thather mother had come to look after her.He has also denied thesuggestion that he had arrested accused on 22 nd May 1996 while theywere returning from Borichiwadi.The reasons assigned by the learnedVarsha 5 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::205.apeal.611.1997.docSessions Judge for acquitting the accused of the offence punishableunder section 302 of Indian Penal Code are perverse.However, theState has not chosen to file an appeal against acquittal and no notice ofenhancement was issued at the time of admission and therefore, theacquittal under section 302 of Indian Penal Code cannot be consideredat this stage.In fact, Jijabai was married to accused no.1 just 4 yearsprior to the incident.The medical evidenceclearly establishes that Jijabai had died a homicidal death.There wereinjuries on her body.There was a fracture of her ribs.The Doctor hasfurther opined that Jijabai had died 24 to 36 hours prior to registrationof F.I.R. i.e. when the accused were present in the house.The medicalevidence would clearly establish that Jijabai had died a brutalhomicidal death at the hands of the accused persons.However, thefindings that there is no eye witness to the incident and therefore,there is no direct evidence that the accused have caused homicidaldeath cannot be appreciated.The statement of the accused no. 1 under section 313 ofCode of Criminal Code shows that the defence of the accused is thatthey had left on Saturday for village Borichiwadi to celebrate Bohodafestival.They were arrested by the police when they were returninghome and that PW.7 i.e. his mother-in-law had been to the house andthey have been falsely implicated in the present case.The saidVarsha 6 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::205.apeal.611.1997.docexplanation is neither plausible nor reasonable and would notdischarge the accused of any explanation under section 106 of IndianPenal Code.The accused has failed to establish their plea of alibi.Infact, village Borichiwadi is hardly 3 kms.from village Zarvad.In fact,was a clear case which spelt of offence punishable under section 302 ofIndian Penal Code.Moreover, there were marks on the person of theaccused persons.It appears that the accused had sustained injurieswhile they were facing resistance from Jijabai.All injuries were onshoulders and face.It is in these circumstances, that the accused-appellants donot deserve any leniency at the hands of this Court.The appellant no. 1 has undergone the sentence of 16 months asunder-trial prisoner.The accused no.3 was in jail for 15 days as under-trial prisoner.In view of this, the sentence as far as appellant no. 3 isconcerned, deserves to be modified.Hence, the following order:-i) The appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.ii) The appellant No.1 to surrender before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik within four weeks to serve the rest of the sentence.The appellant no. 3 is sentenced to one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000 instead of R.I. for two years.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::surrender within four weeks, the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik shall issue non-bailable warrant and arrest the accused in accordance with law.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 00:54:16 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,265,997 |
C.R.M. 2812 of 2013 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.02.2013 in connection with Hare Street P. S. Case No. 122/2012 dated 03.02.2012 under Sections 364A/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on day today basis and make all endeavours to commence the trial within a month from the next date fixed and shall proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with 309of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,266,477 |
6 It is the case of the prosecution that on 7 th March, 2018Pranav Pramod Polekar was constrained to lodge a report at the policestation.The first informant informed the police that Dnyanada was hiswife.Dnyanada was hail and hearty.That in the month of June, 2017preliminary diagnosis indicated symptoms of having conceived andtherefore, they had visited the hospital of Dr. Pawaskar.Dr. SanjivPawaskar (applicant No. 2) had examined Dnyanada and had confirmedthat she was pregnant.Dnyanada was registered with Dr. Pawaskar.Dnyanada used to visit the hospital regularly for routine check-up.Shehad taken the medicine prescribed by Dr. Pawaskar.7 On 5/2/2018 she had started having labour pains andtherefore, they had rushed to Dr. Pawaskar Hospital.The doctor and hiswife were present.She was admitted in the hospital.Initially, the familymembers were informed that she would have normal delivery.On6/2/2018 she was advised to undergo sonography test at GurukrupaSonography Center.Upon seeing the sonography report, the doctorswere of the opinion that she should undergo cesarean operation.On6/2/2018 she had undergone cesarean operation.Dr. Ketkar was theanaesthesist.Dnyanada had given birth to a female child.The baby wasadmitted in Gajanan Bal Rugnalay of Dr. Vijay Suryagandh.On 6/2/2018Dnyanada appeared to be normal.The first informant had deposited Rs.25,000/- towards medical fees.On 8/2/2018 baby was also dischargedand on 9/2/2018 at 5 p.m. Dnyanada was discharged from Dr. PawaskarHospital.At the time of discharge, doctors were not available.The staff had informed that the doctors are not available in the hospital.Dr. Ketkar was not able to tell the relatives ofas to what had happened to her.He informed Dr. Pawaskar that he isshifting the patient to Parkar Hospital.There was no ambulance with Dr.To save time, Dr. Ketkar had to take the patient in his own car.ventilator and at 7 a.m. the doctor had informed that Dnyanada hadexpired.She has further stated that as per the telephonicinstructions of Dr. Deepa Pawaskar, the patient was re-admitted.Salinewas given.Saline could not be given on left hand as it was swollen.7/2/2018 when she attended her duty at 8 p.m., she was informed by theco-nurse Manali Vasave that the applicants are leaving for Pune forconference on 8/2/2018 and that they have kept discharge papers ofDynanada Polekar ready and in case there is new patient, they shouldcall upon Dr. Girish Karmarkar.On 10/2/2018 Dynanada was re-admitted.On telephonic instructions of Dr. Deepa Pawaskar, casepapers were prepared as per her instructions.Dompan tablet and Aciloc was given and as per theinstructions of Dr. Karmarkar, Trazine H was given.The patient hadcomplaint of nausea, head-ache, giddiness, tremendous, unbearablepain in her legs, loose motions.However, the said symptoms were notmentioned in the case papers.There was abdominal inflammation,swelling on her legs and lips had turned black.Her conditiondeteriorated between 4 and 4.30 a.m. The patient was panting forbreath and complained of severe pain in her legs.The literature further shows :"In patients who survive a pulmonary embolism, recurrent embolism and death can be prevented with prompt diagnosis and therapy.Unfortunately, the diagnosis is often missed because patients with pulmonary embolism present with nonspecific signs and symptoms."17 In the present case, it is more than clear that the patient hadshown specific signs of embolism as she had fever, her calf was achingterribly.There was swelling on the abdominal, which was apparent.Shehad severe head-ache and fever.All these symptoms are noted by theDistrict Civil Surgeon.It was at the request of nurse that he had been to examineDynanada on humanitarian ground and by virtue of professionalcourtesy.In his statement, he has given symptoms of pulmonaryembolism, which can be diagnosed immediately and could have beenTalwalkar 13 aba513.18.doctreated.20 It is pertinent to note that on 9/3/2018 when the investigationwas in progress, the Indian Medical Association, Ratnagiri Branch wrote aletter of protest to the District Collector and the Superintendent ofPolice, threatening to go on strike for prosecuting Dr. Pawaskar couplefor offence punishable under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.They have also warned that they would not hesitate to go on strike in allcities and at the State level or even at the National level.They hadthreatened of keeping the hospital closed in Ratnagiri.The letters weresent to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, District Civil Surgeon, DistrictInformation Officer and the Superintendent of Police.It is unfortunatethat all private hospitals in Ratnagiri actually remained closed for 2days and the patients were forced to rush to Civil Hospital.21 The medical board has observed that there were clots ininferior Vena cava.Inferior vein returns blood to the heart from thelower part of the body.It is a vein which carries de-oxygenated bloodfrom lower half of the body to the artium of the heart.The said veinruns beyond abdominal cavity.The initially essential componentsare breached out and the resultant damage.31 The medical professionals have been put on pedestal nearmortals especially destitute patient and their families suffer because oflack of knowledge and over imposition of technologies in law.32 The time has come for weeding out careless and negligentpersons in the medical profession.P. C. :1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learnedAPP for State.The staffhad also not informed the family members or the patient about the post-operative care.8 On 10/2/2018 Dnyanada was vomiting throughout the day.Her relatives had called upon Dr. Deepa Pawaskar.She had asked themto call her from medical shop.The doctor had given instructions to themedical shop owner and accordingly, he had given them tablets whichshe had taken.On the same day, in the evening Dnyanada had fever andshe continued vomiting and therefore, she was taken to the hospital ofDr.Deepa Pawaskar at 8.30 p.m.. In their presence, the staff nurse hadcalled upon Dr. Deepa Pawaskar.She was advised to admit the patient.The first informant had asked as to whether she should be taken toanother hospital.However, he was informed that it was not necessaryand that the patient would be admitted for one day and on the next day,she would be discharged.9 Dnyanada was being treated by two nurses, who wereadministering medicines on the telephonic instructions of Dr. DeepaPawaskar.The condition of the patient was deteriorating and therelatives, out of anxiety were accordingly informing the staff nurse.Therelatives were insisting upon shifting the patient to another hospital.However, the staff nurse upon instructions of the applicant No. 1 hadinformed the relatives that they need not panic and that they are intouch with Dr. Deepa Pawaskar and she has guided them telephonically.At about 10.15 p.m. Dr. Girish Karmarkar had been to the hospital.HeTalwalkar 5 aba513.18.dochad patiently heard about the complaints of the patient.Dr. Karmarkarhad prescribed the tablet-Trazine H, which the first informant got fromNational Medical Shop as advised by Dr. Karmarkar.10 On 11/2/2018 at about 3.45 a.m. his sister Mrunali, who waswith the patient, had asked the first informant to rush to the hospital.They realised that tip of nose and lips of Dnyanada had turned black.Girish Karmarkar did not visit again nor enquired about the patient.Thefirst informant had realised that the health of the patient haddeteriorated to a large extent.He had to quarrel with the staff andthereafter, at 4 a.m. the staff had called upon Dr. Pawaskar.Upon hisinstructions, Dr. Ketkar had visited hospital at 4.30 a.m.. Dr. Ketkar hadenquired as to why the head of the patient was lowered.Uponobjectionable query made by Dr. Ketkar, the staff had informed that thehead was lowered at the instructions of Dr. Karmarkar.By thenDnyanada was getting fits.Dr. Ketkar felt need of putting her on oxygen.Ketkar had diagnosed poor prognosis and therefore, needed to beshifted to Parkar Hospital.The first informant had specifically stated that it was due tonegligence by the present applicants that he had lost his wife.On thebasis of the said report, an offence was registered.Investigation was setin motion.11 The dead body of Dnyanada was sent for autopsy.The postmortem notes indicated that the cause of death was due to pulmonaryembolism.Thereafter, it was sent for histopathological test.The findingsrecorded in the histopathological test are as follows :Brain :congestion.Heart :No specific lesionLungs : Pulmonary thromboembolism and bone marrow embolism inmedium sized blood vesselsIntraalveolar Hemorrhages and focal pulmonary edema.Spleen, Kidney : CongestionUterus with bilateral adnexae : Postpartum changes.Hisopinion was as follows :and was readmitted on the very next day, it was incumbent upon thehospital to have examined the patient by the gynecologist beforeadmission.(ii) The patient was admitted on the telephonic instructions of Dr.Deepa Pawaskar.(iii) Dr. Deepa Pawaskar is responsible for the health condition ofthe patient.(iv) Dr Deepa Pawaskar should have referred the patient to aspecialist immediately.Her negligence is apparent on the face of therecord.(v) The health condition was not monitored properly from10/2/2018 8.30 p.m. to 11/2/2018 5.40 a.m. and therefore, negligence isapparent.13 The second report given by the District Civil Surgeon to theinvestigating officer dated 13th March, 2018 reads as follows :The statement of the staff nurses was recorded by the InvestigatingOfficer and was placed before the District Civil Surgeon alongwithmedical reports, upon which, medical analysis was as follows :(i) Smt. Shital Thick had examined the patient at the time ofreadmission.Her educational qualification is 12 th standard and passedA.N.M.. Another staff nurse was Smt. Anuradha Sharad Rasal whoseTalwalkar 8 aba513.18.doceducational qualification is S.S.C. After the patient was admitted at 8.30p.m., she was not examined by any medical officer.Dr. Girish Karmarkarhad prescribed Trazin H. There was no preliminary assessment of theailment and therefore, the treatment was not proper.The patient oughtto have undergone pathological test such as X-ray and sonographic test.The condition of the patient ought to have been monitored every half anhour.The relatives of the patient were not informed immediately aboutthe poor prognosis.(ii) The absence of Dr. Deepa Pawaskar was pre-planned andtherefore, the patient ought not to have been admitted in herabsence.Except checking pulse and blood pressure, no other testswere performed on the patient.(iii) The complications were not noticed immediately for want ofproper medical officer.(iv) Civil Surgeon has assigned reasons for pulmonary embolismand the symptoms which were found in patient Dnyanada, which are asfollows :Pawaskar and she continued to prescribe medicine telephonically.Therewas no resident medical officer or any other doctor to look after thepatient in the absence of Mr. and Mrs. Pawaskar.In fact, the said tripwas prescheduled.14 In the course of investigation, the investigating officer hadrecorded the statements of staff of Dr. Pawaskar Hospital.That thedoctors had prepared the discharge card of the patient one day before,as they were to go out of station.Co-nurse Harshada Kanade had handedover the discharge papers, birth certificate to the patient at the time ofdischarge.On 9/2/2018 from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., no doctor was available inthe hospital.They had been asked by the doctors to discharge thepatient on 9/2/2018 at 5 p.m. At that time, doctors were not available inthe hospital.The new born baby wasnot with the mother when she was re-admitted.She was given dextrose injection through saline.Anotherinjection was R-din.At 4.30 a.m. Dr. Ketkararrived and had shifted her at Parkar Hospital.She has specificallystated that there was no stretcher and therefore, she had to be takenupto the car in a plastic sheet.The relatives were made to hold plasticTalwalkar 11 aba513.18.docsheet.Similar are the statements of the other staff nurses.16 Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants in the course ofargument has submitted that the applicants at the most be prosecutedunder section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 304of the Indian Penal Code.What is placed on record to substantiate hisargument is the Literature in respect of Pulmonary Embolism.Introduction itself reads as follows:"The pathophysiology of pulmonary embolism.Although pulmonary embolism can arise from anywhere in the body, most commonly it arises from the calf veins."of the patient dated 6/2/2018 itself showed that "Umbilical artery showreduced diastolic flow with increased S/D ratio s/o fetoplacentalinsufficiency." In these circumstances, the patient had undergonecesarean.All the medical case papers of 10 th and 11th show that themedicines were administered on the oral instructions of Dr. Mrs.Pawaskar.19 Learned APP has further submitted that in the course ofinvestigation, the applicants had tried to tamper with the evidence andthe same cannot be disclosed till filing of the charge-sheet.The medicalBoard has also opined that it is a case of negligence, more particularly,because the visit to Pune on 9/2/2018 was pre-scheduled.The dischargecard was prepared by the Doctors without examining the patient at thetime of discharge.The statement of Dr. Karmarkar shows that one dayDr.Mr. and Mrs. Pawaskar had casually met him on road and requestedhim to attend patient, if necessary in their absence.That he was neverrequested by Dr. Pawaskar telephonically to examine the patientDynanada.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,278,245 |
A.K.SIKRI,J.It was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for quashing of FIR No.121/14.7.2010 registered under Sections 307/324/323/34,IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 22.7.2013 entered into between the petitioners ( who are accused in the said FIR) and respondent No.2 (who is the complainant).The High Court has refused to exercise its extraordinary discretion invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code on the ground that four injuries were suffered by the complainant and as per the opinion of the Doctor, injury No.3 were serious in nature.The High Court, thus, refused to accept the compromise entered into between the parties, the effect whereof would be that the petitioners would face trial in the said FIR.2. Leave granted.We have heard counsel for the parties at length.It may be stated at the outset that the petitioners herein, who are three in number, have been charged under various provisions of the IPC including for committing offence punishable under Section 307, IPC i.e. attempt to commit murder.FIR No.121/14.7.2010 was registered.In the aforesaid FIR, the allegations against the petitioners are that on 9.7.2010 at 7.00 A.M. while respondent No.2 was going on his motorcycle to bring diesel from village Lapoke, Jasbir Singh, Narinder Singh both sons of Baldev Singh and Baldev Singh son of Lakha Singh attacked him and injured him.Respondent No.2 was admitted in Shri Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar.After examination the doctor found four injuries on his person.Injury No.1 to 3 are with sharp edged weapons and injury No.4 is simple.From the statement of injured and MLR’s report, an FIR under sections 323/324/34 IPC was registered.After X-ray report relating to injury No.3, section 307 IPC was added in the FIRAfter the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in the Court against the petitioners and charges have also been framed.Now the case is pending before the Ld.Trial Court, Amritsar, for evidence.It is clear from the above that three years after the incident, the parties compromised the matter with intervention of the Panchayat of the village.It is on the basis of this compromise, the petitioners moved aforesaid criminal petition under section 482 of the Code for quashing of the said FIR.As per the petitioners, the parties have settled the matter, as they have decided to keep harmony between them to enable them to live with peace and love.The compromise records that they have no grudge against each other and the complainant has specifically agreed that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.Further, both the parties have undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against each other and withdraw all the complaints pending between the parties before the court.As they do not intend to proceed with any criminal case against each other, on that basis the submission of the petitioners before the High Court was that the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid FIR will be a futile exercise and mere wastage of precious time of the court as well as investigating agencies.The aforesaid submission, however, did not impress the High Court as the medical report depicts the injuries to be of grievous nature.The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet.In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC.Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,283,906 |
This appeal under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act has been filed for grant bail to the appellant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.401/2017 and Special Case No.157/2018 for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 336 of IPC and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act registered at Police Station-Hanumantal, District-Jabalpuru.The applicant is in judicial custody since 24.02.2018 in the aforesaid case.The allegations against him is that he along with the co-accused persons are stated to have attacked the complainant and his group, thereby causing injuries to him.Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegation that has been levelled against the applicant herein and the fact that the injuries are minor and simple in nature and the allegation under the SC/ST Act are to the effect of abusing the complainant using foul words, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that appellant herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only ) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,344,030 |
The murder of one Sagar Ghosh shook the conscience of the public and the said incident was widely spreaded through news media.Judgment on : 24.09.2014 HARISH TANDON, J.:Immediate arrests were made and the petitioners in W.P. 33223(W) of 2013 were taken into custody.The aforesaid incident took place at 10.45 p.m. on 21st July, 2013 and a Police Station Case No. 79/2013 dated 22nd July, 2013 was registered under Section 448/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The aforesaid case was registered on the written complaint of the widow of the said deceased and appears to have received on 21st July, 2013 at about 4.05 hours.The accused were presented before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum on 22nd July, 2013 and the prayer for bail was rejected.The deceased who suffered a bullet injury died on 23rd July, 2013 at 5.30 a.m. On 23rd July, 2013 the daughter-in-law and the widow of the deceased made another complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Birbhum alleging that the second officer of the police station forcibly obtained signatures on the blank sheets of the papers and reproduced into a complaint naming four persons including the petitioners in W.P. No. 33223 (W)/2013 who in fact were not involved in the crime with an intent to save the real culprit who appear to be a highly influential persons in the locality and having political background.41 persons were named in the said complaint including the political executives.When the bail petition of the petitioners in W.P.33223(W)/2013 came up before this Court, while granting the bail, this Court recorded that both the widow and the daughter-in-law stuck to their statement that the police prepared the false statement implicating those petitioners using the blank sheets on which their respective signatures were obtained.The accused after having enlarged on bail filed the W.P. 33223(W)/2013 for issuance of mandamus to forthwith hand over the investigation and/or the said case to the Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal for further and proper investigation without any delay.At the time of moving the writ petition, the defacto complainant i.e. the widow of the deceased was directed to be impleaded as a party-respondent.In the said writ petition and direction was made on the petitioners to serve copy of the writ petition upon all the respondents including the added respondent.On 23rd December, 2013 the Court after recording no objection of the State for the investigation culminating in the death of the said Sagar Ghosh, directed the D.I.G, C.I.D to engage any suitable officer to take up the investigation who was further permitted to collect all the documents from the Panrui Police Station.The writ petition was adjourned with a specific direction upon the investigating officer to submit the preliminary report before this Court.The matter again appeared on 24th January, 2014 when the State seeks further week's time to prepare and file the report.The Court recorded the note of dissent that the private respondent who being one of the eye-witness to the alleged murder of her husband, her statement was not recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Even on the returnable date i.e. on 27th January, 2014, no progress could be shown in the investigation as the State submitted that because of the communication gap the investigation could not be taken up by the C.I.D. and the papers have been received very recently.While granting permission to the investigation officer to commence the investigation, he was directed to appear personally before the Court on the next date.A status report in connection with the investigation was produced on 3rd February, 2014 in a sealed cover through the learned advocate representing the State and the Court perused the statements of all the eye-witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the said report to be kept in a sealed cover and reposed further hope and trust upon the investigating officer to take up a meaningful steps in connection with the investigation process.It was strongly observed therein that if the said investigating officer fails in making a proper investigation, the Court may consider the desirability of handing over the investigation to some independent agencies.On the returnable date, it appears that Ms. Sen has expressed her regret and inability to head the SIT citing work pressure and ill health and the Government Pleader communicated to the Court that the name of Mr. N. K. Singh, IG, CID, may be considered to lead the SIT.The petitioners, however, suggested the name of Mr. Soumen Mitra and Mr. Kalyan Mukhopadhyay, two senior most police officers to head the S.I.T and the Court interacted with Mr. Mitra who though said that he is bound to obey the order of the Court but disclosed certain issues which the Court thought might have an adverse effect on the investigation and even at the stage of trial.However, the Court entrusted the D.I.G., West Bengal to shoulder the responsibility of forming the S.I.T. that shall function under the Court's surveillance to make the investigation to its logical conclusion with alacrity and promptitude.The Court, however, recorded that the political rivalry appeared to be an immediate cause of subject murder which led the earlier two investigating officers not to secure the arrest of the main players of the crime except five fringe players pretty recently.It would be relevant and pertinent to record the full context of the order dated 14th February, 2014 which runs thus :No meaningful progress in investigation of the murder of Sagar Ghosh, a septuagenarian, having been made by the police officer attached to CID, Birbhum investigating Panrui Police Station Case No. 79 of 2013 under Sections 448/326/307/34 IPC, added Section 302, IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, I desired that Ms. Damayanti Sen, DIG, CID, West Bengal may lead a special Investigation Team (hereafter the SIT) that was intended to be constituted for unearthing the truth and for bringing the culprits to book.However, the accused and the petitioner in the first writ petition W.P. 33223(W)/2013 filed a supplementary affidavit disclosing the facts that the statements of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and one Priyaranjan Ghosh were recorded by the investigation officer on 21st April, 2014 in the afternoon which remained in complete.Because of the insufficient light and the exhaustion of the battery, the video recording was partially done and it was informed that they would come on the next date to complete the same.It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 3 in the first writ petition W.P. 33223(W)/2013 disclosed the name of the culprits and the conspirators in the written statement and handed over the same while the video recording was being done.The matter was listed on the next day.The learned Government Pleader handed over the video footage which was retained with the records.The statement of one of the two eye-witnesses, namely, the petitioner in the second writ petition was recorded by the SIT which was also video graphed.Her statement revealed that a Jana Sabha was held on 17th July, 2013 in the village called Kasba where two political leaders delivered a speech that all the houses of the independent candidates (contesting the Panchayat Polls) should be broken and burnt which resulted into the harassment on a family members and continuous threat being made from outside their houses.The DGP expressed his dismay in making a prayer to disassociate him with the monitoring of the case as he should not be tied up to monitor a single case perusing the weekly reports discussing with the SIT and watching video footage for a long time.The Court recorded its dissatisfaction on the functioning of the DGP as the aforesaid action portrays the extreme lack of solicitude for the rule of law and borders of contempt.Charge-sheets against many other persons were filed in the competent court thereafter as reported later from time to time.In all, 34 charge- sheets against 54 persons have been filed on this basis.The said order was carried to the Supreme Court.A Special Investigation Team was constituted for carrying out further investigation headed by former DIG, CBI and a report was submitted to the Court.After considering the same, this Court does not find any ground to pass an order of stay.The prayer is thus refused.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,443 |
In this connection, it is to be noted that the lady who could be the best person to speak about such demands, as the demands were allegedly made to her, is no more, the only remaining evidence can be that of the parents of the deceased to whom she would be supposed to mention about such demands in order to ascertain if they could meet the same.He has stated that all the three accused started ill-treating his daughter about a year after her marriage and had been taunting her that she had brought less dowry.They demanded colour T.V., a fridge and a cooler besides ornaments.He further stated that they had given threats that if she did not brings those items, she would be done to death.He has given specific instances of such demands.Sukhdev Singh, Sohan Singh and Darshan Singh and took them to the house of the accused along with his daughter.All the accused persons were present in the house when these people reached there.The accused were told that in view of the poor financial position of the father of the girl he was not able to meet their demands still he assured that whatever could be possible within his means he will continue to do.With this assurance he left his daughter with the accused persons.The appellants are Devinder Singh, her husband, Swaran Singh, her father-in-law and Pritam Kaur, her mother-in-law.The trial court has held that Neelam Kaur died an unnatural death.Her dead body was found lying in the kitchen of the matrimonial home smeared with kerosene oil all over the body.A stove, a match box and a plastic can were also found near the body.The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants and maintained the judgment of the trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of the accused persons.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was being taunted and harassed on account of dowry related demands by the appellants which led her to taking her own life.The appellants have denied this allegation.The deceased left behind a son who was at the time of the incident aged about 15 months.Further it is established from medical evidence of P.W.1 Dr. G.P.S. Bedi who conducted the post-mortem that she was about 12 weeks pregnant at the time of the incident.For a woman of that young age and having a small child of 15 months old and another in her womb, to take a step of taking her own life, needs great determination and suggests her life would have been made really difficult.She took the extreme step of ending her life because the behaviour of the accused persons must have become unbearable for her.The main ingredients of Section 304B IPC are:(c) within seven years of her marriageThus, the argument in the present appeal centers around only the last ingredient i.e. whether there was cruelty or harassment on account of demands for dowry.According to him about two months prior to the incident, his daughter was turned out from their house by the accused persons after giving her a beating.The lady returned to the house of her parents and told them about the incident.Jagir Singh convened a panchayat of respectable persons of the locality viz. S/Sh.Again, a month earlier to the incident, the victim was sent back to her parents' house by the accused persons after being given some beating with instruction to bring the items which were demanded by them.Jagir Singh told that he sent his daughter back alongwith his wife to the house of the accused with cash of Rs.1200/- and five ladies suits.His wife left her daughter in the house of the accused and came back.After getting this information Jagir Singh and his wife immediately left for Hoshiarpur and on reaching the house they saw the dead body of their daughter lying in the kitchen with burn injuries.It is worth noting that the incident of panchayat being held and the three panchas being taken to the house of the accused persons is admitted by DW 6 Dharam Singh who is defendant's own witness.He said in his cross-examination that it is however, correct that her father had brought the panchayat of respectables to the house of accused about two months earlier to the incident.From this, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that this shows that the dispute stood settled/compromised and thereafter there could be no question of making allegation of dowry related demands.While making this argument, the learned counsel forgets that Jagir Singh, father of the deceased stated again that about a month prior to the incident, the girl had been turned out of the house after being beaten with instructions to bring the demanded articles from her parents.That would show that the dowry related demands by the accused persons continued, otherwise there was no reason for the young wife to take the extreme step of ending her life specially when she had a young son about 15 months old and another child in her womb.We have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Jagir Singh.In our view, the trial court rightly observed that a father will not take panchayat of respectable persons to the house of in-laws of her daughter without her having problem in living there peacefully.This fact which is admitted by Dharam Singh, DW-6, a witness produced by the accused persons, supports the prosecution case that there were demands in connection with dowry made by the accused persons.He corroborates the version of Jagir Singh about the dowry demands and the panchayat.From these facts, the conclusion is inescapable that the accused made demands for dowry from the deceased and made her life miserable.It became unbearable for her to face the accused persons in such circumstances and she had to ultimately take her life.The High Court has affirmed the findings of the Sessions Court.We find no reason to differ with the view taken by the courts below.The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,449,175 |
2] The prosecution case, in brief, is thus :The first informant Nutan Bhaurao Bangre (PW-3) lodged an F.I.R. with Police Station, Gondia on 18.12.2006 that his son Paras, aged about 12 years old, was missing.It is stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased Paras had gone to the school by bicycle at 9.30 am and he was in the school till 4.30 pm.When the complainant's daughter Nupur (PW-3) came back from the school at 4.45 p.m., she told her mother that she had waited for Paras at the school gate, but she had not seen him.On the next day i.e. on 19.12.2016, an information was received in the Police Station that in between mouza Datora and Navargaon Khurd, a dead body of boy wearing school uniform was lying.The body was identified to be of deceased Paras.ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.R. GAVAI, J.) 1] The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2007, dated 23.1.2014, vide which the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 ::: CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 2 the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 2The accused is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer, further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.As such, the crime came to be registered vide Crime No.325/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 3During investigation, a key of the bicycle of the deceased came to be recovered on the basis of memorandum in presence of the present appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, so also certain clothes came to be recovered.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia.Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court, Gondia.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge passed the order of conviction and sentence as afore-stated.Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.3] We have heard Shri R.K. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant, so also Shri T.A. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.4] The learned Trial Judge has relied on following five circumstances while passing order of conviction.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 4(ii) The second circumstance on which the prosecution has relied upon is that the accused made enquiry from the sister of deceased Paras (PW-5) regarding the place where deceased Paras used to go for tuition.(iii) The third circumstance on which the prosecution has relied upon is that PW-9 Naib Tahsildar, who had conducted the test identification parade on 27/2/2007 and the independent panch witness to the test identification parade i.e. PW-8 had seen the witnesses identifying the accused in the test identification parade as per Exh.72 to 75 and there is no falsity in their evidence.(iv) The fourth circumstance on which the prosecution has relied upon is that the key of cycle of the deceased Paras was seized at the instance of the accused and from the spot shown by the accused, as per discovery statement (Exh.80) and seizure panchanama (Exh.81).(v) The firth circumstance on which the prosecution has relied upon is the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to his friend (PW-15) stating that he committed murder of son of Nutan Bangre.On perusal of the evidence of PW-15, I do not find anything which could lead to the conclusion that this independent witness is not telling the truth.Therefore, the evidence of ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 ::: CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 5 PW-15 is found to be reliable.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 55] We scrutinize the material irrespective of each of those circumstances.(i) Insofar as first circumstance is concerned, the evidence of PW-6 and PW-5 would at the most establish that the accused was found in front of the school of the deceased, however, it is not established that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased.No doubt that initially the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-2 Subhang Chandankhede, so also PW-7 Yukti Bisen in support of the last seen theory, however, both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and not identified the accused.(ii) Insofar as second circumstance is concerned, it is with regard to the enquiry made by the accused from the sister of the deceased Paras regarding the place where deceased Paras used to go for tuition.There is a delay of four days in recording the statement of this witness.Apart from this, she has admitted that the accused was on visiting terms and used to visit at the house of the family of the deceased.As such, there was no occasion for him to make such an enquiry in the school.In any case, that circumstance itself cannot be said to be incriminating.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 6(iii) The third circumstance is regarding the panch witness to the test identification parade witnessing the identification of the accused in the test identification parade.However, the said evidence could not have been useful to the prosecution only to corroborate the identification of the accused by the witnesses on the last seen theory.Undoubtedly, both the witnesses on the last seen theory have not supported the prosecution case.As such, merely the identification parade would not bring home the guilt of the accused.As such the third circumstance would also not available in the present case.(iv) Insofar as fourth circumstance is concerned, undisputedly the recovery is from an open field which is accessible to one and all.Apart from that the timing of recording the memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is shown to be 3rd of January, 2006 between 11.40 to 11.55 hours, whereas discovery and the recovery of the alleged incriminating article is shown as 12.00 noon to 13.40 hours.It is not in dispute that the distance between the Police Station and the place where the recovery was made is 15 km. As such, it is difficult to believe that the investigating officer, panchas and the accused went to the spot which is at a distance of 15 km from the Police Station within five minutes.Apart from that the recovery of the clothes allegedly used by the accused while committing the crime are also seized on the very same day between 12.30 to 13.00 hours.It could thus be ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 ::: CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 7 seen that the timing of all these memorandum panchanamas and recovery are overlapping.It is improbable that the memorandum would have been recorded in time and the recovery be made at the timing shown in the memorandum.We find that this circumstance also cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 7(v) That leaves us with the main circumstance with regard to the extra-judicial confession.The same has come in the evidence of PW-15 Pravin.The witness states in the evidence that his father was working at Mumbai.When he was in 8th Standard, the accused was asked him to bring clothes for him from Mumbai and he was brought one capri, one jeans pant and one 'T' Shirt from Mumbai.It costs was Rs.1,000/-.He further states that the accused had not paid the amount in spite of the witness making demand on various occasions.This witness further states that on 20.12.2006 he was informed by the accused that he had kidnapped a boy and committed a murder.He further states that the accused had asked him to telephone to Nutun Bangare i.e. PW-3, the first informant, and demand money for telling the name of the culprit.6] No doubt that this Court, by a judgment dated 30.3.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2013, relying on the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that the extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 ::: CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 8 mind.No doubt, in the said case, Their Lordships rejected the extra-judicial confession on the ground that it was recorded after four days and that the statement which was sought to be made in the extra-judicial confession on the independent scrutiny of the evidence was found to be not established by the Court.On the contrary, it was found that the motive which was attributed to the said extra-::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 87] As such, the conviction could have been made on the basis of extra-judicial confession, if the evidence of the witness was found to be wholly reliable, trustworthy and cogent.In the present case, the witness himself admits that though the extra-judicial confession was made to him on 21.12.2006, he has informed about the same to the police.He has further admitted that for ten days, he did not inform anyone including the family members.He has further admitted that though the appellant was acquainted to him, but they are not on visiting terms.He further states that only on one occasion, he had visited the house of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 ::: CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 9 appellant and the appellant had visited the house also only once.He has further admitted that on account of the appellant not paying the amount of the clothes, the relations became strained.In that view of the matter, the evidence of this witness cannot be said to be wholly reliable so as to base conviction only on the basis of extra-judicial confession.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 98] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda .vs.State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.It has further been held that not only this but the prosecution must establish the chain of circumstance which is so interwoven to each other that leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused.The perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that the prosecution has failed to establish even a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, leaving aside establishing the chain of circumstance which is so interwoven to each other that leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused.9] With the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the appellant-accused are set aside.The appellant is ordered to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::CRI.APPEAL NO.299.14.[J]odt 10In view of disposal of the main Criminal Appeal, Criminal Application (APPA) No.206/2016 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail does not survive, hence it is disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:12 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,834,511 |
Ms. Asha and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the respondents.The Judgement of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH,J. Sat Pal alias Sadhu, the petitioner,has challenged his continued detention in jail and isseeking an order in the nature of habeas corpus claimingthat he has served more than the maximum sentence ofimprisonment prescribed under law and should, therefore, bereleased.The petitioner was arrested on March 27, 1978 in a caseregistered under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.He wasconvicted on August 16, 1978 and was sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life.However, the petitioner's caseis that he has undergone more than 14 years sentenceincluding remissions and since the said sentence was gotexecuted in jail custody in the form of rigorousimprisonment, the government must be deemed to havecommuted his sentence to 14 years either under Section 55Indian Penal Code or Section 433(B) Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 notwithstanding that no formal order in thatbehalf was made by the State Government and as such hiscontinued detention in jail is illegal and he is entitled tobe released forthwith.The argument has been advanced byMr.V.D. Tulzapurkar, J speaking for the Courtheld as under:-Apart from Section 32 of the Prisoners Act, Section 383 of CrPC, 1898 and Section 418 of CrPC, 1973 also contain the necessary legal authority and power under which a criminal court can by issuing a warrant direct the execution or carrying out of a sentence of life imprisonment in local jails.The nature of punishment required to be suffered under a sentence of `imprisonment for life' awardable on and after January 1, 1956 is rigorous imprisonment.Earlier the sentence of transportation either for life or for a term meant rigorous imprisonment in the sense of exaction of hard labour from the convict.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,459,174 |
Heard counsel for the parties.Both these applications pertain to same accused, named in Crime No.6/2014 and 12/2014 respectively.As regards Crime No.12/2014 - the investigation is complete qua the applicant and charge-sheet has also been filed against him.However, the investigation of Crime No.6/2014 qua the applicant is still incomplete.According to the prosecution, applicant acted as Middleman in commission of both these crimes.He arranged for the impersonator to appear |2 in place of the original candidates and thus facilitated commission of offence referred to above.As regards Crime No.6/2014, as aforesaid, investigation is still incomplete.According to prosecution, the applicant is not cooperating for further investigation.However, during the further investigation it has come to light that the applicant also acted as middleman to facilitate another candidate appearing in Police Constable Examination namely Ashish Sharma.Neither Ashish Sharma nor the applicant have revealed the identity of the impersonator.Accordingly, these applications are dismissed with |3 liberty to applicant to renew the prayer for bail after filing of the final charge-sheet in both the crime numbers (6/2014 and 12/2014), after completion of investigation in the respective cases.That application can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,834,673 |
(2) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 9.7.1979 Tasawar Hussain, a clerk of the Stores (Accounts) Department, Central Cottage Industries Emporium sent his helper Ganga Ram to bring the sale statement book from Jagdish Lal Chanana.The latter, however, happened to be on leave, and as such Ganga Ram searched his cabin and found the sale statement book which he took to Mr. Hussain.It was then noticed that the book had all the 3 copies of a sale statement lying in the same in the name of M/s. Bliss & Bloom for the month of July, 1978 showing two carpets worth Rs. 4,280/having been sold in their name.This was unusual inasmuch as one copy thereof should have been sent to the General Administration Branch, another would remain with Jagdish Lal Chanana who was the Senior Accounts Asstt.and the third kept in the sale statement book itself.That sale statements purported to bear the signatures of V.D. Gulati, Asstt.One is called the General Administration Deptt.second Stores Deptt.and third Finance (Accounts) Deptt.Each of them has a Manager and above them is General Manager.(5) Goods which are purchased by the Emporium are of two types.One class relates to those which are outright purchased and then marketed.The other class is of obtaining goods on consignment sale account basis.From the sale proceeds, the Emporium charges commission, and the balance sale price is given over to the suppliers.It is to this consignment sales account class that the present case relates.(6) According to the procedure prevalent goods are first supplies to stores department along with invoices and or challans.They are entered in the stock register of the Stores Deptt.where an index register is maintained which gives code numbers of the suppliers.Copies of invoices and challans along with the code numbers are then sent to General Administration Branch for their record.Original invoices or challans are sent by the Stores Department to Stores A/c Deptt.where a register is maintained of different parties and goods supplied by each of them.The goods are then sent to Emporium for sale.(7) After the sale of goods, copies of cash memos are sent to Stores (A/c) Deptt.along with sale analysis.From them, entries are made in the register maintained party-wise.After the close of the month, account of sale of each party is totalled and sale statements are then prepared by the Stores (Accounts) Deptt.They arc signed by Asstt.Manager Stores (A/c).There is a book of sales statements, and each statement is prepared in triplicate.That sale statement book is then sent to the Finance Department for purpose of payments to parties.It was at this stage that Jagdish Lal who was Senior Accounts Assistant in the Finance Deptt.came into the picture.The sale statements as such went to him.The other accused Harish Chander Kapur was Asstt.(8) Jagdish Lal used to then check those sale statements and make entries on their basis in the consignment sale register in which code number, name of the party as well as the amount of the commission deducted and balance sale proceeds payable were entered or monthly basis.Two vouchers were prepared by him, one would be payment voucher which was in the form of sale statement, and the second Journal Voucher.(9) The consignment register, payment voucher, Journal Voucher were then put up before the Asstt.Manager (Finance), and after checking, he would sign the entires in the consignment register, payment voucher and journal voucher.Jagdish Lal then prepared cheques based on payment vouchers.Those cheques were signed by Manager and Asstt.Manager (Finance).They were all account payees'.The children were found to be studding in the best of schools,, (14) Jagdish Lal is as such made the main accused, and the charge against him is u/s 4201.P-C. Harish Chandar Kapur was the Asstt.Manager of Finance from 1973 to 1978, and he used to sign the consignment sales register on the basis of sale statements furnished by Jagdish Lal.This was when Asstt.Manager Finance happened to be on leave on certain dates, and he was required to act in his place.Two of the sale statements with regard to disputed entires in consignment sales register were found blank and two other statements had been torn out of the register.There were senior officers above him, and one of them was the Asstt.JUDGMENT D.R. Khanna, J.(1) These two revisions have been moved by Harbhajan Singh and Sita Ram Kapur against an order dated 26.10.1981 of Shri O.P. Gogne, M.M., New Delhi, whereby charge u/s 120-B read with sections 420 and 477-A Indian Penal Code .was directed to be framed against each of them.There are two other accused, namely, Jagdish Lal Chanana and Harish Chander Kapur.They have, however, not chosen to assail the said order under which the former has also been directed to be charge under those provisions of law and the latter u/s 420 Indian Penal Code .Manager Stores (Accounts) and M.S. Dewan, another official of the Emporium.Both when confronted with those statements, denied that they had signed them and added that they were forged.It was then noticed that a cheque for Rs. 4,280.00 had already been issued in the name of M/s. Bliss & Bloom and encashed through its account in the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Connaught Place.(3) Further investigation then brought out startling state of affairs, and it was found that amounts totalling over rupees 11 lacs had been fraudulently paid in the name of that party and the person who was operating the bank account in its name in the Hindustan Commercial Bank was none else than Jadish Lal Chanana.No supplies were effected thereafter.(4) According to prosecution, the Cci Emporium which is a public undertaking has three departments.The Stores Deptt.itself has three branches.One is called the Stores, second stores account and the third concerns Export, packing and shipping.Those cheques would then go to Jagdish Lal who would send them along with original copy of the sale statements to the parties concerned.If the parties would appear personally they were handed over to them, and in other case they were sent by post.(10) The sale statement book would remain in the Stores Deptt, but its custody would pass on to Jagdish Lal Chanana after its completion.The mode adopted was said to be that he would forge sale statements by signing as V.D.Gulati, and then make entries in consignment sale register.On their basis he would prepare payment vouchers and then obtain cheques.(12) Jagdish Lal had, it is next alleged, opened an account in the name of M/s. Bliss & Bloom in the Hindustan Commercial Bank on 26.2.1973, and showed himself as the Proprietor.From there, he would transfer the amounts to five other accounts which he had opened in Syndicate Bank, Bank of India, Punjab National Bank Canara Bank and Punjab & Sind Bank.The accounts in these banks were in his individual name.With these large amounts he it is alleged, started living lavishly.A house was purchased by him in Anand Niketan which was luxuriously furnished with carpets, air-conditioners etc. Another property was constructed at Faridabad.He was also maintaining a car and had foreign trips.(18) Jagdish Lal Chanana was dismissed from service, and his writ against the dismissal was rejected by this Court.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,834,689 |
The petitioners and respondent no.2 are close relatives.It is alleged that Plot No.84 situated at Central Avenue, Nagpur was allotted by Nagpur Improvement Trust to respondent no.2 in the year 1959 on lease for a period of 30 years.CORAM : K.J. ROHEE & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED : AUGUST 14, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : K. J. ROHEE, J)1. Rule.Returnable forthwith.Heard finally by consent of parties.By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to quash order dated 25.7.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.2462 of 2008, Govindlal s/o Bansilal Sarda .vrs.Narayandas s/o ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 ::: 3 Hiralalji Sarda and others.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::The facts which give rise to the present petition are as under :Besides respondent no.2 nobody had any right to the said plot.They mislead Nagpur Improvement Trust by cheating with intent to deprive respondent no.2 of his valuable immovable property.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::On 24.2.2008 the Duty Officer of Police Station, Ganeshpeth (Nagpur) informed the son of respondent no.2 that the matter is of civil nature; that NC No.64/2008 was entered and that respondent no.2 may approach the Court.On 21/22.7.2008 respondent no.2 filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur against the petitioners.Respondent no.2 prayed for a direction to Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ganeshpeth (Nagpur) to investigate the matter by registering crime and in the alternative to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 506-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to punish the petitioners.On 25.7.2008 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur passed an order directing that the complaint be sent to Ganeshpeth Police Station for investigation.He directed the Investigating Officer to register offence and to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 ::: 5 submit report accordingly.The present writ petition is filed on 1.8.2008 challenging the said order.On the same day the said order was stayed only to the extent it directed to register offence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::We have heard Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate with Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. D.M.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::At the outset, Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to the impugned order, which reads as under :"Perused complaint and documents.Heard learned Advocate for complainant.Hence, complaint be sent to Ganeshpeth Police Station for investigation.Concern I.O. is directed to register offence and file/submit report accordingly."Issue letter accordingly.(S.N. Tiwari)Court No.1, Nagpur 25/07/2008 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 ::: 7::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::Mr. Daga vehemently urged that a perusal of the order itself would show that the learned Magistrate perused the complaint and documents and also heard counsel for the complainant (R-2).He, therefore, sent the complaint for investigation to the Police.In such circumstances, the only course which was open to the Magistrate was under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, either to inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the Police Officer for the purpose of decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Instead of doing that, the learned Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer to register offence and to submit his report.According to Mr. Daga this was not permissible for the learned Magistrate.The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR.This is the administrative remedy to an aggrieved complainant, while he could take recourse to the procedure of requesting the Magistrate empowered to take ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 ::: 17 cognizance under Section 190 of the said offence and pray that a direction be issued for investigation of the complaint as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::If the above legal principles are applied to the present case, it would be revealed that in the present case, the learned Magistrate did not proceed to take cognizance of the offence inasmuch as he only perused the complaint and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 ::: 18 documents and heard complainant/R-2 and did not examine the complainant on oath.The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that it was necessary to have detailed investigation by the police into the allegations made in the complaint.The learned Magistrate, therefore, directed the police to register offence and to submit report.In the said case, it was held by the Division Bench as under :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::The petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed".We, therefore, pass the following order :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:42:01 :::
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,297,920 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to direct thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, to dispose of the Crl.2.Heard both sides.2.A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner was shownas an accused in Crime No.53 of 2010, on the file of the 2nd respondent Policeoriginally for the offences under Sections 341, 307 and 109 of IPC., and lateraltered into Sections 279 and 337 @ 304(A) of IPC.The CB-CID enquiry wasordered.Initially, the local police has investigated and the same wasreported as mistake of fact.Subsequently, re-investigation was conducted bythe CB-CID Police, Theni and again they have also filed a final report statingthat the matter was closed as mistake of fact and notice was sent to the defactocomplainant.The defacto complainant fled a protest petition, which was takenon file in Cr.M.P.No.2202 of 2012 and the same is pending.The petitioner, whois arrayed as A3 in the FIR., is before this Court, seeking for a direction todispose of Cr.M.P.No.2202 of 2012 within a time frame.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he hascompleted a Law Course and he is about to be enrolled but the respondent policeis not issuing No Objection Certificate for pendency of the criminal casestating that there is a protest application is pending.When a report was called for from the learned Magistrate, hewould stat that sworn statement of the complainant is recorded on 20.09.2013 andthereafter, the case was adjourned for eight hearings and now posted on05.08.2014 for further evidence.The Cr.As on today, there is no case pending against thepetitioner.However, the respondent seems to refuse to give a certificateregarding no criminal case is pending to enable the petitioner to enroll himselfas an advocate.Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of witha direction to the learned Magistrate to expedite the hearing in Cr.2.The Inspector of Police, Melur Circle, Madurai (Dt.)3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,298,532 |
Final submissions were made at motion hearing stage on this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., which has been preferred against the judgement pronounced on 22.04.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in S. T. No.309/2015, whereby appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 of IPC and 294 of IPC and sentenced to 5 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer 6 months RI in respect of 307 of IPC and 1 month RI in respect of 294 of IPC.As per the prosecution story, on 27.06.2015 at around 6.30 PM, an altercation ensued between the complainant Devilal and the appellant and the appellant dealt axe blow on the head of the complainant.The complainant fell down due to impact of the injury and report was lodged on the same day at 10.30 PM at police station Machalpur, District Rajgarh.The FIR was lodged under Sections 307 and 294 of IPC and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed under these two Sections and the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.3776 of 2019 (Shiv Singh Sondhiya vs. State of MP) While making submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of the Court towards the nature of injury, which was inflicted upon the complainant Devilal (PW-1).He has found that there was one injury of the nature of incised wound on the skull of the complainant (PW-1) measuring 8cm x 1cm which extended from the right frontal region of the skull to the left parietal region, which was found to have been caused with a sharp weapon.As per the witness, condition of complainant (PW-1) was found to be serious and he was referred to the District Hospital, Rajgarh.This witness had examined the complainant (PW-1) while he was posted as medical officer at Primary Health Centre, Machalpur.The same witness states that he had examined x-ray report and had found that there was no fracture sustained by the complainant in his skull, as a result thereof.In the cross- examination, in para-7 also states that no fracture was found to have been sustained on the skull of the complainant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the expert witness has also not been able to show any basis for the opinion that injuries were grievous or dangerous to life.On close examination of Exhibits-P/4 and P/5 shows that injury was caused on vital part of the body however, impact of the injury 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.3776 of 2019 (Shiv Singh Sondhiya vs. State of MP) was not such as to cause fracture of the skull and as far as the statement of the appellant is concerned, the same is acceptable that injury was not dangerous to life.He has not challenged the evidence of PW-1 who has stated that he had been dealt axe blow by the appellant.Consequently, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had dealt axe blow on the head of the complainant, consequent to which he had suffered incised wound on his head.In view of such evidence available on record as also seizure of axe from the possession of the appellant, offence under Section 324 of IPC is found proved against the appellant and the findings of the Trial Court regarding conviction under Section 307 of IPC is not sustainable.Consequently, appeal on the point of conviction under Section 307 of IPC is partly allowed to the extent that the charge which is found proved is that under Section 324 of IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC.Considering the quantum of sentence which needs to be imposed upon the appellant, in the considered opinion of this Court, sentence of 1 year RI along with enhanced fine amount of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- would be appropriate for the ends of justice in the matter.However, conviction under Section 294 of IPC has not been challenged.Consequently, conviction under this provision is maintained.The appellant has already undergone 16 days as per the certificate issued under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., which is 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.3776 of 2019 (Shiv Singh Sondhiya vs. State of MP) annexed along with the judgement of the Trial Court and shall be adjusted against the substantive jail sentence.On failure to pay the fine amount, appellant shall suffer further imprisonment of 6 months RI in default.Consequently, this appeal on the quantum of sentence also stands allowed in part in above terms.It is made clear that fine amount of Rs.15,000/- would be the overall fine amount which has been imposed upon the appellant and that includes Rs.10,000/- imposed upon him by the Trial Court.Out of Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Devilal as compensation.The appeal ultimately stands disposed of in above terms in respect of conviction so also sentence.The order pertaining to property by the Trial Court is affirmed.A copy of this order along with original record be sent to the Trial Court for due compliance.Certified copy, as per rules.(Shailendra Shukla) Judge gp Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 2019.09.04 17:44:08 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,986,595 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.,) The petitioner is the wife of detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.P-2, Otteri Police Station,Crime No.447 of 2005Sections 341, 394 r/w 397 IPC2.P-1, Pulianthope Police Station,Crime No.74 of 2013Sections 341, 323 & 302 IPC @ 341, 323, 302 IPC r/w 34 IPCThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station in Crime No.1069 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 385, 307, 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that Tamil version of a report sent by the Police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical College to the Sub-inspector of Police, Pulianthoppu Police Station, regarding cause of death of a person in the 2nd adverse case, which is annexed at Page No.52 of the booklet, has not been furnished to the detenu and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would definitely deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned.The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention.Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu Suresh, S/o.Thangamani, made in Memo No.722/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order.It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.[V.D.P.,J.] [G.C.,J.] 16.04.2014Index: YesInternet: YesarToThe Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai.The Secretary to the Govt., Government of Tamil Nadu (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras V.Dhanapalan, J.and G.Chockalingam, J.arHabeas Corpus Petition No.2309 of 201316.04.2014
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,829,902 |
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.8029 of 1999 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the respondents 2 to 5 are the accused 1 to 4 in the said case.During the year 1995-1996, A1 was working as Engineer in Public Works Department, St. Thomas Mount, Sub Division Office, Chennai, A2 was working as Chief Engineer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tata Board Area at Coimbatore, A3 was working as Superintending Engineer at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and A4 was working as an Office Assistant in the Secretariat at Chennai.During the year 1995, A1 informed the petitioner (P.W.1) that he can secure job for eligible persons in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board using his influence as helpers if a sum of Rs.20,000/- per head is paid.Thereafter, P.W.1 collected Rs.20,000/- per head from 9 persons, P.W.2 collected money from 36 persons at the rate of Rs.20,000/-,P.W.3 collected from 15 persons at the rate of Rs.20,000, P.W.4 collected from 10 persons at the rate of Rs.20,000/-, P.W.5 collected from 15 persons at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and P.W.6 from 10 persons at the rate of Rs.20,000/-.Thus, money was so collected from a total number of 95 persons.According to the charge, to A1 he paid 9.5 lakhs and to A2 and A3 together, he paid a sum of Rs.9.5 lakhs.A4 knew the above transactions.Subsequently, those persons, who parted with money with P.Ws 1 to 6 were employed on temporary basis in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for sometime and thereafter they were dropped.They did not repay.Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred a complaint to Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai on which basis a case in Cr.P.W.12 finally laid charge sheet on which cognizance was taken.As many as 13 persons were cited as witnesses on the side of the prosecution and 11 documents were also sought to be relied upon.On considering the above materials, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC against all the 4 accused.The accused denied the charges.Therefore, they were put on trial.During trial as many as 12 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 17 documents were exhibited.P.W.1 has spoken to the fact that he collected money from 9 persons at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and handed over the same to A1 and A2 equally.He has also spoken to the fact that P.W.2 to P.W.6 brought the job seekers and paid money on their behalf at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per head.P.W.5 has spoken to the fact that he collected money from 15 persons at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and paid the same to A1 and A4 through P.W.1 at Chennai.P.W.7 to P.W.10 are the officials of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who spoken about the muster roll for the relevant period.P.W.11 and P.W.12 have spoken to about the investigation done by them.In this case, because of the perfunctory investigation done, the prosecution has lost the valuable evidences which would have been brought on record from 95 independent persons.In the absence of evidences of these 95 persons, as already stated, it is difficult to upset the order of acquittal solely relying upon the accomplice evidence of P.W.s.1 to 6 alone.In view of all the above, I find no option but to dismiss the revision as it does not satisfy the parameters which I have enumerated at the beginning of this Judgment.Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.R.C.No.805 of 200310.2.2010
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,993,814 |
Informant's uncle Raja Ram (accused-appellant) was suspicious of her character, hence, he forbidden her from doing job of labour at house of Ram Khilawan.This was apprised by Raja Ram to Informant that if he does not prohibit his wife to do job of labour at Ram Khilwan's house, he will repent one day.Raja Ram also apprised this fact to Ram Khilawan.On 17.10.2002 at 10.00 A.M., when Informant's wife, along with other women of her village, had gone to fetch fodder for cattle and reached pigeon pea (arahar) field of one Ram Swarup Gupta, Raja Ram while chasing her also reached there.He extended threat that she had not left going to Ram Khilawan and he will give a lesson to her.Then, he gave a blow by sickle (hasiya) over her neck and abdomen, which resulted into cut and silting of stomach and protruding of intestine.On rescue call, Rajjan, Ram Baran and Mikhu, who were present nearby, rushed on the spot.These witnesses of occurrence tried to apprehend accused Raja Ram, but he fled away towards western side.When Informant returned home, he was apprised about this incident and he submitted report at Police Outpost-Sarh in which lying of dead body of his deceased wife at above field, was written.Thereafter, criminal machinery was put in motion and accused Raja Ram was apprehended.Weapon of offence, sickle (hasiya i.e. sharp edged weapon), was recovered upon his pointing.Recovery Memo of sickle (Exhibit ka 3) was got prepared in presence of witnesses.Inquest proceedings was got conducted.Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)This appeal under Section 383 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by convict-appellant Raja Ram against judgment and order dated 15.12.2004 passed by Shri A. K. Sinha, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No.559 of 2002 (State vs. Raja Ram) arising out of Case Crime No.452 of 2002 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Police Station-Ghatampur, District-Kanpur Dehat, wherein convict-appellant has been held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/-, and in case of default in payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year, with this contention that learned Additional District and Sessions Judge failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it; there was no independent eye-witness account of the occurrence, rather witnesses were related witnesses, who were inimical to convict-appellant; there was no motive whereas motive as written in First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') was not proved; alleged weapon of offence sickle (i.e. hasiya, a sharp edged weapon) was not sent for chemical examination, since, it could not be established as to whether it was the weapon of offence or not?; sentence imposed was too severe, hence this appeal, with a prayer for setting aside impugned judgment and order as well as acquitting the convict-appellant.Prosecution case surfaced on record was that Kripa Shanker, (PW-1), presented a written First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR')(Exhibit ka 1), scribed by Vijay Kumar and having thumb impression of Informant over it, at Police Outpost-Sarh of Police Station-Ghatampur, District-Kanpur Dehat, on 17.10.2002 at 17.00 P.M. with contention that Informant's wife, Munni Devi, aged about 35 years, used to go to place of one Ram Khilawan for doing labour work.Inquest Report (Exhibit ka 8) was got prepared in handwriting and signature of Sub Inspector, Dularey Lal, PW-8, first Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'I.O.').Opinion of witnesses of inquest were for conducting autopsy examination over dead body of deceased, hence, necessary documents for autopsy examination were got prepared under handwriting and signature of I.O. (i.e. PW-8), which were Challan dead body (Exhibit ka 2), letter to Chief Medical Officer (hereinafter referred to as "C.M.O.")(Exhibit ka 10), Specimen Seal(Exhibit ka 11), Photo Dead body (Exhibit ka 12), another letter to C.M.O. for autopsy examination (Exhibit ka 13).Site plan (Exhibit ka 15) of place of occurrence as well as Site plan of place of alleged recovery of weapon of offence (Exhibit ka 6) were got drawn under handwriting and signature of I.O. (i.e. PW-8).Investigation resulted into submission of charge sheet (Exhibit ka 7).Autopsy examination in view of Inquest Report (Exhibit ka 2) was got conducted by Dr. Piyush Mishra (PW-7) in which following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased Munni Devi :-(i) incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm bone deep on neck, 3 cm below chin.(ii) incised wound 9 cm x 3 cm on right side of abdomen, 8 cm above from umbilicus with protruding large intestine.Upon internal examination of body, both chambers of heart were found empty; lungs were pale; semi digested food 6 ounce found in stomach; small intestine was half filled with gases; large intestine was having faecal matters and gases.In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage by above ante mortem injuries.Post Mortem Examination Report i.e. Exhibit Ka 14 was prepared by the doctor concerned at the time of autopsy examination under handwriting and signature of PW-7, Dr. Piyush Mishra.As offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC, was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, file was committed to Court of Sessions by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat.This was made over to Court of Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat.After hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for accused-appellant, Court levelled charge against accused-appellant Raja Ram Kewat, which reads as under :-"मैं असरफ जमाल सिद्दीकी, अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश कक्ष सं.1 कानपुर देहात आप राजाराम केवट को निम्नलिखित आरोप से आरोपित करता हूँ।1- यह की दिनांक 17.10.2002 समय 10.00 बजे दिन, स्थान राम स्वरुप गुप्ता के अरहर के खेत ग्राम हाजीपुर कदीम (चांदपुर) थाना-घाटमपुर, कानपुर नगर में आपने वादी कृपा शंकर की पत्नी मुन्नी देवी की हत्या कर दी। अतः आपने धारा 302 भा.के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराध कारित किया जो मेरे प्रसंज्ञान में है।एतद्द्वारा मैं आपको आदेशित करता हूँ की उपरोक्त आरोप में आपका विचरण इस न्यायालय द्वारा किया जाये। ""I, Ashraf Jamal Siddiqui, Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Kanpur Dehat, do hereby charge you Rajaram Kewat as follows:-1-That on 17.10.2002 at about 10.00 A.M. at pigeon pea field of Ram Swarup Gupta within area of Village-Hajipur Kadim (Chandpur), P.S.Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar, committed murder of Munni Devi, wife of Informant Kripa Shankar, which is punishable offence under Section 302 IPC within cognizance of this Court.You are hereby being directed for trial for charge of above offence of murder."(English Translation by Court)Charge was read over and explained to accused, who pleaded not guilty with claim for trial.Prosecution examined eight witnesses for proving its case.Those were, PW-1, Informant Kripa Shankar, who has lodged FIR (Exhibit ka 1), was not eyewitness account, PW-2 Rajjan and PW-3, Ram Baran Singh, both are eye witnesses and named in FIR as witnesses, PW-4, Ram Singh is eyewitness of recovery memo of weapon of offence i.e. sickle (hasiya).PW-5, Constable/3372 Manoj Kumar, who was posted at P.S.Ghatampur on the date of registration of this case as Constable, had registered Chik FIR as well as G.D. Entry as Exhibits ka 4 and 5 respectively.PW-6, Inspector In-Charge, Rajbir Singh is I.O., who has recovered weapon of offence in presence of witnesses as well as conducted investigation.PW-7 Dr. Piyush Mishra has conducted autopsy examination over dead body of deceased and prepared Autopsy Examination Report (Exhibit ka 14).P.W.-8, Dularey Lal, Sub Inspector had conducted inquest and prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit ka 2).With a view to have explanation, if any, of accused over incriminating evidences led by prosecution as well as version of accused, if any, his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he refuted evidence of prosecution witnesses, pleaded ignorance of occurrence as well as investigation with statement that he was caught hold by police and this case was planted against him.No evidence in defence was given by accused-appellant.After hearing argument of learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for defence/accused, learned Trial Judge passed impugned judgment of conviction with a finding of proof of charge levelled against accused and after hearing over quantum of sentence, sentence, as above, was passed, against which this appeal.We have heard Sri Jai Karan Nath, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for State.12. PW-1 is Informant Kripa Shankar and in his examination-in-chief, he has said that Munni Devi was his wife, who used to work as labour at house of Ram Khilawan and Informant's uncle Raja Ram was suspicious about her character, therefore, he was forbidding her to go to house of Ram Khilawan.There was threat in case of not obeying of above direction.7 months prior to recording evidence of this witness, at about 10.00 A.M., while Munni Devi had gone to pigeon pea field of one Ram Swarup Gupta for fetching fodder for cattle, along with other women, of her village, Raja Ram rushed there and gave blow by sickle (hasiya, a sharp edged weapon) over her neck and abdomen resulting into cut of above organs.This occurrence was witnessed by Ram Baran, Rajjan and Mikhu, who made rescue call, but Raja Ram fled from there.Report of occurrence, scribed by Vijay Kumar, under dictation of this witness, and having his thumb impression after getting it heard, was presented at police station, which is same one attached with record under his thumb impression, proved and exhibited as Exhibit ka 1 and this report was submitted at Police Outpost-Sarh.This witness is not an eye witness account of occurrence, rather he is a witness of bringing criminal machinery into motion i.e. lodging a report.Report was lodged at 17.00 P.M. on 17.10.2002, whereas occurrence was of about 10.00 A.M on same day i.e. 17.10.2002 at a distance about 7 km from police station, but Informant was not present at his home and when he returned home, he was apprised about this occurrence by witnesses.Thereafter, he lodged this case by presenting Exhibit ka 1 i.e. Written Report.In above circumstances, it was an instant report by Informant having name of accused-appellant for commission of his wife's murder.In cross-examination, no question has been asked from this witness (i.e. PW-5) by learned defence counsel, except a suggestive question that this report was registered upon aid and advice of Darogaji, which has been answered in negative.Testimony of this witness i.e. PW-5 is having corroboration with statement of PW-7, Dr. Piyush Mishra, discussed as above, in which death of deceased was established to have been caused because of haemorrhage and shock due to above two ante mortem injuries, which may be possible to be caused by sickle (hasiya) at 10.00 A.M., on the date of occurrence, and in cross-examination, it has been said by this witness (i.e. PW-7) that Constable Ajay Kumar Singh along with ten police papers had brought dead body of deceased, under sealed intact position, at 11.55 A.M. of 18.10.2002 and it was examined under autopsy examination on same day at 12.10 P.M. in which injuries (i) and (ii) were owing to sharp edged weapon might be hasiya.There is no contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment in testimony of doctor (i.e. PW-7).Hence, as per Inquest Report (Exhibit ka 8) as well as Autopsy Examination Report (Exhibit ka 14), death of deceased was owing to both of above ante mortem injuries found on her person caused by sharp edged weapon, which may be sickle (hasiya).When testimony of these two witnesses were put to accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C., he answered in tune of non awareness of above facts, i.e. neither testimony was admitted nor denied, rather ignorance was replied.Whereas those documentary as well as oral testimonies established death of deceased owing to above ante mortem injuries caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. it was neither suicide nor a natural death, but a culpable homicide amounting to murder because nature and gravity of those injuries and way of its infliction was with all probabilities to cause death.Hence, it was case of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC.Written Report (Exhibit ka 1) is with specific mention of witnesses, who witnessed this occurrence, and they were Rajjan son of Ram Autar Kewat, Ram Baran son of Wali and Mikhu son of Faguni Kewat.Rajjan has been examined as PW-2 and in his examination-in-chief, he stated that 9-10 months back to recording of evidence on 07.08.2003, at about 9.00-10.00 A.M., he was present in pigeon pea field and was cutting fodder from boundary of above field, when heard cry from field of Ram Swarup Gupta, upon which he along with Ram Baran and Mikhu rushed towards Ram Swarup Gupta's field and found Raja Ram assaulting Munni Devi (Informant's wife) by sickle (hasiya).PW-2 as well as other witnesses tried to apprehend Raja Ram, but he ran towards western side.Munni Devi was having injury of hasiya over her neck and abdomen resulting cut over her abdomen and protruding of intestine.She died on the spot.This witness along with Mikhu and Ram Baran (PW-3) narrated the occurrence to Informant, Kripa Shanker (PW-1).Hair splitting cross-examination has been made for establishing political enmity, but this witness has categorically said as follows :"घटना वाले दिन मैं चारा काटने गया था मैं चारा काटने के लिए 8 बजे निकला था। चारा काटने के लिए जाते समय मुझसे किसी के मुलाकात नहीं हुई। एक बोझ चारा काटा था। चारा काटने राम स्वरुप के खेत में गया था। राम स्वरुप के खेत में पश्चिम में चारा काट रहा था। मैं मिक्खु को जानता हूँ। मिक्खु भी वही चारा काट रहा था जहां मैं काट रहा था। रामबरन को जानता हूँ। वह अरहर के बगल के खेत में मजदूरी कर रहा था। यदि उन्होंने मेरे बयान में न लिखी हो तो मैं वजह बता नहीं सकता। आवाज सुनकर हसिया छोड़कर मौके पर तीनो लोग गए थे। हम तीनो लोग 20-25 कदम के फासले पर थे जब चारा काट रहे थे। रामवरन जो पास में ही घास निरा रहा था करीब 2 ..3 बोझ घास निरा चूका था। ""On the date of occurrence I had gone for taking chaff.I had gone at 8.00 P.M. None met him while going for taking fodder.One bundle of fodder was cut by him.I had gone in the field of Ram Swarup and was taking fodder from western side of his field.I am acquainted with Mikhu who was taking fodder there at.Ram Baran is acquainted to him.He was with sickle and cutting chaff.If this was not written in the statement he cannot tell the reasons of it.But after hearing cry they have rushed on the spot after leaving their sickle on the spot.These three were at distance of 20-25 steps.Ram Baran was there getting grass weeded.2-3 bundles were weeded."(English Translation by Court)Meaning thereby, presence of all three witnesses was proved by this witness.No question about assault made by Raja Ram by sickle over person of Munni Devi on above date, time and place under presence of these three witnesses, on the spot has been asked in cross-examination by learned counsel for defence, which makes examination-in-chief as fully intact and unrebutted statement.Hence, PW-2 is a fully reliable witness.19. PW-3 is Ram Baran.He too in his examination-in-chief has categorically said that about one year before from the date of recording his statement on 29.10.2003 at about 10.00 A.M., he was present in field of one Shiv Pujan for taking fodder for his animals.Rajjan (PW-2) and Mikhu were also there at a few distance.When cry was heard from pigeon pea field of Ram Swarup Gupta, all of them rushed to the spot and found Raja Ram assaulting Munni Devi by sickle.Munni Devi sustained injuries on her neck and abdomen with protruding of her intestine.They tried to apprehend Raja Ram, but he ran towards western side.Munni Devi was lying dead on the spot.Thereafter, said occurrence was narrated to Informant, Kripa Shanker (PW-1).In cross-examination, this witness has categorically said about his presence In Court in response to summon issued by Court.He stated that he is a poor agricultural labour and had deposed correct fact, as was witnessed by him.Minor variations in evidence of this witness, which have been vehemently pressed by learned counsel for appellant, were of such nature, which makes this witness a natural witness.A suggestive question was put to this witness that he has not witnessed this occurrence, which has been answered in negative with assertion that he has witnessed this occurrence.This witness is a fully reliable witness.PW-4 is Ram Singh, who is an eyewitness of recovery of weapon of offence and has no enmity with convict-appellant.He in his testimony has categorically said that on 19.10.2002, Police of Ghatampur had come at village Chandapur while Raja Ram was in their company.This witness and Amar Singh were taken as witnesses and they all went by Government Jeep at Akbarpur Barai Road, where accused Raja Ram halted the jeep and he led others to sugarcane field of one Hari Prasad, son of Babu Lal, from where he got sickle (hasiya) recovered.He gave this to police and disclosed to be the same sickle used in commission of murder of Munni Devi (Informant's wife).This recovery was done at about quarter to 5.00 P. M. Sickle was sealed with preparation of recovery memo on spot, which was prepared under handwriting and signature of Daroga Ji.Signature of accused Raja Ram was also got over this Recovery Memo (Exhibit ka 3).In cross-examination, this statement has been further reiterated that police has taken these two witnesses after disclosing the purpose and in front of them this recovery was made upon pointing and disclosure of accused Raja Ram.A suggestive question has been given to this witness (PW-4) that no such recovery was made, which has been answered in negative.Thereafter, he along with Constables Anil and Kashimr Singh, Constable Driver Sushil Singh went to Kundauli Brickkiln by a government jeep, where he met Sub Inspector, V. L. Kannaujia and Constable Subodh.They all went to village-Chandapur.In between an information about presence of accused Raja Ram Kewat at a Wine Shop was received.Consequently, raid was conducted by Police Team and accused Raja Ram was apprehended at about 15.30 P.M. Upon his query, accused Raja Ram confessed his guilt regarding commission of Munni Devi's murder by him, with disclosure of fact that weapon of murder i.e. hasiya (sickle), may be got recovered.Hence, PW-6 along with two public witnesses Ram Singh (PW-4) and Amar Singh, accompanied by aforesaid Police Team, took accused Raja Ram to Akbarpur Barai Road as pointed out by him, from where Raja Ram got the weapon of offence i.e. sickle, recovered from sugarcane field of one Hari Prasad at about 16.45 P.M., which was admitted to be the same sickle by which Munni Devi was murdered.It was wrapped in a cloth and sealed.It contained blood stains and mud over it.Recovery memo was got prepared by Sub Inspector, V. L. Kannaujia under dictation of PW-6 and each witnesses put their signatures over it.Material Exhibit 1 is the same sickle present in Court which was got recovered upon pointing of accused Raja Ram.Accused along with material exhibit and recovery memo was filed at concerned Police Station.In cross-examination of this witness, there is no contradiction, rather full corroboration to above witness Ram Singh (PW-4).Aforesaid facts have further been corroborated by testimony of PW-8 Dularey Lal, who was the first I.O. of this case.By his statement on oath, in his examination-in-chief he has stated that while being posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station-Ghatampur on 17.10.2002, he was deputed with this case crime number in which he copied Chik FIR and G.D. Entry in case diary, recorded statement of Constable Clerk Manoj Kumar Gupta.He visited the spot and got examined Informant Kripa Shanker (PW-1).He also inspected the spot prepared site plan which is in handwriting and signature of this witness (Exhibit ka 15).Witnesses Chhotey Lal, Raj Kumar, Daulat Singh, Rajjan, Ram Baran and Mikhu were examined and their statements were got recorded in case crime number.In cross-examination, this witness has said about information received from Police Outpost-Sarh of P.S.Ghatampur, which was reporting Outpost and this information was received by this witness at 5.30 P. M. Till then this report was entered at Police Outpost-Sarh.At the time of receiving this information, this witness was at P.S.Ghatampur.He received those documents from Police Outpost-Sarh at 6.30 P.M. and he rushed at spot at 7.00 P.M. which was about 7 km away from Police Outpost-Sarh where Sub Inspector, V. L. Kannaujia along with two Constables were present, those were Constables Ravindra Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh.Dead body was taken at about 8.00-8.30 P.M. in the night.Regarding investigation made by this witness there is no contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment and when his testimony was put to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., one and common reply "गलत है" was given by accused, whereas investigation was formally proved by this witness, which was in corroboration with testimony of PW-6 Rajbir Singh and PW-5 Manoj Kumar.PWs 2 and 3, Rajjan and Ram Baran respectively, are eye witness account of occurrence, who were said to be relative of Informant, and their testimonies have been argued to be not taken into consideration.Repeatedly, this Court as well as Supreme Court have propounded that interested and related witnesses are not to be thrown on the basis of being interested witnesses, rather their testimonies are to be cautiously appreciated.In present case, particularly accused too is real uncle of Informant, hence, witnesses are very close relatives and interested to accused also, but they have categorically proved the occurrence.In present case, two witnesses of ocular testimony, PWs 2 and 3 have categorically proved the occurrence of murder of Munni Devi by accused Raja Ram and this has further been corroborated by testimony of PW-5, Manoj Kumar, who was independent witness before whom weapon of offence was recovered upon disclosure made by accused-appellant Raja Ram.Hence, all these testimonies were unimpeachable, clear and cogent with minor variance, proving those to be natural and worth reliable witnesses.In the result, this appeal is dismissed accordingly.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,835,242 |
And In the matter of : Sk. Mukter Hossain and Ors.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.We have gone through the case diary produced before us.Taking into consideration that the offence registered against the applicants for having committed offence under sections341,323,325, 379 also34 of I.P.C. We do not think that the custody of the applicants is required for the purpose of investigation.Therefore, we are inclined to pass the following order:- 2 In the event the applicants are arrested, they will be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety of like amount on condition that they shall attend the concerned police station for a period of 5 days commencing from August 23, 2010 from 2.00 P.M and 5.00 P.M. for the purpose of investigation of the case and they will not tamper with the investigation.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(J. N. Patel, Chief Justice) (Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,836,001 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police station as against the petitioner.He would further submit that the petitioners are none other than the subsequent purchasers of the property and in this regard, there is dispute regarding boundary.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage 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.O.P.(MD) No.4577 of 20199. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.O.P.(MD) No.4577 of 2019Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.Further the petitioners are directed to submit all the documentary evidence before the first respondent and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall consider the same and complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.19.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav ToThe Inspector of Police Anti Land Grabbing Special Cases Wing District Crime Branch Theni District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4577 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.aav CRL.O.P (MD) No. 4577 of 2019 and Crl.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
508,403 |
There was no reason for him to presume that Suresh was to be done away with the accused persons.Munnalal (P.W. 8) is the brother of the deceased, he has also stated that at about 9:00 p.m., accused Manohar and Nandlal came to the house and all three were going together, he asked where they were going, he was told that he was going to the betel shop.Suresh was wearing black pant, black shirt and nylon shoes and was carrying a lathi.He was putting on one HMT black dial watch.Suresh did not come back to the house in the night.Consequently, he went to accused Manohar next day in the morning, he met accused/Manohar when he was coming from the well to the house, he was limping and was having injury in the leg.On being asked about the whereabouts of Suresh, he expressed ignorance, when he asked how injury was caused to him, he informed that injury was caused when he was taking out bed by darala.Accused Manohar was taken to the hospital.He came back after one or two days from the hospital.There is another witness of last seen, Manohar (P.W. 9).He had seen the deceased in the company of the accused, they were going from Village Khamlah to Amlah.Suresh was wearing black pant and shirt at the relevant time, he has handed over a lathi and started reading Ramayana again, thereafter deceased was not seen alive.Mahesh (P.W. 4) was running a betel shop at Village Amlah has stated that Manohar and the deceased Suresh came to his betel shop, Manohar had asked for the betels.He has mentioned the cost of betel's in the account of deceased Suresh.Deceased Suresh was wearing black pant and shirt.Gopal Singh (P.W. 12), has stated that at the instance of accused Nandlal one knife (Churri) and one 'watch' was recovered from his house situated near the well.Police had prepared seizure memo (P-15).He has owned his signature on the seizure memo.In Paragraph 4 of his deposition also proved that information was given by accused Manohar with respect to the watch, 'shoes' which he has put in between the wall of his house.The information memo Exh. P-12 was written in his presence and nylon shoes were seized as per memo (P-17) at the instance of the accused.JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J.The appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction dated 26-7-93 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 279/92, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34, IPC sentencing them to undergo rigorous life imprisonment.As per the prosecution case, deceased Suresh and accused persons where residing at Village Khamlaha.Deceased had accompanied the accused persons in the night, he did not come back to the house.Consequently, Kishore Singh and Munnalal went to the house of Manohar to ask about the whereabouts of Suresh.For several days they inquired from Manoharlal but he expressed ignorance as to the whereabout of deceased Suresh.They also inquired from co-accused Nandlal.He also expressed ignorance as to the whereabouts of deceased Suresh.The prosecution further alleged that on 3-8-92, one Sangram Singh, son of Kamal Singh found the dead body in the well and consequently, informed to the police on 4-8-92, merg intimation was recorded, inquest of the dead body was prepared, dead body was identified by Shriram, the brother of the deceased.There were several injuries on the person of the deceased caused by sharp edged weapon.It was a case of homicidal death.The deceased on 28-7-92 left with accused Manohar and Nandlal and he was not seen alive.On the basis of information furnished by the accused, several articles belonging to the deceased were seized.The articles were identified belonging to the deceased.Weapon of offence and knives were recovered from the possession of the accused at their instance.The accused abjured the guilt contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case.In defence, they did not examine any witness.Prosecution has examined in all 21 witnesses.The Trial Court has convicted the appellants, aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred.The injury on the person of accused Manohar Singh, in the parietal region was caused subsequently to the incident and the injury in the leg could have been caused due to several other reasons.It was not enough to create a chain of circumstances against the accused Manohar to complete it.In the absence of evidence indicating that deceased Suresh had inflicted any injury on the accused Manohar, there was nothing to infer from the injuries found on the leg of accused Manohar.It was put by someone else in the red ink.Thus, injury was caused in the intervening night of 28/29-7-92 has not been established.Autopsy surgeon has opined that death took place before more than 72 hours of post-mortem, it was conducted on.4-8-92, thus, the date of incident cannot be co-related to 28/29-7-92 when the accused were last seen in the company of the deceased as per the prosecution.He has also submitted that arrest memo was drawn subsequently on furnishing of Information memo's and the seizure memos at different places.It would not have been possible to draw them in the close proximity of the time, they were drawn.Thus, seizure became doubtful.Gopal (P.W. 12) has mentioned different place of seizure of some of the articles, thus, recovery was not made in his presence.The memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were not recovered in his presence.His signature have been obtained in the memo's.Consequently, seizure of articles has also not been established pursuant to the information furnished on behalf of the accused.On the weapon of offence, presence of blood was found, it was not human blood, it is not uncommon in the villages to find the presence of blood as such on weapons/clothes.The recovery of the shoes at the instance of the accused Manohar was not natural as no person would remove the shirt from the person of deceased and other articles as that would be the incriminating circumstances against the accused.Thus, considering the normal course of human conduct also, the recovery at the instance of the accused/appellants are not reliable.He has referred to the various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court so as to contend that chain of circumstances must be completed, and merely last seen together in the company of deceased cannot be said to be sufficient so as to fasten the guilt on the accused persons.Thus, appellants are entitled to be given benefit of doubt.The conviction of the appellants be set aside.The first circumstances of last seen at 28-7-92, the evidence of last seen as evinced by Kamal Singh (P.W. 2), Chain Singh (P.W. 3), Mahesh (P.W. 4), Munnalal (P.W. 8) and Manohar (P.W. 9), beside the accused Manohar has admitted that on the next day inquiry was made from him about the whereabouts of the deceased Suresh, at that time he was limping due to leg injury.He has also admitted that injury in the leg was found on 29-7-92 and he had consulted the doctor Rajendra Kumar Gupta (P.W. 7) on the aforesaid date.Thus, it is evinced that injury was found after last seen immediately next morning on the person of the accused Manohar.Beside the cause of death of deceased Suresh was homicidal in nature.In the medical requisition memo, Manohar has stated that injury in his leg was caused 10-12 days before his medical examination, he was sent for medical examination on 8-8-92, injury on the head was caused 4 days before.It is apparent from the medical report that injury was caused more than seven days before and healing has taken place.There was stitched and dressed wounds found on the left leg.Besides stitched wounds was also found on the left parietal rcgjon and left occipital region.These were caused before seven days of the examination.The injury report Exh. P-5 and Exh. P-6 have been proved by Krishna Kant Chaturvedi (P.W. 6) and Rajendra Kumar (P.W. 7).Further there is nothing to doubt the seizure and the memo's drawn.They have given the information and seizure was made at their instance and they were also arrested on the same day.The evidence of the Investigating Officer, Rakesh Kumar Gurgamla (P.W. 20), being disinterested witness, his deposition is sufficient to prove the drawing of memo's under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the seizure at the instance of the accused persons, beside Gopal Singh (P.W. 12) has also supported the factum of seizure of crucial articles like watch, shoes etc. of the accused Manohar and Nandlal.They have been identified to be belonging to the deceased.Weapon of offence were also seized from the possession and at the instance of the accused persons.Recovery was also made within ten days.Thus, conviction has been rightly recorded under Section 302/34 of IPC.Before we dilate upon the facts of the instant case, we deem it appropriate to refer to the citations referred to at bar.Consequently, the accused Taijuddin was convicted.In Amit @Ammu v. State of Maharashtra , the accused was charged with rape and murder, accused was last seen together in the company of the victim, the evidence of last seen was found reliable, the close proximity of place and time between the event of accused having been last seen with the victim and factum of death, it was held that the burden was on the accused to prove the sudden factum of death.In the result, conviction was upheld.Thereafter he again made inquiry or for whereabouts of the deceased Suresh, again accused Manohar expressed his ignorance.After few days the dead body of the deceased Suresh was found in the well of Sangram Singh and Kamal Singh of Village Amlai.When they came to know that one dead body was found, they identified the dead body of the deceased Suresh.Deceased Suresh had advanced certain money and used to make the demand from Manohar.Manohar had borrowed a sum of Rs. 900/- from the deceased.Deceased was also carrying the key of the tractor and key of the attachee, he was also carrying a tester.In identification parade, these articles were identified by him in the presence of the Tehsildar.He has identified the tester, keys, shoes, shirt and watch etc. correctly.He has deposed to as to the identification in the Court also.Suresh was carrying lathi whereas Manohar was not carrying any weapon in his hand.He had not seen the deceased Suresh alive thereafter.It is apparent from the evidence that both accused were last seen together with deceased at Village Khamlah and they were going to the betel shop of Mahesh.It appears that from the house of the deceased, two accused persons were accompanying the deceased.The accused are also resident of Village Khamlah but on the betel shop as stated by Mahesh, Suresh and Manohar took the betel, they were together.He has not stated about the presence of Nandlal.The evidence discloses that from Khamlah accused Manohar as well as Nandlal accompanied the deceased to Village Amlah and they were going together for eating betel.We have to consider in the circumstances whether there is any other cogent evidence so as to implicate the accused persons and in particular Nandlal in the instant case so as to complete the chain against them.With respect to accused Manohar from the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that he was accompanying the deceased.He was last seen in the company of the deceased.When we consider the statement of accused Manohar recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, question No. 22 was put to him that "Suresh did not come back in the night and Munnalal (P.W. 8) came to him to inquire whereabouts of deceased, at that time he was limping and was having injury in his leg".In reply, he has expressed his ignorance of whereabouts of deceased Suresh.He has answered, "it was right".He has admitted that question to be correct.Thus, it is apparent that the accused Manohar himself has admitted that Munnalal made inquiry from him about the whereabouts of deceased Suresh and at that time "he was having injury also and was limping".It is apparent that deceased Suresh met homicidal death, there were several injuries caused by sharp edged object on the person of the deceased Suresh.He has also admitted that Munnalal (P.W. 8) inquired from him about the whereabouts of deceased Suresh.This he has admitted in answer to question No. 59 that whereabouts of deceased were asked from him by Manohar (P.W. 9) and his brother Munnalal (P.W. 8).Thus, it is apparent that continuously the family members of the deceased questioned from Manohar about whereabouts of deceased, Suresh as he was last seen in the company of the deceased.Thus, case of last seen has not been introduced all of a sudden after the dead body was found.In case they were not last seen, there was no reason to make inquiry from the accused Manohar about the whereabouts of the deceased.He has also admitted that Dr. R.K. Gupta has treated him in District Hospital, Sehore, applied the stitches on his leg.He has admitted that Exh. P-6 was in the handwriting of Dr. R.K. Gupta (P.W. 7).In answer to the question by which weapon injury was caused to him, he has expressed ignorance.As a matter of fact, it was for the accused to explain the injury, cut wound on his leg but he has expressed ignorance how it was caused.It is also apparent that deceased was having large number of injuries.When we consider the medical requisition memo dated 8-8-92, Manohar Singh has informed that injury on his leg was caused by knife (Churri) before 10-12 days and Dr. R.K. Chaturvedi (P.W. 6) as per report P-5 opined that injury was stitched.The dressed wound on left leg was quite healed and was of duration more than seven days.He has also opined with respect to two other injuries.He has found on the person of Manohar, wound on left parietal region was stitched and dressed.The wound on left occipital region, was also dressed wound.The accused has stated that these injuries were caused four days before and Munnalal (P. W. 8) has also stated that there was injuries on leg of accused Manohar.He has not stated about the injury in the occipital region and we find on record in General Diary (Exh. P-29A) with respect to pelting of stone on accused Manohar by someone else.In the previous night when last seen in the company of deceased, accused Manohar was not limping but the next morning, he was limping, admittedly he had injury in his leg.We have no hesitation in rejecting the submission that the date of last seen and the suffering of injury by accused Manohar and date of death of deceased has not been proved.We find that considering the post-mortem report Exh. P-32 of 4-8-92, dead-body was in advance stage of putrefaction.Foul smell was coming, larve crawling over the body, flies were also seen, whole face was blush, right eye was coming out from the orbit, tongue protruding out, lips were swollen, hairs separated from scalp with skin, scrotum with penis swollen, abdomen distended, arms, palms, feets reddish, abdomen, chest back blush, muscle skin absent from hips and ante-mortem wounds were found.(1) Penetrating wound near right nibble;(2) Spindle shaped incised wound over epigastrium;(3) Incised wound over right wrist ventral surface;(4) Penetrating wound near umbilicus right side;(5) Incised wound over left scapular region;(6) Penetrating wound over left infra scapular area;(7) Incised wound in inter scapular area vertical;(8) Incised wound over T12 level of back (Horizontal).Dimensions of injuries were also given.It is apparent that large number of injuries were inflicted on the person of deceased by sharp edged penetrating weapon.Injuries were also found on the person of Manohar relatable to the same proximity of time when deceased Suresh was done away with.It appears that in the course of struggle, injury might have been sustained by accused Manohar.He has failed to explain the injury.He was limping when he was asked about the whereabouts of deceased Suresh by his brother Munnalal (P.W. 8) next day in the morning.The post-mortem report has been proved by H.L. Dalodria (P.W. 21).It is apparent from the post-mortem report that death was not due to drowning but the deceased was put in the well after the death, articles like shirt, pant, watch shoes etc. were removed.Inquiry was also made from the accused Nandlal about the whereabouts of the deceased.Witness namely Munnalal (P.W. 8) in Paragraph 5 of his deposition and Kishore (P.W. 10), in Paragraph 2 of his deposition support the fact.When we consider the statement of accused Nandlal recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, in reply to question No. 25, he has admitted that Munnalal (P.W. 8), had continuously asked him regarding the whereabouts of the deceased Suresh supported by the evidence of Chain Singh (P.W. 3) and Manohar (P.W. 9).Nandlal has also accompanied the accused Manohar at the time when deceased was last taken from Village Khamlah.Thus, the evidence of witnesses inspire confidence that accused Nandlal has also accompanied Manohar and Suresh at Village Khamlah when they were going to eat betel.The recovery of the watch of deceased has been made from the possession, at the instance of accused Nandlal, which we find to be reliable one.Thus, complicity of accused Nandlal also stands established in the instant case.At the instance of Manohar also seizure of articles belonging to deceased Suresh was made.Coming to the question of reliability of recovery, we find on record statement of two witnesses namely Gopal Singh (P.W. 12) and Rakesh Kumar Gurgamla (P.W. 20), Sub-Inspector of Police, the Investigating Officer of this case.Before, we proceed to examine the evidence, we deem it appropriate to refer to the cases cited in that regard.Though, he tried to change the version in the next thought but fact remains that nylon shoes were recovered at the instance of accused Manohar even if we discard recovery of other articles such as lathi and purse, though purse of the deceased was seized from the possession of the accused Manohar.The articles were rightly identified but were not produced in Court nor the lathi which was seized at the instance of Nandlal was produced before the Court, though, it was also identified correctly by the witnesses in the Investigation parade.We discard recovery of the articles not produced before the Court as well as recovery of keys and tester.Fact remains that 'watch' was seized from the possession of the accused Nandlal as per the seizure memo (P-15) pursuant to information memo (P-9) was furnished by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The seizure of weapon of offence, knife (churri) was also made pursuant to information memo (P-9) furnished by Nandlal as per seizure memo (P-13) from his house at his instance.From the possession of Manohar, weapon of offence, one 'knife' and 'purse' was seized as per seizure memo (P-21) pursuant to information given as per memo (P-13).Beside that shoes of deceased were also recovered on the basis of information furnished by the accused Manohar at his instance from his house.Thus, seizure of weapon of offence, knife as well as Gupti corresponding injury of such weapon were found on the person of the deceased and seizure of shoes stands proved from the possession of accused Manohar.The shoes have been correctly identified.The recovery of watch from the possession of the accused Nandlal is also supported by the independent version of Rakesh Kumar Gurgamla (P.W. 20), the Investigating Officer.He has proved the seizure of these articles in Paragraph 24 of his deposition.It is also apparent that well was situated nearby the way from Khamlah to Amlah, much detour was not taken as it was quite near the road leading from Khamlah to Amlah, where the deceased as well as accused persons were proceeding.Thus, in the instant case, we find that both the accused had taken the deceased from his house thereafter he was not seen alive and immediately next day in the morning on the person of the accused Manohar injury was found.The family members of the deceased made inquiry about the whereabouts of the deceased as accused had taken the deceased alongwith them.The accused Manohar was limping next morning and his injury has been proved by the doctor.He could not explain the injury on his person.From the possession of Nandlal, 'watch' of the deceased has been recovered that has been identified to be belonging to the deceased.Similarly, from the possession of the accused Manohar 'nylon shoes' of deceased have been recovered beside weapon of offence from both the accused person.Thus, in the instant case, the circumstances points that the accused persons had committed murder of deceased, Suresh.Thus, they have been rightly found guilty by the Court below for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of IPC.Resultantly, we find no merit in the appeal.The appeal is dismissed.The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is affirmed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,840,416 |
CRL.M.C. 3808/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 187/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 28th May, 2018 (Annexure-C colly).Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Madan Mohan on the basis of identity proof produced by her.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement CRL.M.C. 3808/2019 Page 1 of 3 of 28th May, 2018 (Annexure-C colly) as today, she has received an amount of 1,25,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 513796 dated 2nd August, 2019 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Branch Nangloi, Delhi from petitioners.As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice."Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Accordingly, FIR No. 187/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of CRL.M.C. 3808/2019 Page 2 of 3 IPC, registered at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.CRL.M.C. 3808/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,843,407 |
With C.R.A.N. No. 1501 of 2013 THE MATTER OF:The reputation of opposite party No. 1 due to publication of such articles against the opposite party No. 1 has been lower down amongst his colleagues and persons associated with him.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,848,556 |
Arunendra Shukla filed a written complaint to the police on 02.10.2018 alleging that while he was discharging his duties in the hospital, about 11 persons reached there and started abusing him and caused damage of furniture.It is specifically alleged that accused Bunde @ Amit Tiwari committed marpeet with him, whereon, a case as mentioned above has been registered against the accused persons.It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been implicated on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused.He is a student and has no criminal past.On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,850,729 |
The respondent no. 6 is a young person and is having considerable influence amongst the Brahmin voters of the Constituency.(ii) The respondent no. 6 had filed his nomination paper as an independent candidate on 8.11.2013 from the said Constituency.Election Petition No. 24/2014
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
508,516 |
This revision has been taken on file by the High Court on its Suo Motujurisdiction on the basis of the letter written by one Rajasekar to the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam on the basis of the orders passed by theJudicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, in M.C. No.14 of 1999, convicting andsentencing one Janarthanam for offence under Section 228 IPC and directing himto undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment.In that connection, on 09.09.1999, he filed a petition togive a copy of the document sent by the Mayiladuthurai Hospital but the samewas returned.Hence on 10.09.1999, he wrote a letter to the JudicialMagistrate, Nagapattinam and a copy thereof marked to the Chief JudicialMagistrate, Nagapattinam, asking him for the reasons as to why the JudicialMagistrate, Nagapattinam, returned the petition and also requested him, togive a copy of the document sent by the Mayiladuthurai Hospital connected withthe case and had further stated in the said letter that due to the decision ofthe Magistrate, he had a fear that he will not get justice in the hands of theMagistrate and he also has learned that the Magistrate accepts bribes.b)The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of this letter and tookaction against the said Janarthanam and he informed Janarthanam that hisaction has interfered with the court activities and thereby Janarthanam hascommitted an offence of contempt of court and questioned him as to why heshould not be punished under section 228 IPC.The said Janarthanam reinforcedhis statement to be true and that he was guilty.Hence accepting thevoluntary statement of Janarthanam, the court found him to be guilty ofoffence under Section 228 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonmentfor six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.Janarthanam was straightawaysent to imprisonment.c)It appears that from the Sub Jail, Nagapattinam, Janarthanam wrote aletter to his friend, Rajasekaran stating about the incarceration.The saidRajasekaran in turn addressed a letter to the Chief Judicial Magistratebringing forth the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the JudicialMagistrate has erred in himself convicting the Janarthanam for offence underSection 228 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 2 weeks Simple Imprisonment,without following the procedure contemplated under Section 345 and 346 Cr.P.C.The said Rajasekaran has marked a copy of that letter to a Hon'ble Judge ofthis court and on the basis of the orders of My Lord, the Chief Justice, thiscourt is seized off the matter.3.On receipt of records and the moment this matter has beenentertained as suo motu revision, the said Janarthanam has been directed to bereleased on bail.On perusing the records, I am constrained to pass thefollowing order.3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,856,029 |
(15/02/2018) Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 30-9-1998 passed by 1st A.S.J., Balaghat in Cr.A. No. 65/1993 setting aside the Judgment and conviction dated 14-8-1993 passed by C.J.M., Balaghat in Criminal Case No.109/1993 and the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C.The respondent was tried for an offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. and was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default imprisonment.The respondent had challenged the order of conviction and the appeal was allowed and the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 2 Criminal Revision No.77/2000 [M.P. State Warehousing Corporation and others Vs.Prakash Chand] 409 of I.P.C.Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, the applicants have filed the present revision.According to the prosecution story, the respondent joined his service in the capacity of Junior Technical Assistant in M.P. State Ware Housing Corporation and was in charge of the Balaghat Ware House.The respondent was directed to handover the charge of the Ware house to Shri B.P. Shukla, but the respondent handed over the charge belatedly and on physical verification, shortage in the food grains to the value of Rs.78,607.93 was found.Accordingly, the respondent was tried for offence under Section 409 of I.P.C.Order dictated, signed and dated on separate sheets.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,856,855 |
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.437/2020 registered at Police Station-Station Amanganj, District-Panna, for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after almost eight years of marriage, applicant's wife has committed suicide by consuming poison.He submits that a false allegation has been made against the present applicant that he along with his parents, used to physically harass the deceased and were demanding a motorcycle and Rs.25,000/- in dowry.He further submits that out of the said wedlock, the applicant and the deceased had an issue aged about four Signature Not Verified years and they were residing separately from the parents of the SAN Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY Date: 2020.10.20 10:50:10 IST 2 MCRC-39735-2020 applicant and there was no dispute between them during that period.He further submits that the parents and family members of the deceased have not made any complaint about such demand of dowry even to other relatives; although after the incident, they made a false allegations against the present applicant.Upon these submission, he prays that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,754,946 |
I have perused the statements of both the witnesses.Let the applicant, Arbaj who is involved in Case Crime No. 141 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 294, 354/34 & 504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, PS Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur 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.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,575,610 |
The learned counsel for the applicant says if one peruse this FIR dated 01.03.2020 it refers to GD No.1A dated 25.02.2020 at 00.22.29 hours wherein the information recorded is deceased Shahid received a gunshot injury near Chand Bagh, Peer Baba Mazar, Bhajanpura, Delhi was brought at GTB Hospital by his brother and was declared dead.He further refers to the MLC of even date which record the alleged history of gunshot injury near Chand Bagh, Peer Baba Mazar, Bhajanpura at around 04.00PM on 24.02.2020 as stated by the person accompanying the BAIL APPLN.922/2020 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAPIL SHARMA Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16 patient.The FIR was registered on 01.03.2020 i.e. after a delay of seven days.BAIL APPLN.922/2020 Page 1 of 5It is argued though the FIR show the place of incident near Chand Bagh, Peer Baba Mazar, Bhajanpura, Delhi, but the status report filed by the State show the incident had occurred at the roof of a building belonging to M/s.Further, it was argued bail application was moved by the applicant before the learned Session's Court wherein a reply was filed by the Investigating Officer stating inter alia on 11.03.2020 acting on a secret information, accused Raiees Khan along with two other person were apprehended and have confessed of shouting religious slogans and they BAIL APPLN.922/2020 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAPIL SHARMA Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16 got on top of roof of Saptrishi Building as the back gate / shutter was broken open by them and they hurled stones at other group.It was alleged accused Raiees Khan is having his Printing Press in adjoining building where he had kept stones in bags.He went to his printing press and opened water in the street and after wetting jute bags with water, threw it towards the crowd.The accused was arrested on the basis of his disclosure statement.It is alleged now in the status report filed in this Court, the Investigating Officer had alleged the witnesses have stated Raiees Khan took active part in the riot and he was identified to be a person present at the roof top of the said building.BAIL APPLN.YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Through Video Conferencing)This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the 'Cr P C) for regular bail in FIR No.84/2020 registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 147,148,149,153A,505/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as the 'IPC) to the petitioner/applicant.Saptrishi Ispat and Alloy Private Limited, 10A, Khasra No.242, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi and there being a distance of about 900 meters in both the spots.The learned counsel for petitioner then referred to an order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, it interalia records:-"SI Vineet submits that accused persons produced today are arrested for committing offence U/S 147,148,149,153A, 505, 34 IPC.922/2020 Page 2 of 5It is further argued the statements of public witnesses Mukesh and Arvind Kumar, though recorded on 08.03.2020, never stated about his presence at the roof top of said Building or that anybody allegedly having received gunshot injury at rooftop, but their statements were again recorded on 12.03.2020 wherein they alleged they had seen applicant, who was than sitting in the police station and had duly identified him as an active member of the group which went to the roof top of Saptrishi Building, who fired and pelted stones from the roof at police and public by breaking the boundary wall of roof by use of kicks and sticks etc.The learned counsel for applicant further submits that in the status report the role assigned to the applicant is only of hurling stones and raising slogans and the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shows that there was no incriminating evidence against the applicant, except his disclosure statement and hence the supplementary statements of two public witnesses, recorded on 12.03.2020, only show BAIL APPLN.922/2020 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAPIL SHARMA Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16 they have been tutored to allege against this applicant to falsely implicate him in this case.BAIL APPLN.922/2020 Page 3 of 5The learned SPP for the State, on the other hand, submitted the incident was of rooftop of Saptrishi Building and not of Chand Bagh, Peer Baba Mazar, Bhajanpura, Delhi as is evident from the footage of NDTV as also the photographs showing the dead body of Shaheed was brought down with the help of a ladder from the roof of Saptrishi Building.It is argued witnesses Mukesh and Arvind were residing in Saptrishi Building itself, which was taken over by the rioters, including this applicant and his associates and they went to the roof; they kept on throwing bricks and other material on the police officials and general public and some of its members even fired.It is also submitted when the applicant was at the police station he was advised to keep his face muffled, but he deliberately unmuffled himself when the witnesses arrived to frustrate the TIP and it was only for this reason, the TIP was not conducted.It is argued even otherwise the prime objective of the TIP is to find out if the investigation is moving in right direction.It is stated besides these two public witnesses, ASI Rajender Singh and HC Davender have also given statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against the applicant and have identified him.No doubt there was a delay in registration of the FIR, but it was only because of the circumstances prevalent at that time.On the day of incident, I am told about 18689 PCR calls were received on a single day; 3450 calls were from the Dayalpur area itself and then it took time to BAIL APPLN.Pandemic Covid-19 further delayed the investigation.BAIL APPLN.922/2020 Page 4 of 5Saptrishi Building is opposite to the place where HC Rattanlal of the police team was shot at.Immediately thereafter, this incident happened.Shahid was allegedly one of the rioters and probably, during firing upon the police party and general public, a gunshot misfired and probably hit Shahid from short range as the injury is a short range injury, as verified.Copy of this order be sent electronically to the learned Trial Court and the petitioner through the Jail Superintendent for information.YOGESH KHANNA, J.922/2020 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,763,915 |
Further, it is alleged that the petitioner also played important role in forgery of documents in furtherance of executing the agreement in stamp paper of Rs. 100/-.It is further alleged that the petitioner connivance with other co- accused persons and grabbed government money.On perusal of case diary, it also appears that as per the rules made by State Government, 12 Cr.R. No. 5041/2018 the successful bidder has to pay 7.5% stamp duty for executing the agreement but co-accused person were not willing to pay the same, hence, being an In-charge CEO, the petitioner has issued notice and reminders to them.Further, it appears that the counselors of Municipal Council, Lanji have given a joint letter to the petitioner for calling a meeting of counselors for consideration the agenda of executing an agreement in stamp paper of Rs. 100/-.(09 /07/2020) This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2018 in S.T. No. 08/2015 passed by 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the petitioner.According to the case, in compliance of direction given by learned JMFC, Balaghat on the complaint under Section 156(3) CrP.C filed by one Kamlesh Mahobiya, the police has registered the case against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.After completing investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet before the concerning Court and vide judgment dated 25.07.2012 except the petitioner, other co-accused persons have been convicted by the trial Court.Now after taking sanction, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the police against the petitioner and the trial Court has 2 Cr.R. No. 5041/2018 framed the charges which are under challenged in this petition.Before the rival contentions of the parties are taken up for consideration, it would be necessary to give a brief resume of facts.It appears from the case that the petitioner was the then In-charge CEO of Municipal Council Lanji and it is alleged by the complainant that there is weekly market in control of Municipal Council Lanji and in auction proceeding in respect of animal market, cycle stand etc. for the year 2011-12, an advertisement was issued and according to it successful bidder has to pay 7.5% stamp fees for the agreement.It is said that on 07.03.2011, an auction proceeding took place in which co-accused Raja Mankar and Sitaram Bahe were the successful bidder for getting the contract of weekly animal market at rupees 19,45,000/- and contract of cycle stand at rupees 6,33,000/-, respectively.As per the terms and conditions of contract, the successful bidder has to pay stamp duty of 7.5% while executing the agreement but the co-accused did not deposit the said stamp duty and got the agreement executed in stamp paper of rupees 100/- by preparing forged papers and in this way the government incurred loss.On 09.03.2011, he issued notice to the successful bidder to comply the condition of the auction and tender by paying necessary stamp duty before 31.03.2011 but the bidder did not 3 Cr.R. No. 5041/2018 comply the condition then again on 17.03.2011 and 23.03.2011, reminders were issued by the petitioner for the same purpose.He further submits that on 25.03.2011, President, Vice President of Municipal Council Lanji, representative of MP's and MLA and counselor jointly were directed to execute the agreement on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- and also directed to call a meeting of counselors.In this regard, on 08.04.2011, a meeting of counselors of Municipal Counsil Lanji was called and it was decided to execute an agreement on 100/- rupees stamp, accordingly the resolution was passed.The petitioner has also informed the Collector Balaghat about the said resolution but no order was given by the authority, hence, the petitioner was under obligation to act according to the direction of the Municipal Council as per the spirit of Section 92 of M.P. Municipalities Act. He further argued that the petitioner has not committed any conspiracy with the co-accused because he raised objection during the resolution was passed.With the aforesaid, he prays to allow this revision petition.Cr.R. No. 5041/2018Cr.R. No. 5041/2018Cr.R. No. 5041/2018Section 464 of IPC provides about the making a false documents.On reading of the provision of Section 120-A of I.P.C., it is manifest that a criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit any unlawful act, then take some steps towards it's completion.The offence of criminal conspiracy constitutes by two ways, first, by an illegal act or secondly, by an act which may be legal but done through an illegal means, such agreement is designated as a criminal conspiracy.After careful reading of aforesaid provision and principle, I revert back to the facts of the case.On perusal of documents annexed with the case-diary, it is found that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was the then Incharge CEO of Municipal Council Lanji and with an intent to give illegal monetary benefits to the co-accused Raja Mankar and Sitaram Bahe who were the successful bidder for contracts of animal market and cycle stand for the year 2011-12, respectively, he entered into conspiracy and did not get adequate stamp duty from them while executing the agreement which incurred loss to Government.On 8.04.2011 the agenda was discussed and the council have passed the said resolution.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,769,659 |
pk CRM No. 7179 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.08.15 in connection with Chakdaha P.S. Case No. 481/15 dated 23.7.15 under Sections 498A/304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Kalipada Biswas & Ors.498A/304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner nos. l and 2 are the parents-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the brother-in-law and the petitioner no. 4 is the married sister-in-law (nanad) of the victim housewife, who committed suicide by hanging.The husband was arrested.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,957,697 |
The present common judgment will dispose of the above four connected appeals.All the accused/Appellants were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC; the Appellant Savita, in addition, was convicted under Section 203 IPC.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on receipt of DD No. 38A at about 2:24 AM on the night intervening of 02-03.12.1994, SI Sardar Singh reached at H. No.29/156, West Patel Nagar and found Manoj Girotra (the deceased) son of Jagdish Rai lying on the floor in a pool of blood in the first floor drawing room; blood was scattered on the floor, on the pillow and bed sheet.There were number of knife blows on the deceased's body.The bedroom almirahs were open, empty jewellery boxes were also lying on the ground.SI Sardar Singh recorded the statement of the wife of deceased Manoj (hereafter "Savita") who was present at the spot.She disclosed that she along with her husband was watching the film "Burning Train" on TV and at about 1:30 AM, after the film got over they were conversing in their room on the first floor.Someone knocked the door; Manoj opened the door and three persons armed with knives entered the premises.One of them held a knife at the deceased's neck and took him to the drawing room.Another person held the knife at her neck and demanded the almirah keys; the third man took out gold ornaments from the almirah.All of them were to leave, but the man holding the knife to her, tried to tease her; he tore her clothes.When her husband Manoj protested, he was given knife blows at many places on his Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 2 body by the intruders.As a result, Manoj fell down and all the three intruders fled from the spot.She raised alarm and her father-in-law's cousin Mahender Lal and others from the locality went upstairs.It was alleged that after initial investigation, SI Sardar Singh found no clue in the case.He handed over investigation to Inspector Rajbir Singh, of Special Investigation Branch who found suspicious activities on the part of Savita and her family guru Swami Rameshwaranand Giri (hereafter "the swami").On 13.09.1995 the swami was arrested and one letter written by him to Savita was seized from him, addressed to her as his lover and wife.Accused Raj Kumar and Jagdish Lal were also arrested and on 17.09.1995 accused Ravi Chauhan and Ashutosh Banerjee were arrested.Accused Om Prakash @ Omi could not be arrested by the police and was declared as proclaimed offender.It was alleged that the swami was interrogated; he disclosed being very close to the family of Saudagarmal Sethi, Savita's father and in the year 1994 when he was ill, he remained in their house and had a physical relationship with Savita.Savita's marriage was solemnized on 10.10.1994 with Manoj and the swami blessed the couple.After the marriage, according to the prosecution, the swami and Savita kept on meeting each other, and in one such meeting, they conspired to kill Manoj and asked for assistance from one devotee accused Raj Kumar.He arranged for the killers; the swami paid `40,000/- to the killers.On 15.11.1994 accused Raj Kumar took his co-accused Ravi Chauhan on his motor cycle No.DIW 1149 to Patel Nagar and according to the plan, Savita along with her husband Manoj went to Hanuman Mandir on their scooter.Accused Raj Kumar and Ravi Chauhan started chasing them.On reaching Shankar Road, near the petrol pump, Savita dropped her slipper intentionally, ensuring that the scooter stopped and alighted from it to retrieve the slipper.Raj Kumar stopped his motorcycle at some distance; accused Ravi Chauhan fired at Manoj with a country made pistol.Manoj was injured on the back of the shoulder.Accused Ravi Chauhan hid himself in the bushes and accused Raj Kumar fled on his motorcycle.The swami was in his car bearing No. DL 4C A7094 and he took Ravi Chauhan in his car.It was further alleged that on 30.11.1994 the swami came to Delhi from Rishikesh in his car, which was driven by Makhan Lal, and at about 12/12:30 PM reached Patel Nagar.Leaving Makhan Lal in the car at some distance, he visited Savita's house and remained there till 2:30/3:00 AM, and they hatched another plan to kill Manoj, according to which, on the night of 02.12.1994 the swami, in his car (driven by accused Raj Kumar) reached his (Raj Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 3 Kumar's) factory at Nariana and took accused Om Prakash @ Omi and Ashutosh Banerjee @ Pappu who were armed with knives.All of them went to the Savita's house, at West Patel Nagar.Leaving Raj Kumar in the car, the swami, Omi and Pappu went to the first floor of Savita's house, the door of which had, as per previous plan, been left open, (since Savita was waiting for the other accused).Upon their reaching the premises, she switched off the bedroom light and took the co-accused to the drawing room where the deceased was sleeping on the diwan.All the three accused showered knife blows on the body of Manoj, and when he tried to protest.The swami caught Manoj's foot with his hands, and on receiving knife blows, he fell down from the bed and died.The swami sent accused Omi and Pappu downstairs and when he saw that Manoj was not dead, he gave another knife blow to him; after satisfying himself that Manoj had died, and in order to give the incident the shape of dacoity, he took Savita's ornaments from the almirah and scattered the empty boxes on the bed and also tore Savita's nighty.He gave some ornaments to accused Omi and Pappu and left them at Nariana.The prosecution also alleged that after committing the murder, the swami, with his driver Makhan Lal left for Rishikesh.On reaching, the swami threw the knife in the bushes behind his Ashram.He kept the ornaments in his almirah and after washing the clothes which, he was wearing at the time of incident, hid them.He attended Manoj's cremation ceremony and lived for some days in the Ashram of his Gurubhai Devendranand Giri at Bahadurgah, Makhan Lal got introduced the swami, to the accused Jagdish Lal Sharma who introduced himself as Inspector from the CBI and he with the help of Makhan Lal started extorting the swami.After recording the telephonic conversation in audio cassettes between Makhan lal and Jagdish Lal Sharma, they both were arrested.The swami is alleged to have led to recovery of the knife used in the incident and the jewellery taken away from Savita's house.The envelope was addressed to "Savita", and was handed over when PW-21 was sitting with her lady friends.PW-37 initially stated that he had seized the letter PW-37/R; he however, later clarified that he did not do so.The prosecution filed charges in the Court.Makhan Lal and Jagdish Lal Sharma were remanded for their trial to the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 22.12.1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi as the offences alleged against them were only under section 176/202/384/419, IPC which were exclusively triable by the Metropolitan Magistrate.Charges under Section 302/120B IPC were framed against all the accused persons on 04.05.1999, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.Hence the trial commenced against them.The swami, and Ashutosh Banerjee were separately charged for Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 4 offence under section 404 IPC and 27/54/59 of Arms Act. Accused Ravi Chauhan was also separately charged for offence under Section 307 and 404 IPC.Similarly accused Om Prakash was also separately charged for offence under Section 404 IPC.Accused Savita was separately charged for offence under section 203 IPC.All accused entered the plea of not guilty to their separate charges and claimed a trial.The prosecution relied on the evidence of 48 witnesses to establish the charges framed against the accused.Since its case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, it was sought to be proved by evidence in that regard.(1) Proximity between Savita and the swami, for a long time, before the former's marriage to the deceased, during which they developed intimacy;(2) Conspiracy hatched by the swami and Savita, to have Manoj murdered.The first step towards this, was the incident of 15.11.1994, when the deceased was shot at while driving a scooter, and injured at the back.The attempt was on his life, but was unsuccessful.The prosecution alleged that Savita prevailed on other family members to refrain from reporting the incident to the police.(3) Planning, by the swami and Savita, prior to the incident, whereby the former visited the latter, on late 30th November, 1994, and hatched a conspiracy.He stayed with her till the early hours of the next morning.(4) Involvement of other co-accused, and the swami, in the murderous attack which took place on the night of 02-03.12.1994, on Manoj, which resulted in his death, and the later cover-up by them, to give the impression of a robbery and looting of jewellery.Savita aided the co-accused, by ensuring that the first floor door was left unlocked, to facilitate the crime.(5) Attempt by Savita to hide the previous incident, of 15.11.1994, when reporting the matter to the police.The police did not have any concrete clue, and the investigating officer changed.(6) Interception of telephonic conversation between the swami and Jagdish, and other conversation, leading to recovery of letter from Rama Bajaj, the arrest of swami, his disclosure statement, leading to recovery of the murder weapon, and jewellery looted from the premises, on the date of incident, and the subsequent arrest of other co-accused, including Savita.The trial court convicted the four appellants, holding that the prosecution was able to prove all the circumstances, which pointed to their guilt and involvement in the murder of the Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 5 deceased.It was held that Savita's conduct and role in successfully ensuring that the previous attempt at the life of the deceased, which occurred on 15.11.1994, stood established.It also found that the version given by Savita about the manner in which the incident took place, when allegedly the assailants entered the first floor, of the premises, started to rob jewellery, and upon being challenged by Manoj, when one of them sought to molest her, by raining knife blows on him, was falsified by the circumstantial evidence.In this regard, the trial court took into consideration the evidence such as to say that the couple had a strained marital relationship, the nature of injuries which led to the death of Manoj, the fact that there was no forcible entry into the house at 1:30 AM, in the morning, the statements of PW-15 about how the outside door was unlocked, the telephonic conversations which the swami had, leading to recovery of a letter, PW-37/R, the interrogation and detention of swami, the disclosure statement made by him, leading to recovery of jewellery articles, their identification by PW-3 (Manoj's father), the arrest and disclosure statements of Ravi Chauhan and Ashutosh, all proved the circumstances conclusively and unerringly to the guilt of the four appellants.The trial court accordingly recorded their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, and also recorded the acquittal of Ravi Chauhan, in respect of the charge under Section 307 IPC.It convicted Savita under Section 203 IPC, and acquitted the accused charged for the offence under Section 404, IPC.Appellants' argumentsIn the circumstances, the charge of conspiracy had to be established with strong and cogent evidence.It is submitted, primarily by Savita's counsel, in this regard that the evidence put forward against her was her alleged reluctance in reporting the matter to the police, and convincing the other family members against such reporting.It was urged, here, that PW-1, the deceased's mother had deposed on this aspect, and her testimony was unreliable, since she contradicted herself on this issue.Counsel further argued that the trial court completely misdirected itself, in selectively appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and applying itself to the examination-in-chief, completely ignoring the entire depositions, which included the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused/appellants.Not only did she materially contradict herself in these three statements, in the form of omissions, and improvements, but later contradicted herself, as well as other witnesses during the trial.It is argued that indeed, if this witness and the other relatives of the deceased had suspected Savita and the swami, there was no reason, why this should not have been voiced by them when the police recorded the statements, on these separate dates.Furthermore, the voluntary manner in which Savita gave the deceased's articles of clothing, to facilitate investigation into the previous incident, falsified the prosecution argument that she suppressed the previous incident deliberately.On this aspect, it was contended that a statement, or omission of an accused, (on any aspect relating to an offence), who was the informant reporting the crime, and recorded as part of the FIR, is inadmissible, as against the said accused, as hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.For Crl.The prosecution version that she had kept the outer door unlocked, and the gate to the first floor, based on the sketch placed on the record, could not be believed.It was submitted in this regard that the trial court disbelieved the immediate statement or version of Savita, and drew its conclusions based on shaky facts, which were not proved.Counsel submitted that PW-15's evidence pointed to the street door being open, at the time of the incident and that the premises had a second floor tenant, who was not examined.It was also argued that the prosecution did not have any cogent evidence, or even theory to back its story about Savita having kept the first floor door open, to facilitate the intruders' entry into the premises.Such evidence was tenuous to establish any connection between the Appellant Savita and the Swami.The letter was allegedly written by the swami.P.C. about depositing the jewellery items.Learned counsel also pointed out that the evidence on record showed that the IO and the police party, which is alleged to have gone to Haridwar for investigation, did not use any official police vehicle; no authorization too was proved to have been given by any superior officer, for the said investigation.However, submitted learned counsel, none of its witnesses were able to give any details of particulars about the factory such as its name proprietor and so on.In these circumstances the vague allegation of the witnesses that the arrest was made at a particular address in a gatta (cardboard) factory could not be believed.He further stated that the alleged recovery of jewellery from the place of arrest is falsified by PW-29 admitting that his previous statement nowhere reflected that such articles were sealed - a fact which he sought to improve upon, and introduce for the first time in the prosecution testimony.The dagger allegedly seized from him could not be linked with the offence, according to the serological report.In the circumstances, there was nothing to link him with any alleged conspiracy, the origin of which was not proved.In the circumstances, the recovery of articles, and their linkage with the crime had not been proved.Therefore, the prosecution, without filing an appeal, could not rely on the said alleged circumstances relating to the discovery of jewellery articles that were allegedly looted.This meant that the jewellery was unconnected with the crime; the trial court directed its confiscation to the state.PW-29 also deposed that the building from where the arrest was made, consisted of several tenements, where families resided.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 17 swami knew each other before the former's marriage, and were on intimate terms, the relationship being more than a guru and his disciple.The evidence on record, particularly of the deceased's family members, showed that this association continued even after marriage, as Savita used to hold long telephonic conversations with the swami.In the intervening night of 2/3rd December, 1994, according to plan, Savita had kept the outer entry door of the first floor open, to facilitate easy access to the assailants, who were let in by her.The evidence pointed to there being no forcible entry; the assailants, including the swami, walked to where Manoj was sleeping, and mercilessly stabbed him, at various places, mostly in the neck, resulting in fatal injuries.The police, therefore, visited him at Rishikesh; after his interrogation, statements were recorded.This led to recoveries, as well as the search and seizure of letters, etc. from the house of PW-21 and the appellant Savita; she too was arrested.The other conspirators were arrested later, and recoveries were effected pursuant to their statements.Elaborating, the learned APP submitted that PW-1 had mentioned in the statement recorded on 11th February, 1995 about Savita's involvement in the offence.She had also deposed about Savita not willing to have cohabit with Manoj and further her testifying that the couple slept separately, since Savita used to frequently give the pretext of ill health.The learned APP submitted that in her statement to the Police, as the first informant, as well as the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Savita stated that on the fateful night, three persons had entered the house and on the door being opened by Manoj, dragged him to the inner room, looted the jewellery and tried to molest her, on which he (deceased Manoj) resisted, which resulted in his murderous attack and his subsequent death.As far as the latter were concerned, the facts emerging from the depositions of PW-15, who was called out from the ground floor by Savita and who corroborated that what was told to him by her, is material.It was further submitted that the conspiracy hatched by Savita with the Swami was proved by the reading of the depositions of PW-1, PW-3, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-18, which brought out the following sequence:i) That the Swami was known to Savita and her family before her marriage was solemnized with Manoj.ii) That even after the marriage, Savita used to frequently receive and attend to calls made by the Swami.iii) Savita and Manoj had gone to honeymoon after the marriage to Simla but returned earlier than the schedule.iv) The deceased and Savita used to live on the first floor of the premises.PW-1 the deceased's mother and her husband PW-3 also used to reside there, however since PW-3 was posted in Agra, she (PW-1) had joined him there and was also not in the premises on the first floor on the day when the crime occurred.It was further stated that at 8:30 PM on the fateful evening of Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 20 02.12.1994 itself PW-18 had clearly heard the appellant Savita stating on telephone "Aaj Raat ko kam ho jana chahiye".It was argued that photographs Ex. PW-17/A and Ex. PW-17/B clearly showed that the stab wounds and the manner in which Manoj's body was lying pointed to a pre-planned attack.If this was compared with Ex. PW-35/C the un-scaled map and if one kept in mind that the cuts in the towel, which was seized, corresponded with the stab wounds even on the deceased's neck and shoulders, there were strong and irrefutable circumstantial evidence pointing out to pre-mediated and calculated attack upon Manoj and not an assault at the spur of moment by alleging robbery, as stated by the appellant Savita.Furthermore, stated learned APP that a khase (thick covering used while sleeping) entangled between the legs of the deceased was an additional factor that pointed out to a homicidal attack on a sleeping Manoj and not to his being dragged to the outer room and then attack, as alleged by Savita.It was next argued that pursuant to the statements of the swami, Savita's premises were searched, and seizure of Ex. PW-37/E-1 to E-28 and Ex. PW-39/B, letters addressed by him (the swami) to her, were made.These letters did not show an ordinary guru- shishya relationship, but that the swami had a deep and earthly emotional attachment and love for Savita, which he used to express unrestrainedly.The testimony of PW-31 established that the said letter was handed over to him, by the swami, with specific instructions to deliver it to PW-21 (from whose premises ultimately the letter was recovered).Although PW-21 spoke about recovery and seizure of the envelope, she clearly mentioned about a letter; PW-45 deposed that PW- 37/R was recovered from that envelop.Therefore, all the material, connecting PW-37/R with the swami, had, in substance been put to the Appellant Savita; the error in posing a wrong query that the letter had been recovered from her premises, in no manner caused her prejudice.I. The incident of 15.11.1994The first circumstance put forward by the prosecution in this case was the incident of 15.11.1994 in which an attempt was made on the life of Manoj.The prosecution had alleged that Manoj, while on the way to Connaught Place, was shot at and had sustained injuries.This witness stated that PW-15 had mentioned about the incident.Yet, PW-15 does not mention having told PW-35 about the previous attack on Manoj, in his deposition.PW-3 sought to build on the prosecution story by stating that Savita was reluctant to hand over Manoj's clothes - a statement clearly contradicted by the documentary evidence, as well as PW-35, who does not mention any such obstruction, in his testimony.The Court, therefore, holds that the trial court fell into error in considering the first information report and the omission by Savita to report the previous incident, as an incriminating suspicious circumstance against her.The attack on Manoj and prosecution evidence that Savita's description was falseThe prosecution had relied on Ex. PW-35/C, a sketch prepared by PW-35, who had reached the spot soon after the occurrence.In addition, the prosecution relied on a scaled sketch, drawn on 04.01.1995, by the draftsman, Balbir Singh.This map sets out the various points in detail, pinpointing the topography of the first floor of the premises in question, the different rooms, the point where the attack took place, where the various furniture pieces were kept, etc. These two documents, as well as photographs, proved by PW-17, and the Crl.Great emphasis was given to the statement of PW-15 - he had deposed that when Savita called him out, saying "Pitaji upar aao, Dekho na inko kya ho gaya" after the attack, he rushed to the first floor, which was locked from outside.The evidence of PW-1 and PW-15 indicates that the ground floor of the premises were occupied by the latter (PW-15's) family; PW-1, PW-3, deceased Manoj and Savita lived on the first floor.PW-1 and PW-3, resided at that time in Agra, where PW-3 was posted on duty.This detailed scaled sketch contains particulars such as the precise points where the furniture was placed, where the assailants entered from and went to, where the attack took place, and the jewellery was looted.There is of course a reference to another outer door, in PW-15's deposition.However, he also admitted that the first floor could be accessed from the main ground floor staircase.PW-15 stated that the wooden outer door on the first floor was 3 feet high, and that a wall abuts that gate, which can be jumped by anyone.His evidence also is that the entry for the first and second floor, from the street level, is through a common door, and a common staircase.The evidence discussed about the first floor topography of the premises, though lengthy, is to show that the prosecution did not allege any specific route alleged to have been used by Manoj's assailants on the fateful day.No photographs of the premises, or the stairs, have been placed on record.No clear cut plan showing how the assailants entered, according to the prosecution, and how Savita facilitated the attack has been argued.The prosecution apparently did not argue about the location of the body, and the nature of injuries found on it, to submit that the attack was a preplanned and calculated one (as is argued here, based on the cuts found on the neck, the towel used to staunch the blood, the pillow, and also the location of the khes, on Manoj).The Trial court also did not put the relevant queries, as regards these circumstances.This witness also stated that he too harboured some suspicions about Savita's involvement.However, he was confronted with his previous statement, recorded by the police, on 25.12.1994, where no such suspicion had been recorded.As regards PW-15, though he deposed in his examination-in-chief, about Savita's alleged unnatural behaviour and suspicions about her involvement, he was confronted with the previous statement made to the police, where such allegations had been noted.They also deposed that the swami had attended the death ceremony of Manoj, and was also there when his asthi were consigned to the Holy Ganges.These witnesses also deposed having gone to his Ashram at Hardwar, with Savita, and that she spent a long time talking to him, and even remained closeted alone with him.Further, the prosecution case was that the swami had met Savita on 30.11.1994, in the evening, and tried Crl.PW-18 deposed that when Manoj and his sister were watching television on the night of 02.12.1994, Savita was on the phone, distinctly saying that "Aj raat ko kaam ho jana chahiye" to someone.61. PW-1 was, in her cross-examination confronted with her previous statements, where she had not mentioned about the swami frequently trying to talk to Savita on telephone, or that the family had gone to Hardwar, and stayed there, after Manoj's death, for immersing his ashes.She was also confronted with her previous statement, where it was not mentioned that Savita and the swami were closeted together for some time, by themselves, when in Hardwar.In the first three statements, he did not mention about the swami spending a lot of time, talking to Savita at Rishikesh; he was confronted with these, when he deposed in Court.Likewise, in the first three statements, there was no mention that the swami suggested that money had to be given or spent, to save Savita, who was then allegedly suspected by the police, soon after Manoj's death.This allegation was recorded for the first time, in the last statement made to the police on 01.08.1995; the witness was confronted with his previous statements.PW-3, however, has not mentioned about any telephonic conversations between Savita and the swami.This witness also stated that he had mentioned this to other family members; however, PW-1 and PW-15 or even PW-3 do not corroborate his testimony, on this score.It was argued, in addition to the evidence discussed above, that a cumulative reading of the testimonies of PW-16, PW-13, PW-30, PW-31 and PW-34 (though some of them had been declared hostile, and cross-examined by the prosecution) revealed that soon before the incident of 02/03.12.1994, the swami and Savita had met, in house of PW-34, (where they were normally in the habit of holding trysts and meetings, on a one to one basis) and that PW-13 was asked by the swami not to reveal this if questioned by the police.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 3463. PW-16 had deposed that Savita returned late from school, around 4:30 PM, (where she used to work) and told her that she had visited PW-20, a colleague.She further deposed that when PW-20 was asked about this, after Manoj's death, she stated that Savita had never visited her (PW-20's) place.As opposed to this, PW-20, in her deposition, admitted that Savita was a colleague, and had not visited her.She also stated that no one asked or verified this fact form her at the time of performance of the death rites of Manoj, when she had visited to condole with Savita.PW-13 Ramesh Kumar deposed about his acquaintanceship with the swami and that on 06.09.1995 the swami asked him to reach Rishikesh, which he did the next day.The swami, whom PW-13 met in his Ashram, asked him (PW-13) to help his follower who was in trouble and that one driver, namely, Makhan Singh was blackmailing his follower.The swami also asked PW-13 to help him (the swami) and tell the police, in case of any inquiry by them, that he had visited PW-13 on 30.11.1994, at 26/14, East Patel Nagar, which was factually incorrect.PW-33 was cited as a witness; the prosecution sought permission to cross-examine her, which was granted.She used to live in Tagore Garden; she denied the suggestion that frequently, the swami and Savita used to meet each other, and that at times, Savita used to stay overnight in her place, with the swami.She was confronted with her previous statement, made to the police, to the contrary.She was cited as a witness, because in the previous statement recorded to the police, she had allegedly stated that Savita had visited her place (PW-34's) place and met the swami.She was confronted with this statement, which she denied; She also denied having told the police, in any previous statement that Savita used to meet the swami at times, in a third floor room, in the witnesses's house, which was kept aside for the swami's room.She confirmed about her knowing Raj Kumar, who had been accused for the offence of attempted murder, but was acquitted of the charge, in the impugned judgment.PW-20 categorically denied having conversed with anyone in Savita's family, including PW-16, although the latter stated that she had talked with her, and obtained the information about Savita not visiting her.So far as the clandestine meetings on 30.11.1994 or 01.12.1994, the two eyewitnesses - alleged to have seen these, and have first- hand knowledge of the incident, are concerned, -turned hostile.This circumstance is pressed as Crl.However, those two witnesses have not supported the prosecution story at all.They are also not witnesses to any other proven circumstances.Also, the prosecution has not brought on record any objective evidence or deposition showing that the swami was in Delhi, and in the vicinity of the premises, where the offence occurred, at around 30.11.1994 and for the next few days.The testimony of PW-13 no doubt results in some suspicion about the swami, and his relationship with Savita.However, that alone, in the absence of any evidence to corroborate the Section 161 statements of PW-33 or PW-34 or lead the Court to take into account such statements, and discard as untrue their sworn testimony before the Court, to the contrary.It would now be necessary to examine the letters recovered from Savita, being Ex. PW-37/E-1 to E-28 and Ex. PW-39/B. The first document is a 28 page long letter, addressed by the swami to Savita.Both letters are written with intensity, and contain advise to Savita, about the transience of life, immortality of the soul, inevitability of destiny and fickleness of the mind, which is attached to objects, contexts and people.The swami emphasized that a guru is a spiritual guide, whose objective is to help and educate the disciple to achieve peace and understanding.The swami mentions about previous saints, who were able to achieve what they set out to acquire, despite several barriers and obstacles put in their paths.Exhibiting at times a depth of feeling and intensity that is normally not seen between a guru and shishya, the letters do not show anything incriminating against Savita and the Swami.PW-37 mentioned, in his deposition, that these letters were seized pursuant to Savita's disclosure statement.These letters, in the opinion of the Court only show that the swami felt very concerned about the mental unhappiness, and trauma, which Savita apparently experienced, and which he tried to minimize with the help of his advice (to her).The next letter is Ex. PW-37/R. The prosecution relied heavily on this, to say that Savita and the swami had an intimate and illicit relationship, which, taken together with several trysts between each other, constituted a motive for conspiracy and murder of Manoj.PW-21, Rama Bajaj, deposed that sometime in 1995, one Swami, Gajanand, connected with her guru, (the Appellant-swami in this case) had handed over an closed envelop to her and asked it to be handed over to Savita.This envelop was taken, subsequently by the police, who went outside, and later returned, asked her to sign, in acknowledgement of handing over the envelope.She therefore, proved the memo Ex. PW-21/A, the seizure memo in respect of the Crl.PW-45 Rajbir, the last IO in the case, deposed having recovered Ex. PW-37/R under memo Ex. PW-21/A. Now, Ex. PW-21/A mentions an envelope, as well as some letter in it.However, it does not identify the letter as a two page document, such as Ex. PW-37/R. In her evidence, PW-21 merely stated that the envelope was recovered from her possession; she did not say that Ex. PW-37/R was taken out of it; she does not also identify it.Her signatures are not found on Ex. PW-37/R. To compound these complications, the Trial Court's question to Savita, under Section 313, was that Ex. PW-37/R was recovered on 13.09.1995 from her possession.The swami's statement under Section 313 was, however, that Ex. PW-37/R was forcibly procured from him, after his arrest.The prosecution alleged - through PW-26 that pursuant to authorization from the DCP, a police party went to Rishikesh, and on the basis of the authorization, kept a surveillance over the conversations from the swami's end, over telephone.According to the prosecution, and deposition of PW-26 jewellery is alleged to have been recovered from the premises of the swami, Ravi Chauhan and Asutosh.It is alleged that pursuant to statement of Ravi Chauhan, eight rings were recovered from E-396, First floor, JJ Colony, Inder Puri, New Delhi through Memo Ex. PW26/C. Ashutosh was arrested at the pointing out of Ravi Chauhan and his disclosure statement Ex. PW26/D led to recovery of six pairs of ear tops, one pair of ear rings, one pair of jhumka weighing 46 gms by Memo Ex. PW26/E. PW27 Const.It is alleged that when the police party visited and questioned the swami, who opened a steel almirah and took out a red coloured potli containing eight gold bangles, two gold karas, one gold chain, one mangal sutra and a necklace, which were taken into possession by Memo Ex. PW37/N.PW36 Shri Paramjit Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts deposed that on 04.11.1995 an application for the TIP of the case property was marked to him and the TIP was fixed for 10.11.1995 by his endorsement Ex.PW36/C. He gave certificate regarding the correctness of the proceedings was given to the IO by endorsement Ex.PW-36/E.76. PW-3 claimed to have purchased the jewellery.He testified that jewellery was bought for Savita, from R.R. Jewllers.The witness PW-3 however, is general and unspecific in his evidence on this aspect.The second aspect is that he states that Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 41 particulars about the jewellery were obtained from Savita.This contradicts the prosecution story about Savita's conduct.The second aspect is that PW-1, Manoj's mother, expressed unawareness of the jewellery and particulars looted.The latter mentioned that jewellery was purchased from R.R. Jewellers.However, no evidence of that fact was led; no receipt or document was placed on the record, and the prosecution also did not examine anyone from R.R. Jewellers.The prosecution's failure to produce it, also improbabilizes the recovery and identification of the jewellery produced in Court, and relied as another incriminating circumstance.77. PW-26 and PW-37 deposed having witnessed recovery of one knife each upon the disclosure statements of Asutosh and the swami.These weapons were sent for forensic examination; however, the report did not reveal anything incriminating against either appellant.These weapons were also recovered pursuant to disclosure statements, and witnessed only by the police.Now, even though the law is clear that there is no invariable rule that recoveries should be testified by independent witnesses, what is noteworthy in this case is that the investigation had reached a dead end, and clues were gathered 10 months later.The places where recoveries of weapons effected, were not isolated.It was possible for the prosecution, by way of precaution and as a prudent measure, to associate members of the public, as witnesses to these recoveries.Not doing so has undermined the prosecution.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 42 Further, it is not as if the swami and Asutosh had any previous history of violence or crime, to keep weapons such as knives; the evidence also does not disclose any other reason for them to keep these weapons, especially if they had committed the offence.Involvement of Ravi Chauhan and AsutoshThe earlier discussion of prosecution evidence has shown that apart from the disclosure statement of the swami, and the alleged recovery of articles, there is nothing to connect these two accused appellants, with the crime.For them to be involved on account of statements made by the swami, they are to be admissible.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,774,957 |
PTFL was engaged in the business of trading and exporting of textile fabrics.It is the case of the petitioner that Aditya Modi and her husband Rajiv Modi were also Directors of PTFL.She had a savings bank account No. 2679 with State Bank of India (SBI), Greater Kailash Part-II Branch, New Delhi.It is her case that used to keep some signed blank cheques with her husband at the head office of PTFL for dealing with financial emergencies.No. 345/2008 Page 1 of 15Reuben Solomon was the Managing Director of Butedean Ltd. and Codev Textiles Ltd. both located at Manchester in England, engaged in the business of trading and import of textile fabrics.Reuben Solomon was a business associate of PTFL and it was on his recommendation that Mukesh Gupta, Respondent No.2 was made a Director of PTFL.She consequently surrendered her cheque book.She also informed the SBI by the said letter that she was unaware of the fate of two cheque Nos. 500703 and 500707 which were not traceable.On 9th June 1999 she also sent a Crl.No. 345/2008 Page 2 of 15 written communication to the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Kalkaji Police Station for registering a complaint about the missing cheques.She also enclosed with the said complaint a copy of her letter dated 2nd June 2009 to the SBI closing her savings account.No. 345/2008 Page 2 of 15On 3rd December 1999 Mona Modi received a letter from the GK Branch of the SBI informing her that a cheque No.500707 for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs had been received through Deutsche Bank Ltd. for clearance and that it had been returned by the SBI with the noting "account since closed".It was claimed in the said notice that the cheque had been issued in the sum of Rs. 40 lakhs towards the discharge of liability of the PTFL towards Butedean Ltd. and Codev Textiles.Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances these two petitions are disposed of by directing as under:(a) The learned ACMM New Delhi will now place both the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 522/2003 and Criminal Complaint Case No. 391/1 of 2004 titled "Reuben Solomon v. Parakram Technofab Ltd." before the same MM.(c) The trial if any in FIR No. 522/2003 should be completed within six months thereafter, or on or before 1st October, 2008 whichever is later.Likewise there is merit in the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the statement made by Mona Modi to the police that she had kept some blank cheques signed in her husbands office for meeting financial emergencies has been wrongly read as exigencies by the learned MM.She clearly mentions that the said two cheques, i.e., 500703 and 500707 were found missing and that she gave a complaint to this effect to the police and also informed the bank likewise while closing her savings account.The challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is to an order dated 8th May 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi discharging Respondent No.2 in FIR No. 522/2003 under Sections 380/464/468/471 read with 34 IPC registered at P.S: Kalkaji.The petitioner Mona Modi was for a short while the Director of Crl.No. 345/2008 Page 1 of 15 Parakram Technofab Ltd. (PTFL).The complainant was called upon to make the payment of Rs. 40 lakhs to Reuben Solomon failing which criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (NI Act) would be initiated.The said notice was replied by the lawyer of Mona Modi and her husband Rajiv Modi on 6th January 2000 stating that the said cheque had been found missing by Mona Modi at the time of closing her savings account with the SBI; that the said cheque was never issued for any amount in favour of Reuben Solomon and therefore it was obviously a stolen cheque which was Crl.No. 345/2008 Page 3 of 15 subsequently filled up and presented to the SBI.No. 345/2008 Page 3 of 15In January 2001 Reuben Solomon through his power of attorney filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 3991/1 of 2004 titled "Reuben Solomon v. Parakram Technofab Ltd. & Ors.By an order dated 31st January 2001 the learned MM summoned inter alia Mona Modi for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. By an order dated 27th October 2004 the learned MM dismissed the application filed by the accused for recalling of the summoning order.Aggrieved by the said order, Mona Modi filed Crl.M.C. No. 3033 of 2004 in this Court.This was under Sections 378/380/464/468/471 IPC read with 34 IPC.It was prayed that a direction should be issued to the PS Kalkaji to investigate the offence.Aggrieved by this Crl.No. 345/2008 Page 4 of 15 order Mukesh Gupta filed Crl.No. 4122 of 2005 in this Court.No. 345/2008 Page 4 of 15The petition by Mona Modi being Crl.No. 3033/2004 and the petition by Mukesh Gupta being Crl.This Court was informed that in FIR No. 522 of 2003 charges were yet to be framed and the trial was yet to commence.Consequently the following order was passed in both the cases:The six months period would exclude the period during which any interim order, if any, passed by the revisional court, subsists.(d) After the conclusion of the trial and the judgment in FIR No. 522/2003 further Crl.No. 345/2008 Page 5 of 15 proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 391/1 of 2004 should commence.Till then the trial in Criminal Complaint Case No. 391/1 of 2004 shall remain stayed."No. 345/2008 Page 5 of 15Accordingly the respondent Mukesh Gupta was discharged.When the latter failed to take any action, the present petition was filed.By an order dated 31st July 2008, the impugned order dated 8th May 2008 passed by the learned MM was stayed by this Court.No. 345/2008 Page 7 of 15It was submitted that the order of the learned MM was based purely on surmises and conjectures and ought to be set aside.No. 345/2008 Page 8 of 15No. 345/2008 Page 9 of 15 was wholly unbelievable.When there was no balance in the closed saving bank account clearly the accused had never any intention in making payment.The cheque was issued knowing fully well that it would be dishonoured when presented for payment.The complaint case was filed by Mona Modi only in January 2003 much after the complaint filed against her under Section 138 NI Act. This complaint was therefore malafide.The explanation for the cheque being issued in the sum of Rs. 40 lakhs was that there was a settlement between the parties and it was agreed that the amount payable would include the total of the cost of goods as well as the handling charges, godown charges, customs, damages etc.She specifically alleged that Mukesh Gupta had dishonestly removed the blank cheques from the head office and in conspiracy with the Reuben Solomon filled up the cheque in question in his own handwriting.She also enclosed the report of the handwriting expert.This report is also on record.No. 345/2008 Page 11 of 15No. 345/2008 Page 12 of 15One of the questions was "how many time blank cheques were kept in the office and how many had been used?" The answer was: "One signed blank cheque was always kept in the office.On the same being used another would be got signed from me." From this it is sought to be contended that the complainant was changing her versions from time to time.She had stated that the two blanks cheques were missing and now she stated that the one cheque was missing.It must be remembered that cheque Nos. 500703 and 500707 were missing which perhaps the complainant did not notice immediately.Thereafter, two cheques were issued.Thereafter one more signed cheque was found missing.It is possible that the complainant noticed the missing cheques only when the statement of account was seen by her.Nothing much therefore turns on these replies.In any event a clearer picture about the veracity of these statements can emerge only after evidence is led.There was another question asked to her why she would sign cheques twice.She replied that she was not confident of her signature and therefore on the advice of her husband she would sign twice on the cheque.No. 345/2008 Page 13 of 15 signed in the presence of his agent once, when in fact a perusal of the dishonoured cheque shows that it was signed by her twice.It appears to this Court that these issues ought not to be decided at the stage of charge as evidence would have to be led to determine the truth of either of these rival contentions.The unanswered questions emerging from a perusal of the record at this stage cannot result in the accused being discharged.The appropriate course would be for the trial court to postpone answering the questions to the stage after the conclusion of evidence.In the considered view of this Court, the materials on record at this stage are sufficient to draw a strong suspicion against the respondent for commission of the offence and therefore the case should proceed against him by framing charges for the offences as stated in the complaint.No. 345/2008 Page 13 of 15Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8th May 2008 passed by the learned MM is hereby set aside.It is held that the case of grave suspicion is made out against Mukesh Gupta for the offence under Sections 380, 464, 467, 471 read with 34 IPC.The matter will now be placed before the learned MM for framing of charges.In the light of the order passed by this Court on 21st February 2008 in Crl.No. 3033/2004 and 4122 of 2005 it is requested that the trial court should make every endeavour to conclude the trial and pass final orders in the case arising out of FIR No. 522/2003 within a period of one year and Crl.No. 345/2008 Page 14 of 15The petition stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.The trial court record be returned forthwith together with a certified copy of this order.The case will now be listed before the concerned trial court on 3rd August 2009 for further proceedings.The stay granted by the order dated 31st July 2008 by this Court stands vacated and the application stands disposed of.S.MURALIDHAR, J July 6, 2009 ak Crl.No. 345/2008 Page 15 of 15No. 345/2008 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,957,756 |
Since the writ petitioner in W.P.No.27620 of 2003 and the detenu in H.C.P.No.932 of 2006 are one and the same, viz., Mr.R.Chandra Prakash Gajurel and the contentions in the writ petition and the habeas corpus petition are with regard to the right of the writ petitioner/detenu conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, both the matters are taken up for joint hearing.The admitted facts of the case of the writ petitioner are that he was detained by the Senior Immigration Officer, Chennai Airport on the intervening night of 19.8.2003 on the ground that he attempted to travel out of India to London with a forged passport.Thereafter, he was handed over to the third respondent in the writ petition on 21.8.2003, who registered a case against the writ petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 12(1)(b)(d) and (e) of the Indian Passport Act. The said case was concededly tried in C.C.No.736 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the writ petitioner was convicted by order dated 12.6.2006 for the above-said offences, and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.The writ petitioner was however released on 13.6.2006, after giving set off, the period of remand.In the meanwhile, based on a representation made by the writ petitioner to the Registrar, High Court, Madras through the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Chennai, stating that he came to know that Prisoner on Transit Warrant, claimed as P.T. Warrant, was issued by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling District, West Bengal and apprehending that in execution of the said warrant he might be sent to West Bengal, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.8.2004 made in W.P.No.27620 of 2003 held as follows:"..... 3.. On going through the representation of the petitioner dated 11.8.2004 and in the light of the apprehension expressed therein, there shall be an order of stay of execution of P.T. Warrant issued by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling District, West Bengal in Cr.No.753 of 2004 (FIR No.62 of 2004)."4.The Inspector of Police, Bakthi Nagar Police Station, New Jalpaikuri P.S., West Bengal State.[vsant 8112]2. H.C.P.No.932 of 2006 is filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu, Chandra Prakash Gajurel, son of Nageswar Gajurel before the Court and set him at liberty.When the petitioner was released on 18.9.2006 from the Central Prison, Chennai, he was rearrested based on the arrest warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri and thereafter, produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for issue of transit warrant.On 18.9.2006, when the writ petitioner/detenu was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, objections were made not to issue transit warrant on the grounds that:i.arrest warrant has no counter signature of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the procedure contemplated under Sections 78 to 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are violated; and ii.arrest memo has no signatures of arrestee and witnesses; the details of arrest not disclosed to the arrestee; the detenu not allowed to contact family members and lawyers and therefore, the directions of the Apex Court in D.K.Basu case were not followed.On the same day, viz., 18.9.2006, a Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.932 of 2006 was also moved before this Court seeking issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu, Chandra Prakash Gajurel, son of Nageswar Gajurel before the Court and set him at liberty.The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.9.2006, after narrating the facts relating to both writ petition and Habeas Corpus petition referred to above, gave liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and permitted the learned Public Prosecutor to raise objections if any before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.Accordingly, the writ petitioner/detenu moved an application in Crl.M.P.No.3094 of 2006 under section 437 Cr.P.C. to release the writ petitioner as he is not confined in any crime number.But the said application was objected to by the State on the ground that the petitioner was arrested under a warrant duly issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri with reference to Crime No.182 of 2004 on the file of the Bakthinagar Police Station for the offences under Section 121, 121(A), 122, 123 and 124(A) IPC, but not on P.T. Warrant.As there was a dispute as to the very existence of P.T. Warrant, we sent for the relevant records from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.After perusal of the said records, we find that the third respondent in H.C.P., viz., the Inspector of Police, Bakthi Nagar Police Station, new Jalpaiguri Police Station, West Bengal State by his representation dated 18.9.2006 made before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri issued warrant of arrest on 16.9.2006 to arrest the writ petitioner/detenu from Chennai and on 18.9.2006, the writ petitioner/detenu was arrested near Central Prison, Chennai and that since Jalpaiguri is located at north of West Bengal at a distance of about 2300 k.m., approximately, the third respondent in the H.C.P. prayed for the issue of transit warrant.On 19.9.2006, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.But, in the meantime, as the petitioner moved H.C.P. this Court, by order dated 19.9.2006, gave liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.M.P.3094 of 2006 who, by order dated 21.9.2006, dismissed the said application.The relevant portion of the order dated 21.9.2006 reads as follows:The petitioner is permitted to make proper application, if the same is permissible.Now, at present, this petition is filed not to extend the confinement and to release the petitioner on bail.As far as the bail is concerned, in the counter filed in H.C.P.No.932/2006, it is stated that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner u/s.141, 121(A), 122, 123, 124(A) IPC in Bakthinagar Police Station in Cr.No.182/2004 and charge sheet has been filed on 19.8.2004 showing the petitioner name and others as absconding with a prayer to issue warrant of arrest.Inasmuch as the Inspector of Police placed warrant of arrest duly issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, and since Jalpaiguri is approximately 2300 Kms.away from Chennai, he needed Transit Warrant from this Court.The offences mentioned in the above Crime No. are very serious and grave in nature and these offences, i.e. U/s.121, 121(A), 122, 123, 124(A) IPC are exclusively triable by Sessions Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to release the petitioner on bail.We have given our careful considerations to the submissions of all sides.In view of the specific stand taken by the Union of India that there is no request for extradition under section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1962 and the criminal case in C.C.No.736 of 2004 has also ended in conviction and the sentence imposed thereunder was also undergone, we do not see any merit to issue a writ of Mandamus as prayed for and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits and for want of legal contentions, but with an observation that if and when any request is made for extradition, it goes without saying that the first respondent shall adhere to the procedure under the Extradition Act, 1962 and pass appropriate orders.With regard to HCP, it is settled law that when a warrant is pending against a person, it may not be proper for this Court to entertain a writ of habeas corpus.In the instant case, the writ petitioner/detenu was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a competent Court, namely, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri and therefore it is not open for the writ petitioner/detenu to challenge such detention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The question of granting habeas corpus would arise only in the case of illegal detention or confinement where a detenu is entitled to set at free for want of legal jurisdiction for such detention or in confinement, or the detention appears to be in violation of procedure established by law, of course, such illegality includes the illegality relating to arrest also.Since we are convinced that it may not be proper for us either to issue a writ as prayed for in H.C.P. or to recall the warrant issued by the competent Court by the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which could be done only by a competent jurisdictional Court, without expressing any opinion in the matter, we give liberty to petitioner to make such request before the Court concerned, which has got jurisdiction over the third respondent in the H.C.P., who arrested the writ petitioner/detenu on 18.9.2006 and seeks a Transit Warrant, as the third respondent in the H.C.P. had not chosen to appear before us.Before concluding, with respect to the left out contention, namely, the third respondent in H.C.P. ought not to have arrested the writ petitioner/detenu on 18.9.2006 when an order of stay granted by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.8.2004 staying the P.T.warrrant was in force, as it is brought to our notice by the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor that the detenu was arrested not pursuant to the P.T. Warrant, but was arrested based on the warrant issued by the competent jurisdictional Court in some other case, the same stands rejected.In the result,(i)the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits with the above observations.(ii)The habeas corpus petition is closed with the above observations.(iii)There is no order as to costs.Sasi/na To1.TheUnion of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep.By its Secretary to Govt., Home Dept., New Delhi.2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,167,249 |
This bail application is being disposed of as per the order dated 04.04.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant,Raju, who is involved in Case Crime No. 631 of 2018, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.Co-accuseds, Shekhar and Dayachand, have been granted bail by this Court on 26.09.2018 and 12.10.2018 in Criminal Misc.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.Order Date :- 17.4.2020 Rohit
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,685,266 |
Nothing is to be recovered from the applicants.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime number, therefore they are being decided by this common order.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to crime No.167/2015 registered at Police Station Chinore District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 294, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324. 325,326 and 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality who have no criminal past alleged against them.Initially, the case was not registered for the offence under Section 326 of IPC but thereafter such offence was added.Except of offence under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC remaining offences are bailable.The victim Ravindra sustained fracture in 3-4 bones, however those fractures were found below, the contused wounds i.e. the wounds caused by hard and blunt object, hence the offence under Section 325 of IPC may constitute for such fractures, which is bailable.Similarly, the victim Bhagwan sustained one incised wound on his right parietal region on the head but no consequential fracture was found whereas he sustained incised wound on his right forearm and fracture of right ulna was also found, however, it was caused by the co-accused Gajendra Singh.Applicants were not aware that the co-C.No.1318/2016 & M.Cr.C.No.1866/2016 accused would assault in such a manner.However, the applicants assure that they will cooperate in the investigation.Consequently, they pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, these applications under Section 438, Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-five Thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.This 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.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,168,828 |
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are the accused and they are facing criminal trial under Section 306 of IPC.Questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was over and C.M.P.No.229 of 2015 has been filed for recalling P.W.1 to confine some question in respect of filing of complaint before the Superintendent of Police and writ petition before this High Court of Judicature for transferring the investigation to CBCID, but the Trial Court without considering the same, has dismissed the petition.Hence this petition for setting aside the impugned order.He further submitted that the second complaint is only status of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He also filed a detailed counter and prayed for dismissal of the petition.On that basis a case in Crime No.109 of 2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., has been registered and the Inspector of Police continued the investigation and altered the section of law to 306 IPC.The petitioners were arrested on 24.09.2010 and remanded to judicial custody.But they were enlarged on bail.Subsequently, the defacto complainant filed petition for transfer of investigation and it was dismissed.Now, charges were framed and prosecution evidence over.In that they assigned the reason which is as follows:......The copy of the petition filed by him before Superintendent of Police, Salem has been sent for by the accused.The accused has marked the (Secondary evidence) copy of the petition given by PW1 before Superintendent of Police, Salem.So they want to cross examine PW1 with regard to that complaint.6.Hence they humbly pray that P.W1 may be permitted to be recalled for the purpose of further cross examination and thus justice be rendered.but, admittedly the case has been registered only on the basis of the complaint given by the brother of the deceased one Arul Nathan under Section 174 Cr.P.C. So, the complaint given to the Superintendent of Police is only the status of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and it was not termed as complaint.7.In such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no necessity to confronting the statement, second complaint given to the Superintendent of Police.Furthermore, filing of petition for transfer has already been dismissed.8.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem, in C.M.P.No.229 of 2015 dated 17.11.2015 in S.C.No.259 of 2012 is confirmed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.04.03.2016priIndex: Yes/ NoInternet: Yes/ NoTo1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID Central Crime Branch, Salem.(Crime No.109/2010)2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.R.MALA,J.O.P.No.1775 of 2016AndCrl.M.P.No.869 of 2016 04.03.2016
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,689,802 |
S.K. Garg, the authorities have decided to depanel his name from the bank's panel of Advocates."M.C. 717/2012 Page 5 of 8P.C. against the order dated 19.11.2011 of ASJ whereby the revision petition filed by respondent against the order dated 19.07.2011 of MM dismissing his complaint under section 500 IPC, was allowed.The respondent was empanelled Advocate of the petitioner bank.He alleged the said circular to be defamatory and filed a complaint under section 500 IPC against H.M. Bali, Assistant General Manager of the petitioner bank.Ultimately vide order dated 19.07.201, the said complaint was dismissed by the MM.While dismissing the complaint, the MM reasoned as under:The petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order of the MM.Vide the impugned order dated 19.11.2011, the ASJ set aside the order dated 19.07.2011 of the MM and remanded the case back to him observing as under:Since no effort was made to tell the names of the officers of the then authorities who took the decision to de-panelize the complainant- petitioner and also because the record which Crl.Thereafter, the Trial Court to dispose of the complaint afresh."The petitioner bank challenged the said order of ASJ passed in the revision petition.At the relevant time Mr. H.M. Bali was posted as Assistant General Manager of the petitioner bank, when the bank issued the circular dated 06.12.2008 to all its branches.The allegations of the complainant/ respondent were that Mr. Bali and other officers of the bank had conspired to depanel him without there being anything against him and that the circular dated 06.12.2008 for depanelment was derogatory and defamatory.The said circular dated 06.12.2008, which was issued by the petitioner to its branches read thus:Led by these perceptions, he remanded the case back to the MM with the direction to direct the petitioner bank for the production of the record depicting the names of the officers responsible for taking the decision of depanelment and also to produce the record which formed the basis of their decision.He also directed the Magistrate to resort to all the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure production of such record.In addition, the ASJ has also erred gravely in proceeding to decide the criminal revision petition even without notice to the petitioner bank.This was the requirement of section 399 read with section 401(2) of Cr.P.C. that no order under a revision petition could be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he is afforded an opportunity of hearing either personally or by Crl.M.C. 717/2012 Page 7 of 8 pleader in his own defence.M.C. 717/2012 Page 6 of 8M.C. 717/2012 Page 7 of 8The petition disposed accordingly.M.L. MEHTA, J.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,416,925 |
The complainant who is an employee as a teacher under the Zila Parishad, Yeotmal, was posted to village Arjuna.He used to come from Yeotmal every day to the place of his duty, and therefore, he decided to purchase a house from the accused.So a talk in that respect took place between him and the accused.One Madse Guruii (P. W. 2), who was also a teacher, was present during the course of these negotiations.The accused agreed to sell his house for Rupees l,500/-.The complainant had made a specific enquiry from the accused as to Whether the said house was either mortgaged or had anv other encumbrances.The accused made a clear statement to the complainant that the house was free from all encumbrances and that he could purchase it safely.The complainant paid to the accused an amount of Rs. 1,500/- and the sale-deed was duly executed and registered.The accused also delivered possession of the said house to the complainant.Complainant Chintaman (P. W. 1) has specifically stated in his evidence that the talk took place between him and the accused.At that time the complainant, Madse Guruii and accused were present there.The agreement was settled at Rs. 1,500/-.He then enquired from the accused if there were encumbrances over the house, or whether it was mortgaged or sold to anyone and the accused told him that the house was free from all encumbrances and that it was neither sold nor mortgaged to anyone.He further stated that believing on this representation of the accused he did not make any further enquiries in this behalf and paid the amount.In the month of October 1968 the complainant came to know that a proclamation of sale was affixed to the property proclaiming that it would be sold for recovery of the dues of Co-operative Thrift Society, Yeotmal.The complainant had ultimately to pay the amount.Prior to the payment of the amount, the complainant approached the accused and enquired about the previous dealings and also informed him that the house was going to be auctioned.The accused, however, remained indifferent and stated that the complainant being a purchaser of the property is responsible for the payment of the mortagage dues to the Society.He refused to talk to the complainant and asked the complainant to leave his house.Because the complainant had already purchased the house he thought it expedient to protect his interest, and therefore, ultimately paid the loan of Rs. 275/- on 5-2-1969 and got the property released.In this view of the matter, as the complainant was cheated by the accused the present complaint was filed against the accused person.The accused admitted that he had agreed to sell his house to the complainant.He further admits the execution of the sale-deed.He further admits that in the year 1962 he had obtained a loan from the Co-operative Thrift Society.Yeotmal and that he had mortgaged this house with the said Society.It is also admitted by him that on the day the house was sold by him to the complainant the loan was not repaid and the mortgage was in existence.However, it is stated by him that he had communicated this fact to the complainant orally and that knowing full well about the said mortagage the complainant agreed to purchase the house.According to the accused, the said house was in fact sold for Rs. 1,732/-, but the complainant paid him an amount of Rs. 1,500/- only after deducting an amount of Rs. 232/- on account of this loan.The accused denied that he has ever suppressed or concealed the fact that the house property was already mortagaged.He also examined one Ganesh Baliram in his defence.After appreciating the evidence on record the Judicial Magistrate.First Class, Yeotmal came to the conclusion that the accused has made a positive statement that the house was free from encumbrances and acting on this representation the complainant purchased this house.Against this order of conviction and sentence an appeal was filed by the accused and the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal vide his order dated 6-7-1970 allowed the appeal set aside the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, as well as the Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused namely the evidence of D. W. 1 Ganesh.In this view of the matter the appeal filed by the accused was allowed.Against this order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.Subsequently when a proclamation was issued by the society for attaching the property and selling it in auction, he for the first time came to know about this mortgage.At that time also he approached the accused but the accused flatly denied his responsibility and on the contrary refused to talk to him.Ultimately for the protection of his property he had to pay the amount of Rupees 275/- to the Society.This version of the complainant is duly corroborated by Vishwanath (C. W. 2), who is also a teacher.This witness has specifically stated that in the month of June 1968 on 2nd or 3rd a talk took place at his residence, about the purchase of this house between the complainant and the accused.The suggestions in this behalf were specifically denied by both the witnesses.For establishing his own case the accused examined D. W. 1 Ganesh Baliram, who had also purchased a plot along with the built house from the accused.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,969,075 |
Incised wound, sharp margin, transverse "x "x bone deep above left hybrlow.Incised sound, sharp margin longitudinal 1" x "x muscle deep left posterior axillery border below shoulder.Incised wound, sharp margin transverse 3"x "x bone deep right posterior parietal region.Abrasion left elbow and left knee.After dissection, left lungs and left ventricle of heart were found punctured.The injury maybe caused by both side of sharp, pointed and hard substance like knife, dagger, etc. He opined that the cause of death is due shock and haemorrhage due to injuries mentioned in P.M. report ante mortem and homicidal in nature.P.W. 15 is the investigating officer in the instant case.He deposed that on 26.04.2008 he was O.C. of Raghunathpur P.S. On the basis of telephonic information he went to the place of occurrence.He received written complaint from P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence.On receiving the complaint he endorsed it marked as exbt.1/1 and sent it to Raghunathpur P.S. for starting a case.During investigation he seized iron sword from the possession of accused Sarbajit Katka under a seizure list marked as exbt.He seized iron shabal from the 9 possession of Sanjit Katka marked as exbt.Both the weapons were blood stained.He sent the dead body for postmortem examination.He proved the dead body challan marked as exbt.Incised wound, sharp margin, longitudinal, "x "xthoracic cavity lateral to mid line on left side at the level of nipple.Incised wound, sharp margin, longitudinal, 1"x "xthoracic cavity 2" lateral and 1" below left nipple.He recorded the statement of witnesses.He made arrangement for recording of statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He collected postmortem report from Purulia Sadar hospital marked as exbt.12 and submitted charge-sheet.In cross-examination he stated that he collected medical papers of accused Sanjit, Sachin, Sarbajit marked as exbt. 'B' series.He deposed that he asked aforesaid accused persons who received injuries if they were willing to submit FIR or not but they denied to submit written complaint.He, however, did not send the offending weapons to F.S.L.From the aforesaid evidence it appears that there was a dispute between the victim, Md. Sahir and the appellants and others over digging of earth from a nearby 'bandh'.Over such issue on the next day i.e. on 26.4.2008 around at 8.00 A.M. while the victim was washing his face at the tubewell in front of his house, the appellants abused him.An altercation occurred.In the course of altercation, the appellant Sarbajit brought out a sword and assaulted the victim on the chest, abdomen and neck.Appellant Sanjit assaulted the victim with a shabal on the head.It is alleged that the appellants Sachin and Surojit had embraced the victim at the time of occurrence.It is alleged female accused persons (who were acquitted) had extorted the male accused persons to kill the victim.The trial court did not believe the accusation against the female accused persons as there 10 was contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in that regard and had acquitted them.It has been argued that there is dichotomy in the manner of assault upon the victim as narrated by P.W.1, the de facto complaint and other witnesses.While P.W. 1 stated that Sarbajit hit the victim with a 'shabal' and Sanjit hit with a sword, other witnesses have deposed the other way round.I am of the opinion that such contradiction with regard to the weapons used by the aforesaid appellants, as narrated by P.W.1 and the other witnesses is minor.Moreover P.W.1 himself admitted he was not an eye witness as he had come to the place of occurrence after the incident.P.W.2 is an injured eye witness and he stated that in the course of altercation appellant Sarbojit took a sword from his house and assaulted the victim.Appellant Sanjit assaulted the victim on his head with a shabal.As a result, the victim fell down on the ground.At that time Sachin embraced the victim.The other injured witness in the instant case, namely P.W.7 also deposed Sanjit assaulted the victim with a shabal while Sarbajit assaulted him with a sword.In view of the consistent version of the injured eye witnesses with regard to the specific roles of appellant Sanjit and Sarbajit is assaulting the victim, as aforesaid, I am of the opinion that minor contradiction in the version of P.W.1 with regard to the specific weapons used by said appellants does not militate against the prosecution case.Hence, I have no doubt in my mind that on the fateful day, the appellant Sarbajit had assaulted the victim with a sword on the chest, belly and neck while the appellant Sanjit hit him on the head resulting in severe bleeding injuries which caused his death.It has been argued that the said incident had occurred in the course of a free fight and the appellants and others had also suffered injuries in the course of the incident as would be evident from Ext.A and B series which had not been explained by the prosecution.Relying on these pieces of evidence, Mr. Bakshi argued that the appellants had being initially assaulted by the victim and others and, under such circumstances, they had exercised their right of private defence resulting in the death of the victim.Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the State argued that the injuries on the appellants and others were simple and that there is no evidence on record that they had suffered such injuries in the course of the aforesaid incident.A and B series is silent with regard to the history of assault or the names of the assailants.P.W.15 also deposed during cross-examination that he 12 had asked the injured accused persons to lodge first information report which they did not do.In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, I am constrained to hold that the injuries on the appellants and others which were sought to be proved through Ext.A and B series cannot be said to have been caused upon them in the course of the aforesaid incident and, therefore, failure to explain away the said injuries would not cause a dent to the prosecution case.Furthermore, I do not find either the victim Sahir or any of his family members were armed.P.W.14 is the Post Mortem Doctor.He found a number of severe injuries on the vital parts of the body of the victim viz., chest and head.The weapons of assault viz., shabal and sword was seized from the appellants Sanjit and Sarbajit respectively immediately after the occurrence.It is true that there are deficiencies in the investigation with regard to proper labelling of the seized weapons or sending them for FSL examination.However, in view of the consistent version of the eye witnesses and the prompt seizure of the weapons of assault from the place of occurrence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that on the fateful day at 8.00 A.M., appellant Sanjit had assaulted the victim with a sword on the chest, abdomen and neck and the appellant Sarbajit had hit him on the head with a shabal.Although there is evidence of some altercation, keeping in mind the nature of weapons used by the aforesaid appellants and the severity of injuries caused by them on the vital parts of the body, I have no doubt in my mind that they had shared the common intention to kill the victim.More so, I am 13 fortified to come to such conclusion as there is no evidence to show that the injuries on the appellants were caused in the course of the alleged incident.Coming to the roles of appellants Sachin and Surojit, it is alleged they had embraced the victim at the time of assault.I find that there is not even an iota of evidence that the appellant Surojit had embraced the victim.Although some of the witnesses deposed that the appellant Sachin had embraced the victim, such versions of the witnesses are contradictory to one another.It is also true that there was an altercation between the parties and even if it is accepted that the appellant Sachin had embraced the victim, it cannot be ruled out that such act on his part was to desist the victim from assaulting him and the other appellants and not on the score of sharing common intention with other appellants to cause murder of the victim.In view of the contradictory and inconsistent evidence on record with regard to the roles of appellant Sachin and Surojit in the instant case, I am of the opinion that it is difficult to come to a firm conclusion that they had shared the common intention to murder the victim unlike that of the other appellants viz., Sanjit and Sarbajit.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of appellant Sanjit and Sarbajit are upheld and that of appellant Sachin and Surojit are set aside.The appeal is partly allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,693,908 |
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 3 of 17"Summons issued to the accused received back unserved.Perusal of the record shows that the matter is pending since 01.09.2010 and since then, summons have been issued to the accused a number of times.In the circumstances, issue B/W in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount through concerned SP/DCP at all the addresses of the accused returnable on 04.07.2012."(Emphasis supplied)On 04th July, 2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued non-On Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 4 of 17 Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 17th August, 2012, respondent No.2 gave a fresh address of the petitioner namely Alphag - Epitome Projects, Golf View Corporate Towers, Sector-42, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana whereupon non-bailable warrants were issued at the above address which returned back with the report that no such person was working at the given address.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 4 of 17As regards CBI, further 793 accused persons have been declared as Proclaimed Offenders between 1st January, 2015 to 31st October, 2019 out of which only 68 Proclaimed Offenders have been arrested, properties of 21 Proclaimed Offenders have been attached and prosecution has been launched against 2 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 14 of 17 Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 Proclaimed Offenders under Section 174A IPC.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 14 of 17Mr. Rathi submitted his research papers on 07th May, 2014 along with the draft of the suggested guidelines.The Registry shall send the digitalized copy of entire record to the learned Amici Curiae within one week.The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.27/2013 dated 22nd January, 2013, PS Amar Colony under Section 174A IPC.Respondent No.2 filed an application dated 06th January, 2011 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in which it was stated that the petitioner had shifted from address given in the complaint to the new address, namely Apartment No.601, Block No.4, Kailash Dham Apartments, Sector-51, Noida, U.P. whereupon the Court issued fresh summons at the above address which returned unserved with the report that the flat was lying vacant since last two years.Respondent No.2 filed another application dated 13th October, 2011 in which the new address of the petitioner was given as Flat No.1012, Ashadeep Apartment, Oshiwara, Mumbai whereupon the Court issued the fresh summons at the aforesaid address which returned unserved with the remarks that the address was incomplete.The bailable warrants issued to the petitioner returned with the report that there was no company of the given name at 1007, New Delhi House 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001; Apartment No.601, Block No.4, Kailash Dham Apartments, Sector-51, Noida, U.P. was lying vacant for the last two years; and the Meerut address was incomplete.The order dated 22 nd May, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:-However, accused has not put in his appearance in the court till date.Perusal of record further shows that the complainant has earlier furnished two new addresses of the accused, one of Noida (U.P.) and second of Mumbai (Maharashtra).From the reports received on summons issued to the accused a number of times, would suggest that accused is willfully avoiding the service of summons and his presence cannot be secured in court without adopting coercive measures against him.On 26th October, 2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the accused was absconding to avoid execution of warrants and issued process under Sections 82 CrPC.The order dated 26th October, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:-"NBW issued against the accused on 17.08.2012 remained unexecuted till date.Perusal of the record shows that earlier warrants were issued against the accused a number of times.However, warrants could not be executed against the accused due to one reason or the other.It appears that accused has absconded/concealing himself to avoid the execution of warrants issued against him.PF be filed within one week from today.Process server who will execute the process against the accused will take care that there must be a gap of 30 days between the publication of the proclamation and the next date of hearing.Put up on 06.12.2012 for the appearance of the accused/report."(Emphasis supplied)On 10th January, 2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the statement of Head Constable Om Dutt who deposed that he executed the process under Section 82 CrPC by pasting a copy of the process at Alphag -The learned Metropolitan Magistrate declared the petitioner as an absconder and issued process under Section 83 CrPC against the petitioner.Copy of the order was sent to S.H.O., P.S. Amar Colony with a direction to register a case under Section 174A IPC against the petitioner who failed to appear before the Court despite publication of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 5 of 17On 22nd January, 2013, P.S. Amar Colony registered FIR under Section 174A IPC against the petitioner.The relevant portion of the FIR is reproduced hereunder:-"Bhupinder Paul Gupta Vs.Core Builders Pvt. CC No.289/1, U/s 138 N.I. Act, 10.01.2013, present Complainant alongwith proxy counsel Sh.Rakesh Kumar.None for the accused despite repeated calls.Process server HC Om Dutt from PS Amar Colony, New Delhi in person let the statement of process server HC Om Dutt, who executed the process against the accused U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be recorded separately.Statement of process recorded separately, in view of the statement made by the process server, it is clear that process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was duly executed against the accused Sunil Tyagi, but despite execution of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. accused has not turned up till date, therefore, it may be concluded, that accused has ran away from the process of the court, hence, accused Sunil Tyagi is declared an absconder.Issued process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused.Also, copy of order be sent to SHO PS Amar Colony, New Delhi with direction to register a case against the accused Sunil Tyagi U/s 174A IPC because, accused Sunil Tyagi has failed to appear in the court despite the publication of proclamation U/s 82 Cr.P.C against him.Put up on 05.02.2013 for report on process to be issued against the accused U/s 83 Cr.P.C. and compliance Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 6 of 17 Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 report to be filed by the SHO PS Amar Colony, New Delhi, short date is given as complainant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years.D.O. to register a case and mark investigation to HC Pradeep No.642/SE as per direction of the Hon'ble Court.English Insp.On 16th July, 2013, the petitioner settled the matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with respondent No.2 for Rs.40,00,000/- as full and final settlement out of which Rs.19,00,000/- were paid before the Court on 16th July, 2013 and the balance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- was paid in instalments.On 16th July, 2013, learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the petitioner's application for recalling the process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC and admitted the petitioner to bail.On 11th March, 2016, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate compounded the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, in view of the settlement between the parties and acquitted the petitioner.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 7 of 17Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39On 24th July, 2013, the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 174A IPC before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in which the Court took the cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner.The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 27/2013 under Section 174A IPC, inter-alia, on the following grounds: 15.1 The petitioner has been declared a Proclaimed Offender without due service of summons/warrants.The Meerut address of petitioner furnished by respondent No.2 in the complaint was incomplete whereas the other four addresses furnished by respondent No.2 were incorrect.The petitioner is a permanent resident of House No. New 301, Prabhat Nagar, near Saket, Meerut, U.P. Respondent No.2 never furnished the said address at any stage of the proceedings before the Trial Court and the notices were never sent to the petitioner at the above address.The copy of the passport containing the above address has been filed in this petition.15.4 Section 82(4) CrPC relates to offences punishable under Section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 IPC and upon failure of the accused to appear, as required by the proclamation, the Court is empowered, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, to pronounce him as a Proclaimed Offender and make a declaration to that effect.The failure to appear upon the declaration of a person as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82(4) CrPC is an offence under Section 174A IPC with imprisonment up to seven years or fine or with both.15.5 The petitioner in the present case was accused of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner is a permanent residence of Meerut and the summons were never issued at the given address nor were served on him and, therefore, the issuance of bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants against the petitioner is not valid in law.Notwithstanding the invalidity of the warrants issued, the petitioner's submission is that the petitioner cannot be declared as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82(4) CrPC which applies only to 19 categories of offences mentioned therein.The petitioner is a permanent resident of House No. New 301, Prabhat Nagar, near Saket, Meerut, U.P. However, the complete address of the petitioner was never furnished by respondent No.2 at any stage of the proceedings before the Trial Court and notices were never sent to the petitioner at the correct address.Respondent No.2 furnished four addresses of the petitioner which were all incorrect.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate declared the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender without satisfying whether the petitioner was served with the summons or not.This Court is satisfied that the petitioner was never served with the summons and he did not abscond and conceal himself.The declaration of the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender is, therefore, not valid.That apart, the petitioner has not been charged with any of the 19 offences mentioned in Section 82(4) CrPC.Since the declaration of the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender is invalid, the petitioner's prosecution under Section 174A IPC is liable to be quashed.The petition is allowed and FIR No.27/2013 dated 22 nd January, 2013, P.S. Amar Colony under Section 174A IPC and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.Pending application is disposed off.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 10 of 17Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 CRL M.C. 4438/2013The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 25th July, 2017 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declared the petitioner a Proclaimed Offender and the order dated 07th August, 2013 whereby the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioner under section 174A IPC.On 13th March, 2004, FIR No. 174/2004 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 279 and 338 IPC at PS Pandav Nagar on the averments that the petitioner was driving motorcycle No. DL-7S-R-3033 and he hit the complainant Gauri Shankar at Ganesh Nagar Complex which resulted in grievous injuries to the complainant; and the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the motorcycle by the petitioner.The petitioner stopped appearing before the Metropolitan Magistrate under the impression that the case had been closed due to the death of complainant.S.H.O., PS Pandav Nagar has filed the status report according to which the complainant Gauri Shankar expired and his legal heirs could not Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 11 of 17 Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 be traced despite the enquiries made.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 11 of 17The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 174/2004 under Section 174A IPC, inter-alia, on the following grounds: 24.1 The petitioner cannot be declared as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82(4) CrPC as Section 82(4) applies only to the 19 categories of the offences mentioned in Section 82(4) CrPC.24.2 Without prejudice, it is submitted that the petitioner was never served with the warrants before being declared as a Proclaimed Offender.24.3 The petitioner disputes the report dated 24th February, 2011 of Constable Shiv Kumar that the premises were found locked.It is submitted that the same Process Server, Constable Shiv Kumar, in his report dated 22nd July, 2011 in respect of the process under Section 83 CrPC had stated that he could not locate the house of the petitioner.24.4 The Trial Court passed the order dated 25th July, 2011 in a routine manner without satisfying whether the petitioner was evading the arrest or not.It is submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not record the statement of the process server.The statement of the process server is in a proforma filled up with hand which has been treated as a proof to the effect that the petitioner is evading the process of law.In the report dated 22nd July, 2011, the process server stated that he could not locate the house of the petitioner whereas in the evidence, the process server stated that there was no immovable property in the name of the accused which could be attached under Section 83 CrPC.The statement of the process server that he pasted the process on the petitioner's property is also incorrect as the process server Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 12 of 17 Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 could not locate the petitioner's house as per the subsequent report.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 12 of 17The Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a routine manner without satisfying whether the petitioner was avoiding or evading arrest.The declaration of the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender is not valid and the charge against the petitioner under Section 174A IPC is liable to be quashed.That apart, the petitioner was not charged with any of the 19 offences mentioned in Section 82(4) CrPC.The impugned order dated 25th July, 2017 declaring the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender and the order dated 07th August, 2013 framing a charge against the petitioner under Section 174A IPC are hereby set aside and the Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 13 of 17 Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174A IPC are hereby quashed.The pending application is also disposed off.Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 13 of 17During the course of the hearing dated 27th November, 2013, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel present in Court submitted that the orders under Section 82 CrPC were passed in a routine manner and guidelines be laid down to ensure that orders under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC are passed after following due process of law.Vide order dated 21st November, 2014, this Court directed Delhi Police as well as CBI to file the status reports with respect to the Proclaimed Offenders.Delhi Police and CBI have filed their respective status reports.As per the status report of Delhi Police, 18,541 persons have been declared Proclaimed Offenders out of which 6000 Proclaimed Offenders were accused of heinous crimes.As regards CBI, 820 persons were declared as Proclaimed Offenders as on 31st December, 2014 out of which 184 Proclaimed Offenders and 193 Absconders were arrested.Vide order dated 31st July, 2019, Delhi police and CBI were directed to file fresh status reports.As per the fresh status reports of the Delhi Police, number of Proclaimed Offenders have increased to 26,532 as on 31st September, 2019 out of which 3826 Proclaimed Offenders have been arrested, prosecution has been launched against 1601 Proclaimed Offenders and properties of 28 Proclaimed Offenders have been attached.Learned counsels for the parties have also given their suggestions.Vide order dated 07th March, 2014, Mr. S.S. Rathi, who was then posted in Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) and had done extensive research on the subject, was requested to submit his research papers.The learned Amici Curiae shall file brief note of submissions within a period of four weeks.The order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,695,060 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent herein to conduct re-investigation of the case in Crime No.284 of 2016 corresponding to C.C.No.49 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Krishnagiri and to file a final report by conducting free and fair re-investigation within the stipulated time.On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.284 of 2016 on 01.10.2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 294-B and 506(ii) IPC against two accused.After completing the investigation, the respondent police have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.49 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri for the said offences.After charges were framed, summons was issued to the petitioner to give evidence.At this juncture, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.3. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents-State.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused attempted to attack the de facto complainant with Aruval, however, the police have not registered the case under Section 307 IPC.He has also enclosed certain photographs in the typed set of papers.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) refuted the contention.At the outset, it is seen that even according to the complainant, no one was injured.The complainant has stated that the accused attempted to attack him with Aruval, but on the intervention of his daughter Sivaranjini, who had taken video of the incident, he was resisted.Of course, the petitioner has given a representation to the police, pleading that the offence under Section 307 IPC should have been included.In the opinion of this Court, it is for the police to form a opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case and this Court cannot give any direction to the police as to what offence should be included in the FIR.The role of Judiciary and the Executive in the matters relating to police investigation has been set out by the Privy Council in King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [(1943-44) 71 IA 203] which judgement has been approved by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court.Hence, this Court does not find any reason to issue a direction as prayed for by the petitioner.However, liberty is given to the petitioner to assist the prosecution before the trial Court in the manner known to law.With the above observations, this petition is closed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.02.08.2018Speaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:Yes/NoIndex:Yes/NomkNote: Issue order copy on 06.08.2018ToThe Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.The Inspector of Police Gurubarapalli Police Station Gurubarapalli Krishnagiri District.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH, J.O.P.No.19306 of 201802.08.2018
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,697,195 |
Dinesh Kumar (first informant) hails fromvillage Manjani, Tq.Atur, Dist.Selum (State of TamilNadu).He is a driver by profession.He was employedto drive truck, bearing registration No.TN-34-E-8071.One Punrasu Kannan (deceased) was the co-driver.Inthe last week of April, 2014, the first informant anddeceased Punrasu were carrying 324 bags of Sago, ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 6 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docworth Rs.10,00,000/-, from Selum to Bhilwada(Rajasthan).On 30.04.2014, they were passing throughMaharashtra.By 09.00 p.m. on 30.04.2014, the firstinformant and Punrasu took dinner at Solapur andstarted for onward journey.It was about 02.00 a.m.on 01.05.2014 they were travelling along Tuljapur -Osmanabad road.Near village Yedshi, one Scorpiovehicle overtook the truck and blocked its way.Fourpersons alighted from Scorpio vehicle.They enteredthe truck's cabin; two from driver's side and othersfrom cleaner's.Two of them were armed with woodenrods.The FIR contained their description.Two ofthem started assaulting the first informant and othertwo dealt with Punrasu.They tied their hands with aLungi.One of them took control of the truck andproceeded towards Kallam., they robbed two cell-phones of the firstinformant and Punrasu, besides Rs.15,000/-.Then,the four made the duo to get down from the truck and ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 7 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docboard Scorpio vehicle and proceeded towards Yermala.The first informant and Punrasu were severely beatenup and then dropped in a dry well behind Yedeshwaritemple.The first informant regained consciousness onthe next day by 12.00 noon.Punrasu was not around tobe seen.The first informant came up on the road andapproached Police Station, Yermala and lodged reportof the incident.Crime came to be registered for the offencespunishable under Sections 396, 397, 364, 412 and 201of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", for short).Onthe next day, the dead body of Punrasu was found neara pond behind Yedeshwari temple.On completion of investigation of the crimeregistered under Indian Penal Code, charge-sheet wasfiled.During further investigation, it was foundthat the offence was committed by an organised crimesyndicate headed by one Raja Pawar.Prior approval ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 8 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docfor registration of the offences under the M.C.O.C.Act was, therefore, granted by the competentauthority.The Deputy Superintendent of Police tookup the investigation.Some of the accused gaveconfessional statements.It was revealed that Punrasuwas murdered.Some of the stolen Sago bags were sold.Call Data Records (C.D.R.) indicate thatthey were in contact with each other and the gang-leader before and even after the offence in questionwas committed.Admittedly, there is nothing to indicatethe appellant's involvement in the main offence inquestion.The co-accused - Vinod Harbhare, therefore,took 60 bags of Sago to the house of the appellant.The appellant paid him Rs.25,000/- towards cost of 10bags of Sago.He allowed Vinod Harbhare to keep theremaining 50 bags in his house.As already observed herein above, theoffence of abetment can be committed by beingaccessory before, or at the most, during the offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 31 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt is reiterated that there is no material evenslightly to suggest the appellant to have been waryof the offence in question and he consciously boughtthe Sago bags.Shivaji Shinde)2. Admit.Learned APP waives notice on behalfof the respondents.With the consent of learnedCounsel for the parties, appeals are heard finally.These appeals are directed against thejudgments and orders passed by the Special Court ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 5 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docconstituted for trial of the offences under theMaharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999(M.C.O.C. Act), rejecting discharge applicationsmoved by the appellants herein.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::5 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSince common questions of law and factsarise, the appeals were heard together and are beingdecided by this common judgment.Brief facts, giving rise to these appeals,are as follows :-After proceeding for about10-12 kms.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::6 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::7 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docOn completion of investigation and after obtainingsanction for prosecution, charge-sheet for theoffences punishable under the M.C.O.C. Act, came tobe submitted.The Special Court took cognizance ofthe offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::8 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe appellants herein moved the applicationsfor discharge.The Special Court rejected theapplications by separate orders.Mr.Kore and Mr.Gaikwad, learned Counselappearing for the appellants, would submit (averredin the appeal memos) that as the FIR was filedagainst five unknown persons only, how come ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 9 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docinvolvement of eighteen persons in the offences inquestion.The appellants were arrested on suspicion.A co-accused, who was similarly situated with most ofthe appellants herein, has been discharged from theoffence under M.C.O.C. Act. His case has beentransferred to the regular Court.As such, none ofthe appellants could be said to have committed anorganised crime.Learned Counsel referred to therelevant provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act. Accordingto learned Counsel, the Special Court, in the factsand circumstances of the case, should have dischargedthe appellants.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::9 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSome of them have been identified by ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 10 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe first informant in T.I. Parade.The appellantshave given confessional statements.All of them werein association with the gang-leader and facilitatedcommission of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 11 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 12 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc either singly of collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime;Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIn the first instance, it will be profitable to examine the scheme of MCOCA by making a cursory glance to the Objects and Reasons and thereafter to make an intensive reading of the above referred two provisions.When we peruse the Objects and Reasons, it discloses that organized crime has been posing very serious threat to our society for quite some years and it was also noted that organized crime syndicates had a common cause with terrorist gangs................................. ....................................... It was further found that the existing legal framework, that is the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 13 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc system, were found to be inadequate to curb or control the menace of 'organized crime'.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::13 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc14 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe mere indulgence in a violent activity etc. either for pecuniary gain or other advantage or for promoting insurgency as an individual, either singly or jointly as a member of 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of a such syndicate would be sufficient for bringing the said activity within the four corners of the definition of::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 16 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc 'organized crime'.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::15 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::16 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc43 to 55 ..... . . . . .::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe offence should alleged to have been committed either::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 18 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on its behalf.In so far as the offences are concerned, if the offence would attract a punishment of three years or more that would suffice for falling within the said definition.The charge-sheet should have been filed before a Competent Court with reference to such offence against the offenders.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::18 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAppeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::20 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::22 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::25 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docWe have, therefore, now to appreciate,whether the police papers, prima facie, make out a ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 26 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doccase of abetment of organised crime.We propose totake case of each of the appellants separately.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::26 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100 OF 2018 (Tanaji s/o.Narayan Sathe)The legal position regardingadmissibility of confessional statement would bestated lateron.The appellant was on the driver'sseat of Scorpio vehicle.It is he, who had blockedthe way of the truck driven by the first informant.We do not propose to reproduce the entireconfessional statement of the appellant, suffice itto say that the appellant has confessed hisinvolvement in the offence.He has been identified bythe first informant in his identification parade.There are C.D.Rs. to indicate the appellant to havebeen in continuous contact with the others involved ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 27 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docin the crime.The confessional statements of some ofthe co-accused further indicate involvement of thisappellant.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::27 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2018 (Sambhaji s/o.Pandurang Sathe)We have carefully perused theconfessional statement to find him to have been inthe company of the leader of the organised crimesyndicate and the co-accused during commission of thecrime.His confessional statement, however,undoubtedly, indicate him to have not made any overt-act.There is also nothing to suggest him to havedone anything to facilitate commission of theorganised crime.The confessional statement of someof the co-accused are on the lines of theconfessional statement of this appellant.Thisappellant has been identified by the first informant ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 28 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docin the test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::28 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSo far as regards this appellant isconcerned, we have before us his own confessionalstatement and the confessional statement of one VinodHarbhare.He came on the scene post commission of theoffence.The main offence is of road robbery,wherein one of the victims had been murdered.Therobbery is of 324 bags of Sago worth Rs.10,00,000/-.The appellant runs a grocery shop.It is, prima facie, evident from hisconfessional statement that two days after therobbery, accused Vinod Harbhare contacted him oncell-phone and inquired, whether he (appellant)would like to purchase Sago.The appellant readily ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 29 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docagreed.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::29 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docOn the same lines is the confessionalstatement of Vinod Harbhare.It is in his statementthat on the request of co-accused - Popat Pawar, hecontacted the appellant herein to see, whether he(appellant) would like to buy Sago.There is nomaterial to indicate the appellant to have been inthe know that the Sago bags were property derived orobtained from commission of an organised crime, beingan offence punishable under Section 3(5) of M.C.O.C.Act.In our view, the Special Court erred inobserving that the material creates strong and gravesuspicion leading to presume the appellant to be a ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 30 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docmember of the organised crime syndicate and hasinvolved in its continuous activities.The SpecialCourt also observed the appellant to have abettedunlawful activities of organised crime syndicate.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::30 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docHe could only be said to havecommitted the offence of dishonestly receiving thestolen property, punishable under Section 411 of theI.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::31 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2019 (Ganesh @ Prashant s/o.He was awarethat the gang-leader and other co-accused have beeninvolved in the offences of road-robbery, housebreaking, etc. The co-accused Tanaji Sathe (appellantin Crime No.100 of 2018) was employed by thisappellant as a driver on his Scorpio vehicle.Thevehicle involved in the crime belongs to thisappellant.He was, however, not in the know that hisvehicle was being used in commission of the offence. ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 32 Cri.The facts,however, indicate him to have consciously remained inthe company of the co-accused during commission ofthe offence.He allowed his place (brick-kiln) to beused to keep the victims thereat for a while.True,the material relied on against this appellant may beshaky.We are, however, considering his claim fordischarge.We only hope that the Trial Court wouldconsider his claim, if any, for bail.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::32 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.146 OF 2019 (Balaji s/o.Bishram Pawar)The police papers undoubtedly indicate theappellant to have not been involved in commission of ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 33 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe main offence.He appears to have not made anyconfessional statement.What is relied on against himis the confessional statement of co-accused - Govind@ Rama Pawar.The only incriminating material againstthis appellant is - "मम आमररई कडड न घररकडड परयम जरत असतरनर वरटडतबरलरजम बबसररम पवरर हर भडटलर व तयरनड पण मलर झरलडलर पकरर ककणरलर सरसगड नकक असडमहणडन चरपट मररलयर व धमकक बदलम."::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::33 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThis appellant can only be said to haveconcealed proof of the organised crime syndicate ofthe accused in this case.He could, at the most, besaid to have committed an offence punishable underSection 3(3) of the M.C.O.C. Act. We hope that theSpecial Court would consider his case for bail, ifany, uninfluenced by our observations herein.In our view, the Special Court erred inobserving the appellant to have been a member oforganised crime syndicate and involved in theorganised crime.This appellant even cannot be saidto have abetted the organised crime as he came at the ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 34 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docscene post commission of the offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::34 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2019 (Karan s/o.Bapurao Dongre)This appellant too, made a confessionalstatement on 14.08.2014 before S.P., Beed.Also,There are confessional statements of some of theaccused suggesting this appellant's involvement.Those confessional statements indicate the appellantto have been associated with the gang-leader andthree others since beginning.His role appears to beof the facilitator of the organised crime.He hasbeen identified by the first informant in the T.I.parade.As such, the appellant could not make out acase for discharge altogether.APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.36 OF 2019 (Ajit s/o.Laximan Sathe)This appellant too, has made confessionalstatement on 14.08.2014 before S.P., Beed.He was in ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 35 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe company of the gang-leader and others duringcommission of the main offence.He has beenidentified in the T.I. parade.True, the appellantappears to have not made any overt-act.No case for altogether discharge,thus, could be made out by him.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::35 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt has beenlodged by a Tamil Nadu based person, who did notunderstand Marathi.One may be amazed of the fact ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 36 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthat when the FIR was against five unknown person,how-come involvement of nine more.This could only bemade out due to the confessional statements.UnderSection 18 of the M.C.O.C. Act, confessions made tothe police officer are to be taken intoconsideration.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::36 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::37 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::38 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt would,however, be a question of appreciation of theevidence during trial of the case.A contemporaneousrecord about satisfaction of recording officer after ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 39 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docwriting of confession that confession was voluntarilymade may cure the defect.We have, therefore, lookedinto the confessional statements at this stage.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::39 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThis observation isrequired to be made because, in our opinion, accused ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 40 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::40 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAppeal No.100-18 and ors.docto try persons accused of different offencescommitted in the course of same transaction.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::42 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docFor the reasons given hereinabove, theAppeals partly succeed in terms of the followingorder :-O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeals No.100/2018, 101/2018, 170/2019, 37/2019, 146/2019, 35/2019 and 36/2019 are partly allowed.(ii) The appellants stand discharged of offences of organised crime and being members of the organised crime syndicate.(iii) The appellants namely - Tanaji Sathe, Sambhaji Sathe, Ganesh Shinde, Karan Dongre and Ajit Sathe shall be charged with the offence of abetment of organised crime.(iv) Appellant - Balaji Pawar is also discharged of the offence of abetment of the organised crime.He shall, however, be charged with an offence ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 ::: 43 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc punishable under Section 3(3) of M.C.O.C. Act and any other offence as may be made out against him from the police papers.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::43 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc(v) Appellant - Sham Sachane stands discharged of offences punishable under M.C.O.C. Act. He shall, however, be charged and tried for offence punishable under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and/ or any other offence that may be made out against him.(vi) Rest of the appellants may also be charged and tried for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code or any other law, as may be made out against them from the police papers.[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]kbp ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:09 :::
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,697,699 |
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner Jamnabai Thakur (Kuchbandhiya) in Crime No.150/2017 registered by P.S. Stationganj, District- Narsinghpur under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Even since their marriage, the petitioner and her son Sanu used to demand Rs.1 lac, a gold chain and a motorcycle in dowry.They used to deprive the deceased of food and used to harass, persecute and beat her up.As a result, she fell ill.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not die an unnatural death.As per the post-mortem examination report, she suffered from tumor of the uterus.She was examined by Dr. Shobhna Patel on 25.03.2017, who diagnosed her with vesicular mole and tumor of uterus, which was in advanced stage.the deceased did not die a death in circumstances other than natural;she had returned to her matrimonial home a month before the date of the incident;the petitioner has been in custody since 24.04.2017;-in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Jamnabai Thakur (Kuchbandhiya), is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE taj
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,709,426 |
This i s firs t application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.164/2018 registered at Police Station-Makdon, District-Ujjain for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 198-A of IPC.As per prosecution story, deceased Shayamubai, married with the applicant's grand son, before 15 years ago, suffered death due to falling the Chimney.Accordingly, the case has been registered against the applicant.Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and supported the order impugned.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that applicant is a old lady, but without commenting upon merits of the case, the application for anticipatory bail is hereby allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, she shall be released on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation as and when required and in the event it is found that the applicant has avoided to appear before the Investigating Officer, the State is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail.The applicant shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section(2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Court for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE jyoti Jyoti Chourasia 2018.06.29 17:05:40 +05'30'
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,709,584 |
We may highlight at this stage that all the writ petitioners come from a rural background.Justifying withdrawing letters offering appointment, the respondent rely upon a circular dated 31.03.2010 as per which W.P. (C) Nos.8094-10, 6170-10 & 502-11 Page 3 of 12 the Ministry of Home Affairs has informed CISF to not allow any candidate found involved in any criminal case to join without instructions of the 'OFFICE OF THE TRAINING SECTOR NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY ACADEMY, CISF'.W.P. (C) Nos.8094-10, 6170-10 & 502-11 Page 3 of 12Heard learned counsel for the parties.Since a common question of law arises for consideration W.P. (C) Nos.8094-10, 6170-10 & 502-11 Page 1 of 12 in the three above captioned writ petitions, they are being decided by a common judgment.On 22.06.2010 the provisional offer of appointment dated 29.03.2010 was withdrawn, stating that on scrutiny of documents produced by him, he was found not suitable to be appointed as Sub- Inspector in CISF.It may be noted that Rahul Yadav was aged 18 years when the alleged incident in which he was stated to have been involved took place on 20.06.2005 and it may be additionally noted that he was acquitted of the said charge.W.P. (C) Nos.8094-10, 6170-10 & 502-11 Page 2 of 12Anil Yadav, the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.6170/2010 was likewise issued a letter provisionally offering appointment as a Sub-Inspector by CISF.It may be noted that the alleged incident took place on 02.09.2006 when Anil Yadav was aged 20 years.It may further be noted that Rahul Yadav has been acquitted.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,472,428 |
HH961636 and Consumer ID No.512064929 with Meter No.960514 both in the name of Monoranjan Mandal now user Sabir Ali were still then disconnected for non-payment of outstanding dues but inhabitants of both the premises are enjoying electricity from other premises of consumer No.512052899 through Meter No.K048279 in the name of Monoranjan Mandal now user Sabir Ali.The Inspecting team tried to disconnect the existing live connection of Consumer ID 512052899 but could not due to obstruction of the user.3) On such occurrence the complainant lodged FIR alleging offence under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (as amended) and under Section 186 IPC.Upon such complaint Burdwan P.S. Case No.918 dated 28.07.2014 under the aforesaid Section was registered and the investigation was taken up and is still in progress.4) Mr. Sandip Ghosal, Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the allegation made out in the FIR to the effect that the inhabitants from the other premises are enjoying electricity from the premises of Consumer ID 512052899 does not constitute offence under Section 138 of the Electricity Act inasmuch as it is not reconnection of any meter with any electric line of other works being the property of a licensee when the electric line or other works has or have been cut or disconnected.C.R.R. No.2982 of 2014 Sabir Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of West Bengal & Another ...Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Ghosal.2) The genesis of the case against him is traced to an incident that took place on 28.07.2014 at about 11.56 a.m. when the complainant Pradip Nandi, AE & SM, BDN CCC-iii Electricity supply along with other official went to check the disconnected premises at Becharhat opposite to Satima Cold Storage.It was noticed that Consumer ID 512070220 with Meter No.
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,094,755 |
In these premises live a number of young women of immoral character.Men of bad character come to the house and disturb the neighbour-hood by singing obscene songs and having drunken brawls.The petitioner is the Secretary of this Association and he lives at Calcutta.He goes to the house occasionally.ORDER Sen, J.This rule has been obtained by an accused person who has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 290, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of RS.100, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.The facts alleged against the petitioner briefly are as follows: He is the tenant in respect of certain premises in Nabadwip.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,482,271 |
Consequently, the detenu, namely, Gunasekaran, son of Pitchai, aged about 45 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 H.C.P(MD)No.948 of 2019 T. RA J A , J .A ND B .O RD E R (Order of the Court was made by T. RA J A , J. ) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenging the legality of the impugned order of detention dated 02.09.2019, passed by the second respondent, under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 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 of 1982) and branding him as 'Goonda' in Cr.M.P.No.24/2019, came forward to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 02.09.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz., Gunasekaran came to the adverse notice in the following two cases:-Keelapalur Police Station Cr.No.11 of U/s 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 448 and 2017 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3 of TNPP (Damage and Loss)Keelapalur Police Station Cr.No.100 U/s 147, 148, 294(b), 363, 324, of 2019 506(ii), 448 and 427 I.P.C.It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was involved in a case for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. in Keelapalur Police Station Crime No.143 of 2019 (ground case).The detenu was arrested on 11.07.2019 and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ariyalur.The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention and making a challenge to the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.We have heard Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.2 6 o f 2 0 1 9 in the matter of N at a r a j a n v .S t a t e o f Ta m i l N a d u , r e p .b y T h e P r i n c i p a l S e c r eta r y to G ove r n m e nt a n d t w o o t h e r s , in which one of us (B.PUGALENDHI, J) was a party.The relevant portion of the order runs thus:9.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein, namely, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District in Cr.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.H. C. P(MD)N o. 9 4 8 o f 2 0 1 9 0 6. 0 1. 2 0 2 0http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,483,060 |
M.P.No.481 of 2020, where the application filed by the appellant to enlarge him on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 322 and 506 (i) of IPC and Section 3(1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 was dismissed.The prosecution case in this regard is that, on 16.04.2020 at about 8.45 p.m., the accused allegedly prevented the defacto complainant / VAO from discharging his duty during this COVID-19 situation and thereafter on 19.04.2020 at about 7.45 a.m., at Ramanathapuram bus stand, the accused allegedly abused the defacto complainant and thereafter in this regard, the defacto complainant had given a complaint on 20.04.2020 at 10 a.m., at the respondent police station, pursuant to which FIR was registered for the alleged offences and with the result, on the same day, the accused was arrested and he is in judicial custody now.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.222 of 2020 3/605-05-2020 tsvn ToThe Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalaipet.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Udumalpet Sub-Division, Gudimangalam Police Station, Tirupur District.The Inspector of Police Gudimangalam Police Station, Tirupur District.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.222 of 2020 6/6 tsvn Crl.A.No.222 of 2020This is the Appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Principal District Court, Tiruppur in Crl.In this regard, when the bail application was filed as stated supra before the Sessions Court, it was rejected by the said Court by the impugned order, dated 24.04.2020, as against which the present appeal was filed.Heard Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police as well as the defacto complainant who was the Government servant.He would submit that, since the defacto complainant as well as the appellant / accused are from different communities and there would be likelihood of some law and order issue, if the appellant / accused is enlarged on bail at this stage and moreover since the investigation is in the nascent stage, it may not be conducive to release him on bail and also it would hamper the investigation.I have considered the said objections as well as the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate opposing this appeal and also perused the materials placed before this Court.Even though the earlier occurrence, according to the prosecution through the defacto complainant, claimed to have taken place on 16.04.2020 at 8.45 p.m., the defacto complainant has not chosen to make the complaint immediately and only on 20.04.2020 at 10 a.m., the present complaint has been filed and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.222 of 2020 4/6 consequent FIR has been registered.Apart from this prima facie issue, this Court feel that, during this COVID- 19 situation, keeping this kind of accused persons in jail would create other issues related to COVID-19 and more over taking into consideration of the alleged offences as reflected in the FIR, this Court feel that, the accused can be enlarged on bail, of course with some stringent conditions.In the result, the following orders are passed in this appeal.(i) that the appellant / accused shall be enlarged on bail, on executing own bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.(ii) that the appellant / accused shall stay at Coimbatore city limit and sign before the Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore everyday morning at 10 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, it is open to the appellant to apply for relaxation of such condition.http://www.judis.nic.in(iii) during this period of bail, the appellant Crl.A.No.222 of 2020 5/6 shall not move anywhere except the place mentioned above without the leave of this Court.With these conditions, this Criminal Appeal is ordered accordingly.R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,488,764 |
, in short, giving rise to this petition are that on 19/02/2014 prosecutrix has lodged the report at police station Karanpathar as to the effect that on 17/02/2014 her husband was out of station.At about 9.00 PM when she went to her field for some work, accused/respondent came there, caught her and forcibly committed the rape.On next day i.e. 18/02/2014 she telephonically informed her husband and when he came back then she lodged the report.On the basis of aforesaid report, crime was registered against the respondent.After due investigation, respondent was charge sheeted before the JMFC, Anuppur and in turn he committed the case to the Court of Session, Anuppur who handed over the case to the trial Court.Trial Court framed the charges u/s 450, 376(1) and 506 of IPC against the respondent.Respondent abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.On appraisal of evidence on record, trial Court has come to the conclusion that prosecutrix was consenting party to the sexual intercourse with respondent.Hence, this petition.We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant/State and gone through the impugned judgment alongwith evidence of prosecutrix and other witnesses.It was the prosecution case that prosecutrix immediately narrated the story to her mother-in-law Phuliya Bai (PW-6) and sister-in-law Sushma (PW-10) but during trial these witnesses specifically stated that on the date of incident at about 10.00 PM hearing the hue and cry of minor children of prosecutrix, they visited her house and found that prosecutrix was not at home therefore, they waited for her come back.These witnesses further stated that at about 2.00 AM prosecutrix came back to her house but she has not narrated any incident to them.It further reveals from the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) that prior to her marriage, she was well known to respondent.This fact finds support from the photographs of prosecutrix with respondent.As per statement of prosecutrix, she has not made any complaint to her husband till next day morning.In these circumstances, if trial Court has come to the conclusion that prosecutrix was consenting party to the sexual intercourse, we are of the view that no illegality has been committed in recording the finding of acquittal.Consequently, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.Petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Record of the court below be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,491,743 |
(Delivered on this 9th day of February, 2018) Per : Virender Singh, J. :The allegation against the present appellant is that he murdered Ratanbai on 08.10.2006, for which he is convicted under Section 302 and punished with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- vide judgment dated 29.09.2007 passed in ST No.19/2007 by Sessions Judge, Neemuch.Background facts sans unnecessary details are that on 08.10.2006, villagers of Village Doonglawada including the complainant Nandlal came to know that Ratanbai Gujar, who-: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 had gone for work on her farm in the morning, was missing.Nandlal along with Satyanarayan, Kailash, Rameshwar and some other villagers searched for her in nearby fields.During search, they sent Satyanarayan to the Police Station to inform about the incident.After searching in nearby areas, they sat for a while on the well of Ratanbai.The appellant Nagga @ Bhuralal also joined them in search operation.After a while, at about 9.00 in the night, he left them stating that he will come back after relieving himself and had gone towards village pond.Nandlal and Kailash again started search for Ratanbai.When they were going towards well of Devilal, in the moon light, they saw the appellant coming from opposite side amongst the bushes with a dead body on shoulders.They threw light on him by torch then he threw dead body and ran away.They found that the dead body was of Ratanbai.They both (Nandlal and Kailash) chased and caught him.He requested them not to beat him and admitted that he has killed Ratanbai by stone and he was going to throw her dead body in the well.Nandlal and Kailash made a clamour.Champalal, Shivam and many other people rushed towards them.By the time, the police also reached there.Nandlal lodged a Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/5 on the spot.After registering the crime on 0/06 under Section 302 of IPC, the Police sent Dehati Nalishi to the Police Station Neemuch Cantt for registration of crime, where after scribing FIR Ex.P/13 a Crime No.453/06 under Section 302 of IPC was registered.On the spot, the Police called the witnesses by issuing notice Ex.P/6, prepared a memo of corpse Ex.P/7, spot map Ex.P/49, seized blood stained and plain soil, stone and some grass vide seizure memo Ex.P/9, seized Darati and ladies' slippers vide Ex.P/10, took photographs of the spot Ex.P/14 to P/46, sent the dead body for postmortem vide requisition Ex.-: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 and obtained postmortem report Ex.The police raised query vide memo Ex.P/3 as to the cause of death of Ratanbai, which was replied as Ex.P/4 stating that the cause of death was grievous injury on the head.Vide report Ex.He has got three brothers.He has got a big family to take care.P/51 Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed presence of human blood on the pants and shirt of the appellant and on saree, blouse and petticoat of the deceased.A team of Dr. R.K.Joshi and Dr.Sangeeta Yadav performed postmortem and has given opinion that the death of Ratanbai was due to shock caused due to crush injury to the brain.Duration of death was 24 years from the postmortem.On completion of investigation the police chargesheeted the appellant.The accused/appellant was charged, tried and held guilty for committing murder of Ratanbai and awarded life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI of six months.The appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the Trial Court is contrary to the law and facts available on the record.The court below erred in relying on the statement of the prosecution witnesses.The whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances.The conviction of the appellant is based on the extra judicial confession which has not been proved in this case.In absence of any medical evidence the Trial Court has erred in presuming that the death was homicidal.The FIR is dated 08.10.2006 but in the spot map, seizure memo etc. date of-: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 FIR is mentioned as 09.10.2006 which shows that all the documents have been prepared at the Police Station itself without visiting the spot.Query report was also given by the Doctors without examining the deceased as this report was given on 09.10.2006 at 9.00 a.m.; whereas the dead body was received by the Doctor after 10.00 a.m.. No finding has been given by the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding group of the blood, therefore, such evidence cannot be used against the appellant.It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution itself that the appellant was also with the other persons, who were searching for Ratanbai upto 9.00 p.m. and just after that he was seen carrying the dead body.This story of prosecution is highly improbable.There is a conflict between the ocular and medical evidence.There was no motive to kill.The evidence produced by the prosecution is suffered from inherent improbabilities, serious omissions and contradictions.No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.The learned Trial Court erred in relying on the interested or inimical witnesses.Statements of witnesses are identical which shows that acting under a conspiracy, they have given a parrot-like version.The case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and learned court below has committed a grave error in not extending benefit of doubt to the appellant, therefore, it is prayed to set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial court and to acquit the appellant.Per contra, prosecution has opposed the appeal.It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the witnesses examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court have given unambiguous statements.In short postmortem report and detail postmortem report both the team of doctors have clearly opined that the death was due to crush injury caused on the head of the-: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 deceased.Looking to the nature of the injury, certainly the death was not natural or accidental but due to injuries caused by an external blow given by some force.We have considered rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record.Although it is true that nature of death has not been stated by Dr. R.K.Joshi in his statement and it is also not mentioned in the postmortem report scribed by him but it is clear from the evidence available on record that in reply to the query raised by the Police, even before the detail postmortem, only on the basis of observation Dr. Joshi replied that the death was due to serious injuries caused on the head of the deceased.On detail postmortem the team of Doctors found fracture of right tempo parietal bone, membrane was torn and brain matter was coming out.There was also a lacerated wound on the middle of the head and contusion on right side of neck.All the injuries were ante mortem and death was caused due to these injuries.The nature of injuries shows the impact and force used in causing the injuries.It is true that Dr. Joshi has admitted in cross- examination that injuries may be accidental but there is no sign that any accident happened there.The incident happened in a-: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 farm land or at a place of raw soil.The injuries as found on the person of the deceased cannot be caused on a simple fall on the floor or simple impact of any hard and blunt object.The deceased was a middle aged woman.On a simple blow of a hard and blunt object, bone would not get fractured and brain matter would not come out.Besides, the witnesses have stated that when they caught the accused carrying dead body, he confessed before them that he caused death of deceased by causing injuries by a stone.No sign of any accident were found on the spot inspection.Nothing is mentioned in the spot map or any other document prepared on the spot and also in the photographs.All these evidence has not been challenged by the appellant.Therefore, considering the evidence in its totality the learned Trial Court has correctly held that the death of the deceased was homicidal.While deposing before the Trial Court Nandlal (PW-3), Kailash (PW-4), Manoharlal (PW-5) and Rameshwar (PW-6) have stated that on the date of incident Ratanbai was missing from her house since morning and they were searching her but did not find any clue.The appellant also joined them at about 9.00 in the night and after few minutes, he left them stating that he will joined them back after relieving himself.During the search, when they reached to the farm of Devilal, they saw in the moon light that the accused was carrying dead body on his shoulder.As they threw light of the torch, he threw the dead body and fled away.They chased and caught him.He confessed before them that he has killed Ratanbai by stone and was going to throw the dead body in the well.Satyanarayan (PW-12) has also supported their statements.Statement of these witnesses remained intact even after cross-examination and nothing substantial is there to disbelieve them.Neither any serious-: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 allegation regarding their impartiality is made nor any evidence is produced to show that the witnesses are either inimical or have some malice towards the appellant.There is no evidence that there was any reason for the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant.The accused was seen by the witnesses throwing the dead body.He was caught on the spot and human blood stains were found on his clothes.All these facts i.e. appellant was seen and caught with the dead body, his confession and presence of human blood on his clothes either not challenged by the appellant or could not be contradicted or rebutted by him.All this positive evidence which is further supported with the documents prepared during the investigation is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty.This is true that the postmortem was started by the team of Doctors at about 10:00 a.m. while the query is replied at 9:00 a.m. but this does not create any doubt as before starting the postmortem the Police was eager to know about the cause of death because the accused was in their custody and the investigation was to be taken, therefore, the Police in brief wanted to know the cause of death and on a primary observation Doctor opined that the death was due to injuries caused on the head, thereafter they started the postmortem.Thus, the doctors have first given short P.M. report and thereafter they performed detailed post mortem and submitted final report.Therefore, in fact there is no contradiction in time of postmortem and of short postmortem report.It has come in the statement of the witnesses that theA.No.1206 of 2007 accused was having illicit relation with sister-in-law (Devrani) of the deceased.The deceased came to know about their relations.There was a fear in his mind that she may disclose this to the family and other villagers, therefore, he wanted to eliminate her from his way to get rid of such possibilities of disclosure.But this fact is neither mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi nor in the police statements of all the witness and no reason is assigned for not disclosing this fact at an earlier stage or during investigation before the Police.Therefore, this improvement in the statements cannot be relied upon.Though there are some contradictions or discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses but the learned Trial Court has appreciated all of them and has correctly held that these contradictions or discrepancies are not on any material point, therefore, have no adverse impact on the quality of the prosecution evidence.In this case nobody had seen the appellant causing injury to the deceased.Only one fatal injury was found on the head of the deceased.The appellant has no criminal antecedent.We order accordingly."The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Arjun and Anr.State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2017 SC 1150 that:In the facts and circumstances noted above, there appears merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of Exception 1 or Exception 4 in Section 300 of the IPC the case made out against the appellant is that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.It would be natural for the family members of juvenile offender Balu on hearing his cries, to rush for his help and when injury on the appellant has also been proved there is sufficient material to-: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 infer the reasonable possibility of a grave and sudden provocation.The assault on the deceased, in absence of intention to cause death could be on account of sudden fight without pre-meditation, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel.We therefore feel persuaded to and do set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and substitute the same with conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent."In Sikandar Ali Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2017 SC 2614 the Court altered the conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 part-2 IPC in the following circumstances:We have no doubt about the complicity of all the accused in the homicide of Sarfraj.A-1 attacked the deceased with the knife and caused injury on his neck which resulted in his death.The other accused assisted him in committing the crime by holding the hands of the deceased.However, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the accused are liable to be punished for an offence under Section 302 IPC.After considering the submissions made by the counsel for the Appellants and scrutinising the material on record, we are of the opinion that the accused are not liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC.During the course of their business activity the accused reached the dhaba where the deceased was present.An altercation took place during the discussion they were having behind the dhaba.That led to a sudden fight during which A-1A.No.1206 of 2007 attacked the deceased with a knife.From the factual position, which has emerged from the record, it is noticed that there was a pre-existing property dispute between the two families.The incident in question happened all of a sudden without any premeditation after PW1 questioned the appellants about their behaviour.It was a free fight between the two family members.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,094,924 |
JUDGMENT P.K. Babri, J.(1) This Criminal Revision has been admitted, only on the point of sentence.I have heard arguments for disposing of this petition finally on this point.(2) Vide Judgment dated January 25, 1986, Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and vide order dated January 27, 1986 he has sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 338 I.PC.However, the question still remains to be decided whether it is a fit case for grant of probationary benefits to this petitioner.At the time the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner had given his age as 30 years.The defense version of the petitioner that he had swerved towards the right side in order to save the buffaloes and had thus caused accident was not believed by the two Courts below.Keeping in view this callous behavior of the petitioner running away from the spot after causing such a grave accident, the question arises whether such petitioner deserves probationary benefits or not.(6) Counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judgments of support of his contention that petitioner should be released on probation.In the said case on fads it was found that there was some contributed negligence on the part of the appellant meaning thereby that even the deceased was not beyond fault and thus the Supreme Court thought it fit to maintain the order of Sessions Judge granting probation to such a person.The facts were that accident took place while petitioner was turning his bus and rear wheel of the bus struck the cycle being driven by the deceased.There it was noted that the trial has protracted and accused was Government servant and was only bread earner in his family, the probationary benefits were given.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,688,442 |
By this application the applicant seeks bail in connection with FIR dated 01/06/2019 registered against him for offences punishable under Section 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).In the present case the material on record indicates that the applicant and deceased were married on 26/05/2019 and on 01/06/2019 itself the incident in question took place wherein the victim i.e. the wife of the applicant was found to be dead due to strangulation.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2020 02:24:29 :::2/4 47-BA 75.2020The learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR, as also the material on record.In response, the learned APP brought to the notice of this Court that a certificate dated 01/10/2019 was issued by the same Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur, which was placed on record with the reply stating that the applicant was indeed fit for trial.Apart from this, the learned APP invited attention of this Court to recovery of blood stained towel which was recovered at the behest of the applicant and with which he allegedly strangulated the victim.Attention of this Court was also invited to the Postmortem Report.On the basis of material on record, learned APP vehemently submitted that the dead body of the victim was found in the house of the applicant and it was for him to give explanation regarding the incident.It was also emphasized that the victim died within a week of marriage with the applicant.There was also material to indicate that he had inflicted injuries upon himself, leading to registration of offence under Section 309 of the IPC, apart from Section 302 of::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2020 02:24:29 ::: 3/4 47-BA 75.2020 the IPC.It was submitted that the applicant did not deserve to be enlarged on bail.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2020 02:24:29 :::Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the of the material on record, it is evident that the victim died within a few days of marriage with the applicant.The oral report leading to registration of FIR also shows that the victim had expressed only a couple of days before the incident that there was danger to her life from the applicant.In so far as the certificate regarding the applicant being unfit for trial is concerned, the subsequent certificate placed on record by the non- applicant State along with reply shows that the latest certificate indicates that the applicant is fit for trial.This aspect has been considered by the Sessions Court also and upon the learned Judge of the Sessions Court putting questions to the applicant, it has been recorded that the Court found him to be fit for facing trial.It is correctly recorded by the Sessions Court that it is safer for the applicant in custody rather than being released on bail.Only because there is one document indicating the mental status of the applicant as being unfit for trial, it::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2020 02:24:29 ::: 4/4 47-BA 75.2020 cannot be said that the same can accrue to his benefit, particularly in view of the subsequent certificate placed on record by the non-applicant State.It appears that the applicant remaining in custody would be safe for him as well as the witnesses in the present case.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2020 02:24:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2020 02:24:29 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,689,877 |
Heard on admission.Record of the Court below has been received.On perusal of the statement of prosecutrix as well as other witnesses, this appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.2277/2019, application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Shekh Haseeb @ Lateef.The appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 376 (2) (dha) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 506-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident.The appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty granted to him.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally; therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for dismissal of this application.On perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, it emerges out that prosecutrix was at her home.On the call of appellant, she went to railway station and lived with him thereafter, she converted her religion and preferred to marry him.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I.A. No.2277/2019 is hereby allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No. 1103/2019 (Shekh Haseeb @ Lateef Vs.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.05.09 10:45:22 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,691,116 |
/ State.Shri G.P. Patel, Advocate for the Objector.In the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.Hence, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,177,012 |
was delivered by Shah J. Thedissenting Opinion of M. Hidayatullah and N. RajagopalaAyyangar JJ. was delivered by Ayyangar J.SHAH J.-A police report was lodged in the Court of theMagistrate First Class, Akola, against the appellants andfifty-five others on charges for offences punishable underss.406, 408, 409, 120-B and 477-A Indian Penal Code.Against1069that order the appellants moved the High Court of Bombay inrevision, but without success.With special leave, theappellants have appealed to this Court.Before dealing with that question and as preliminary theretoit will be convenient to narrate the facts which have givenrise to this appeal.The appellants before us are two out of 57 accused who arebeing prosecuted for offences under ss. 120-B,406, 408,409and 477-A, read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The charge-sheet was presented on the`4th of December, 1962, in the court of Shri Halbe, who wasappointed as a Special Magistrate for the trial of the case.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,770,186 |
The family of her in-laws comprised of her jeth, jethani and father in law.He learnt that there was a fire in the house of Golegappe Wale.When he reached the house he found his sister in a burnt condition and on seeing her, he became unconscious.Thereafter, his mamia sasur reached there who took his sister to the hospital.He also accompanied them after regaining his consciousness.21. PW-5 Mr. Deepak has also testified that the behaviour of the in-laws of his sister was cordial but some usual domestic quarrel used to take place.His sister was blessed with one female child who was born at his house as there was no place in the house of her in-laws.Due to some domestic problem his sister remained for 7-8 months at her parents house post her delivery.PW-5 has also testified that he did not state to the police how his sister was burnt as he could not say how she sustained burn injuries.There were no other reasons of fight except the usual domestic fights.This witness was also cross- examined by the State as he had too become hostile.In his cross - examination by counsel for the State he deposed that once the in-laws of the deceased had demanded money for construction of the house but the same was refused as they are poor persons.He was informed Crl.A. No.615/2000 Page 16 of 21 by his sister that her in-laws used to harass her and did not provide adequate food and kept her hungry.A. No.615/2000 Page 16 of 2122. PW-6 Smt. Guddubai, mother of the deceased has testified that father-in-law, jeth and jethani of the deceased used to harass her daughter and they would demand money from her.She gave articles but was not able to give cash on their demand.Her daughter was blessed with a child when she was in her house (mothers house) where she remained there for seven months after which she was taken away by her in-laws.She was informed that her daughter had been burnt.The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 31.07.2000 by which the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 02.08.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.148/99, FIR No.800/97, Police Station Nand Nagri, by which the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Sections 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each.The Crl.A. No.615/2000 Page 1 of 21 appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.A. No.615/2000 Page 1 of 21At this stage, we may note that the appellant No.3, Kishan Lal, father-in-law, of the deceased expired during the pendency of the appeal.To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all.Two witnesses were examined by the appellants in their defence.Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they stated that on the day of incident none of the appellants was present at the spot.They all pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law and facts established on record.There is no evidence on record in this case against the appellants justifying their conviction.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court has completely lost track of the fact that the most material witness PW-1 Sushil, husband of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution.Another important witness PW-2 Shiv Kumar, who had taken the deceased to the Hospital, has also not supported the version of the prosecution.Mr. Yadav submits that PW-5 Deepak, brother of the deceased and PW-6 Smt. Guddubai, mother of the deceased are Crl.A. No.615/2000 Page 2 of 21 interested witnesses.Their testimonies are unreliable and cannot be the basis of the conviction of the appellants.Additionally, it is contended that PW-5, Deepak, brother of the deceased, is a planted witness and there is nothing in his evidence to show as to how he came to the spot from Gwalior.Even otherwise, PW-5 in his testimony has categorically stated that except for usual domestic fights, there was no reason for the so-called rift between the deceased and the appellants.Mr. Yadav submits that the testimony of PW-6, mother of the deceased, is neither truthful nor reliable which is evident from the repeated endorsements made on the MLC that the patient was unable to making any statement.In case, the deceased was unable to make any statement, there was no possibility for her to inform her mother that the appellants had burnt her.Thus, her entire testimony should be discarded.A. No.615/2000 Page 2 of 21Mr. Yadav also submits that the dying declaration cannot be relied upon in the facts of the present case as the deceased had been admitted to the Hospital with 100% burn wounds and thus, she would not have been in a position to disclose to the Doctor as to how she was set on fire by her father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law.It is contended, while placing reliance on the cross-examination of PW-11 Dr. Kapila Goel that a person with 100% burn wounds would not be oriented and would not have been in a position to talk.Mr Yadav contends, while relying on the testimony of PW-11, that whenever this Doctor had examined the patient, he found her to be unconscious and further in 100% burnt condition.A. No.615/2000 Page 3 of 21Mr. Yadav has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of DW-1 Nakul to show that the deceased had committed suicide as a demand of Rs.1000/- was made by her brother, which she could not fulfil and she partially made a payment of Rs.500/- and as a result of facing harassment at the hands of her own family, she poured kerosene oil on herself and burnt herself, while the Trial Court has not given any weightage to the defence witness.To substantiate his argument that the Court must give equal weightage to the defence as the prosecution witness, Mr. Yadav relies on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, reported at (2002) 2 SCC 426, more particularly para 20 wherein it was held as under""20.....Incidentally be it noted that the evidence tendered by defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one- the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution.The issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution.Rejection of the defence case on the basis of the evidence tendered by defence witness has been effected rather casually by the High Court...."Mr. Yadav also contends that a person with 100% burn injuries could not have been in a position to give the details of the persons who had burnt her.The appellants were not present at the place when the incident took place and the appellants were residing at a different floor of the same house and, thus the Trial Court could not have convicted them in the absence of their presence having been established.A. No.615/2000 Page 4 of 21 reported at 230 (2016) DLT 251, of which one of us, (G.S. Sistani, J.), was also a member, in support of his contention that the intent of the deceased was to rope in all the family members.Mr. Yadav has also submitted, while relying on the post mortem report, that no smell of kerosene was found on the scalp of the deceased and in the absence thereof, the dying declaration would be unbelievable as the deceased had stated that the appellants had poured kerosene oil on her and put her on fire.A. No.615/2000 Page 4 of 21Mr. Yadav also submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants were present at the spot, at the time when the deceased was burnt.Learned counsel submits that none of the witnesses, on the basis of which the Trial Court has returned a finding of guilt, have stated that either of the appellants was present at the time of the incident.This gains importance as the deceased was taken to the hospital by PW-2 Mr. Shiv Kumar, who was distantly related to the deceased along with her brother PW-5 Mr. Deepak.Mr. Yadav contends that in case the deceased was in a fit state of mind to disclose to the Doctor that she was set on fire by her father-in-law, brother-in- law and sister-in-law, this fact would certainly have been disclosed by her to her own family members who took her to the hospital, but neither PW-2 nor PW-5 has supported the case of the prosecution or testified that the appellants were present at the place of the incident.To substantiate his argument that the appellants were not present at the spot when the deceased sustained burn injuries, the counsel relied on Crl.On the standard of proof, it was held in Mohinder Singh v. State, 1950 SCR 821 that the standard of proof required in regard to a plea of alibi must be the same as the standard applied to the prosecution evidence and in both cases it should be a reasonable standard.Dudh Nath Pandey goes a step further and seeks to bury the ghost of disbelief that shadows alibi witnesses, in the following words:"Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution.And, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses.Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses."Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants has also contended before us that had the appellants been present, they would have accompanied the deceased to the hospital or in case the deceased was subjected to harassment by her in-laws for demand of dowry the deceased would have implicated the husband as well.To the contrary, PW5 Deepak, the brother of the deceased has clearly testified that the behaviour of the in-laws of his sister was cordial, except for some usual domestic quarrel which used to take place.Per contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.She submits that merely because the deceased was taken to the Hospital and as per the MLC, she had 100% burn wounds, Crl.A. No.615/2000 Page 6 of 21 that by itself would not mean that she could not give the details of how she was burnt.Drawing the attention of the Court to the MLC, learned counsel contends that the Doctor has not only given the relationship of the persons, who burnt her but also named each person.The mother (PW-6) has named the father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased as the persons who used to harass her daughter and also made demands of money from her.She also testified that even after giving birth to a child, her daughter had stayed with her for seven months.Even post her returning to the in-laws house, she had learnt that her father-in-law had beaten her and 15 days thereafter, the incident of burning took place.The fact that the girl stayed with her mother for seven months would show that the domestic fights were not a negate fights; else no girl would stay with her mother for seven months.The brother also testified that once the in-laws of his deceased sister had demanded money for construction of house, but they had refused as being poor persons.He also testified that his sister would tell him that her in-laws used to harass her and did not provide adequate food and kept her hungry.Ms. Tiwari also submits that it is a settled law that an order of conviction can be passed on the basis of a dying declaration.The Doctor, who recorded the dying declaration, was fully competent and no further corroboration is required.A. No.615/2000 Page 6 of 21A. No.615/2000 Page 7 of 21We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the Trial Court record and considered the testimonies of various witnesses.The arguments of learned counsel for the appellants can be summarised as under:-(iii) The prosecution has failed to establish the presence of the appellants which would cast a serious doubt on the dying Crl.A. No.615/2000 Page 8 of 21 declaration.A. No.615/2000 Page 8 of 21(iv) The dying declaration is unreliable as the deceased did not make any such statement on her way to the hospital before PW-2 Mr. Shiv Kumar, who was related to her, and PW-5 Mr. Deepak, who was none else but her brother.(v) In the presence of serious doubts, the prosecution has not been able to produce any evidence to corroborate the dying declaration.(vi) In the absence of smell of kerosene oil detected either on the clothes or scalp of the deceased the dying declaration cannot be relied upon.(vii) No smell of kerosene was found by the Doctor in the MLC, in the FSL report and in the post-mortem report.The submissions of Ms.(i) The appellants were present at the time of the incident.(ii) The dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction.(iii) The Doctor had no motive to falsely implicate the family members and he recorded the dying declaration truthfully.PW-5 has testified that in-laws of the deceased had demanded money for construction of a house, her in-laws used to harass her and did not provide her adequate food and kept her hungry.(iv) The law is well settled that an order of conviction can be passed solely on the basis of a dying declaration given to the Doctor, who was fully competent and thus no corroboration is required.A. No.615/2000 Page 9 of 21The law with regard to conviction on the basis of a dying declaration is well settled.Suffice would it be to state that a dying declaration is a piece of evidence and has to be considered along with other relevant and admissible evidence which is brought on record.Where evidence on record casts a doubt on a factual aspects disclosed in a dying declaration, unless explained satisfactorily to the Court, the same would be fatal to a dying declaration.The clothes which she was wearing at the time when she sustained the burn injuries (in partially burnt conditions) were taken possession of by the Doctor at the hospital where Poonam was admitted and duty fully handed over to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.This casts a serious doubt whether at all kerosene was used to burn Poonam.The learned trial Judge thought that the same was not at all possible, as the victim had gone into shock after receiving such high degree burns.He had consequently opined, that the moment the deceased had seen the flame, she was likely to have sustained mental shock.Development of such shock from the very beginning, was the ground on which the Trial Court had disbelieved the medical evidence available.In his examination-in-chief this witness has testified that he was at his house drinking tea.At about 8:30a.m.in the morning, a girl Vimmi had come to his house and informed him that "Palli has burnt".He immediately rushed to the house of Palli along with Deepak and Rekha.He found Palli in burnt condition sitting on the floor.He took her to the GTB hospital.She was not admitted at GTB hospital and he then took her to Irwin hospital but he did not know how she was burnt.He further testified that Palli did not say anything to him.This witness was then cross- examined by the learned counsel for the State.He denied the suggestion that she was burnt by her jethani, jeth and father-in-law.He was confronted with the portion of his statement Mark Y where he has so stated.He also denied the suggestion that she had stated to the Doctor that she was burnt by her in-laws.He denied making any statement to the police although he was confronted with such a statement.A. No.615/2000 Page 15 of 21Another important witness is PW-5 Deepak, who is none else but the brother of the deceased.While it is the case of the appellants that PW- 5 is a planted witness as there is no evidence to suggest as to how he was present at the spot from Gwalior (M.P.) at the time of the incident.This witness testified that his sister was married to Sushil 3-4 years back.She was informed by her own daughter that all the three appellants have burnt her.She reached Delhi on 19.11.1997 where she met her daughter who told her that all the three accused persons crossed the limit of harassment.Post her death, the statement of PW-6 was recorded by the SDM.During cross-examination, this witness stated that when she reached the hospital no police official was present and on seeing her, her daughter told her that she had been burnt by her jeth, jethani and father in law.She denied the suggestion that when she talked to her daughter at about 6:30 pm, she was not conscious.PW-10 Dr. Bharat Singh has testified that the patient was admitted to the hospital with a history of being burnt by her jeth Bhondu, jethani Sakko and sasur Kishan Lal by putting on her kerosene oil.He also recorded that she was burnt 100%.He had then referred the patient for Emergency Ward for expert opinion and management.During cross- examination he testified that the MLC was prepared in his own handwriting.He explained the meaning of oriented as able to Crl.A. No.615/2000 Page 17 of 21 understand.He also testified that the patient was in a condition to speak and to understand what he had asked.A. No.615/2000 Page 17 of 21Another important witness is PW-11 Dr Kapila Goel.She testified that on 19.11.1997 when she was posted at LNJP Hospital she had seen the patient Palli at about 1:20 p.m. and found that she was unfit for statement and made an endorsement at point-A on the opinion Ex.PW11/A. Again on 20.11.1997 at 1:00 p.m. after examining the patient she found her unfit for statement.Her opinion is Ex.PW-11/B. She also examined the patient on 21.11.1997 and found the patient unfit to make a statement.Her cross-examination reads as under:-"Every time when I saw the patient on particular time on the given dates, patient was found unfit for statement.When first time I saw the patient, she was unconscious.It is necessary that all the 3 days when I examined her she remained unconscious, but when I saw her, she was unconscious.I did not see this patient in an oriented condition."The prosecution has also examined the formal witnesses.It is evident from the record that the mother of the deceased reached hospital only after the deceased was admitted and her MLC was recorded.We also find the need to seek corroboration of this dying declaration as the brother of the deceased who had removed his sister to the hospital along with his uncle has not testified either with regard to the presence of the appellants at the place of the incident; neither such a statement has been made by PW-2, the uncle of the deceased.To rely upon the dying declaration without any corroboration and to uphold the order of conviction in this case would be highly unsafe as there is no evidence to establish the presence of the appellants at the spot, when the deceased sustained burn injuries.We find that the corroboration would be necessary as the MLC does not refer to the smell of kerosene oil.There is no presence of smell of kerosene from the scalp of the deceased in the FSL report except that on the clothes it is opined that there is smell of some high boiling petroleum hydro carbon residue.In the post-mortem report Ex.PW- 18/A it has been stated "no smell of kerosene present on the body or scalp hairs".A. No.615/2000 Page 18 of 21A. No.615/2000 Page 19 of 21Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the dying declaration finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-6 Smt. Guddubai (mother of the deceased) who has categorically stated that she was informed by her daughter that her father in law, brother in law and sister in law had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil, but we agree with the finding of the Trial Court that the testimony of PW-6 mother is highly unreliable.Thus, we cannot believe that on 19.11.1997 at 6:00 p.m. the patient was in a fit state of mind to state before her mother that she had been burnt by the appellants herein.Taking into consideration the law as laid down by the Apex Court and circumstances of the present case, we are unable to accept the view of the Trial Court.The allegations are without any foundation and seem to be false and motivated.The dying declaration cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants.We are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The appellants deserve benefit of doubt.The appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,177,025 |
JUDGMENT Mitter, J.This Rule was issued by the Bench taking undefended criminal cases to show cause why the petitioner's sentences should not be made concurrent.The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows:A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months under Section 408 of the Penal Code, passed on 19-5-1951;The Rue is disposed of accordingly.Renupada Mukhehjee, J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,702,690 |
Consequently, FIR No.130/2012 was registered on 11.05.2012 under section 66A of the IT Act.The allegations levelled against the petitioner were that the complainant was a student of law and was undergoing internship.On 06.03.2012, her telephone number 9873748416 started receiving many calls from different numbers who, as per her, were talking non-sense and even some calls from internet which continued non-stop due to which she was unable to even use her telephone for outgoing calls.Accordingly, she lodged a report with Anti Stalking Helpline Desk of Delhi Police and also sent complaint to [email protected] she was getting a large number of calls CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 2 of 16 regularly, therefore, on 09.03.2012 and even on 10.03.2012, she sent another reminder through e-mail and ultimately when she did not get response, she filed W.P. No.399/2012 and, therein, as per her submissions, the status report was called from Delhi Police and on 12.03.2012 submitted the same.CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 2 of 16Alto CA 93404 US and during that period it was found that IP address, date and time of registration of the Account with a log in account details of the Facebook CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 3 of 16 account of 'Nidhi Taneja and 'beautiful Nits were activated by one Nidhi Taneja whose telephone number was mentioned as 9013499938 and the account bearing this number was also activated as Nidhi Taneja.Similarly certain other investigations were also made out and ultimately the Police Inspector Ms. Arti Sharma reached to House No. A-12/F-1, Dilshad Garden and interrogated the petitioner who disclosed that he and the complainant were friends and studied in the same School but due to their relations having ended, he was using the Facebook account in the name of Nidhi Taneja using his IP address.CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 3 of 16Further submitted that after the Court had taken the cognizance vide its Order dated 21.02.2015, the complainant hurriedly moved an application dated 27.04.2015 which was fixed for hearing on 28.04.2015 under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. thereby requesting further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. to CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 5 of 16 be held by the I.O. However, after moving this application, the complainant did not appear before the Court nor pursued this application, therefore, the application remained without perusal and since the proceedings has been dropped, the same was deemed to be dismissed.CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 5 of 16CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 6 of 16CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 6 of 161. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set aside the observations of the learned Court passed in application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in FIR No.130/2012 in case titled State vs. Shubham Kansal'.Further seeks direction thereby setting aside order dated 04.01.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.138/2016 and restore order dated CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 1 of 16 26.02.2016 passed by learned CMM whereby proceedings under Section 66A, IT Act and Section 509 IPC against the petitioner has been dropped.CRL.M.C.2024/2018 Page 1 of 16The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2/complainant filed an application before the police about the commission of an offence under section 66A of the Information & Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act).Though the investigation was continuing but was not to the satisfaction of the complainant, therefore, the complainant had filed Writ Petition No.399/2012 praying for registration of FIR regarding unsolicited phone calls and SMS.This Court directed the Police to hold the inquiry and register the FIR as per the provisions of law.The complainant also pleaded that sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act and certain offences of IPC were also attracted and mentioned that the challan has been filed in 2015 for an offence under the summons case, which is alleged to have taken place in 2012 but pleaded that under section 468 Cr.P.C. and 473 Cr.P.C., the court should have condoned the delay.In the aforesaid revision petition, the learned ASJ remanded the case vide its order dated 04.01.2017 to the MM directing that application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. be dealt with.Conjoint reading of section 156 read with section 173(2) & (8) and 210 of Cr.P.C. clearly lead to legislative intent to the effect that when a protest petition seeking further and proper investigation is pending at the instance of the complainant, the propriety demands that the investigating officer must refrain from submitting final report till the Magistrate issue direction on the pending petition/complaint filed by the complainant.Alternative course remained open to the IO that he may file report on the basis of the investigation carried out reserving right to file supplementary challan/report on the pending protest petition seeking further investigation.In view of the above discussion and legal position, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,177,127 |
Deceased Guddi was married to appellant Ramesh Kumar.The prosecution case is that the marriage of Guddi with accused Ramesh Kumar had taken place within 7 years of her death.She committed suicide by jumping into the well.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellants Ramesh Kumar, Rajni and Ramnath have been convicted under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused Ramesh Kumar.All the accused persons were demanding radio, watch and cycle as dowry.They were harassing Guddi for not bringing these items from her father.She used to make complaint to her brother Ram Pratap (PW 1) regarding the demand of dowry and harassment.A Panchayat was called 15 days before the death of Guddi in the house of Ram Pratap (PW 1).In that Panchayat, all the three appellants were present.Guddi made a complaint in that Panchayat that they were demanding the above items as dowry.She also made a complaint that she was being treated with cruelty by the appellants.The accused persons pleaded not guilty.Their defence is that they never demanded any item from the father of the deceased.According to the appelants, Guddi slipped into the well and that was cause of her death.The Trial Court held that all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code are established and therefore, they have been convicted and sentenced as stated above.It does not establish the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised.Dr. Badri Singh (PW6) has deposed that he had conducted autopsy on the body of Guddi on 28.5.1993 and found that she died due to the asphyxia caused by drowning.The defence examined Chhotkawan (DW 1) and Mohar (DW 2).They have deposed that they saw deceased Guddi pulling water from the well.Chhotkawan (DW 1) says that the rope which was being used for pulling water was entangled with the leg of the deceased and that took her into the well.Mohar (DW 2) says that piece of wood which was kept on the well gave way and that was the reason that the deceased fell into the well.The evidence of these two witnesses is not consistent.It appears that they have not seen Guddi falling into the well.They did not come forward before the police to make a statement that they have seen Guddi slipping into the well.The Trial Court has rightly rejected their evidence.There was no rope or bucket near the well.Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well.It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased with appellant Ramesh Kumar had taken place within 7years of her .death.Ram Pratap (PW1) is the brother of the deceased.He has deposed that the accused persons were demanding radio, watch and cycle but his father was not able to give these articles due to his poverty.His sister used to come to his house and then, she used to tell that the accused persons are demanding these articles and if she does not bring these articles, they will not allow her to go to her parents house.She had also stated that she was beaten by her husband Ramesh Kumar, her father-in-law and mother-in-law, Ramnath and Jamuni.She had come to his house 15 days before the incident.All the three accused persons had come to take her.He called some persons of his village.In their presence, Guddi had complained that the accused persons were demanding cycle, watch and radio as dowry.The accused persons said that her father had promised to give these articles at the time of the marriage but he did not fulfil his commitment.The accused persons were asked by those persons that they would not make demand of these articles as the financial condition of the father of Guddi was not good.They took her to her husband's place.There is no material omission in that statement.It is only the use of words who had made some apparent discrepancy between the two statements.Raghunath Prasad Sharma (PW 3) has corroborated the evidence of Ram Pratap (PW 1).He has confirmed that Guddi had made the complaint that the accused persons were demanding the articles mentioned above as dowry.The evidence adduced by the prosecution as against appellant Ramesh Kumar is satisfactory.That proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was demanding dowry and harassing his wife as it was not being given by the parents of Guddi.He was harassing his wife for not bringing the above items.The conviction of appellant Ramesh Kumar under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code is well founded.So far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Rajni and Ramnath are concerned, the evidence of Ram Pratap (PW 1) against them is of general nature.There is no precise evidence to this effect that they were beating or harassing the deceased.The prosecution evidence against them is not of such a character from which an inference can be drawn that they are guilty for the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code.The prosecution evidence on this point against the father-in-law and mother-in-law should be more clear and cogent.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence of appellants Rajni and Ramnath are set aside.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,799,596 |
The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :(a) The chak belonging to Kumar (P.W.3), father of Bandhoo(the deceased) and Chhotai (P.W.4), is just in front of thehouse of Tapsi.For sometime past Tapsi was trying toacquire that chak and he had even asked Kumar to sell it tohim.Kumar, however, did not agree to such proposal.Overthat issue there was a long standing dispute between them.Besides, there were other disputes between kumar and hissons on the one hand and accused persons on the other.2 (b).In the morning of October 13,1977, when thedeceased went to plough the chak with bullocks, Tapsi andthe other accused resisted him and tried to beat him up.Leaving his bullock and plough in the chak, Bandhoo then rantowards his house.The five accused persons then chasedBandhoo armed with various weapons.While Mohan had acountry-made piston with him, Tapsi and Chhotkun had ballams(spears), Kantoo a burcha and Muneshwar a lathi.WhenBandhoo reached the sehan (courtyard) of his house, Mohanfired at him with his country-made pistol.The shot,however, did not hit Bandhoo.Thereafter, Tapsi and chhotkunbeat Bandhoo with their respective weapons.When Kumar andChhotai rushed there to save Bandhoo, Muneshwar hit Kumarwith the lathi and Kantoo hit Chhotai, with his burcha.Thereafter, all the five accused persons ran away.Bandhoowas then taken to the district hospital where he succumbedto his injuries in the same evening.(c) A written report of the incident was given to thepolice station by kumar on the same day at 9.30 A.M. and onthat information a case was registered against the fiveaccused persons.Both Kumar and Chhotai were medicallyexamined at the District Hospital, Azamgarh for the injuriesthey had sustained.(d) Sub-Inspector Bhagirathi Singh (PW-7) took upinvestigation of the case and went to the spot.He prepareda site plan and seized some blood stained earth from there.J U D G M E N TM.K. MUKHERJEE, J.Five persons, namely, Mohan Yadav were, Chhotkun Yadav,Muneshwar Yadav and Kantoo Yadav were arraigned before theSessions Judge, Azamgarh for rioting, murder and otherallied offences.The trial ended in conviction of all ofthem under Sections 302/149 IPC, 307/149 IPC and 323/149IPC.In addition, Mohan was convicted under Section 148 IPCand the other four Section 148 IPC and the other fourSection 147 IPC.For the convictions so recorded, they weresentenced to different terms of imprisonment, includinglife, with a direction that the sentences would runconcurrently.As the appeal preferred by them in the HighCourt was dismissed, they filed the instant appeal afterobtaining special leave.During the pendency of the appeal,two of them, namely Tapsi and Chhotkun died and hence, theappeal so for as they are concerned abate.On completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheetagainst the above-mentioned five accused persons.The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the chargesleveled against them and their defence was that Kumar metwith his death in a dacoity that was committed in his houseby some unknown persons.In support of its case, theprosecution examined ten witnesses, of whom Kumar andChhotai figured as eye witnesses.No witness was howeverexamined on behalf of the defence.The Trial Court found theevidence of the above two witnesses reliable and as,according to it, their evidence stood corroborated by theevidence of Jhingur (PW-6), who claimed to have seen theaccused persons running away immediately after the incidentthe medical evidence and the FIR that was lodged with utmostdispatch, it convicted the five accused persons in themanner as stated earlier.Since the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by thelearned courts below are based on proper discussion of theevidence and since convincing reasons have been given forrelying upon the same, we do not find any justifiable groundto disturb the same.However, having regard to the manner inwhich the incident took place, it is difficult for us toconclusively hold that the accused persons had the commonobject of committing he murder of Bandoo.It appears to us,on going through the entire record that they (the accusedpersons) wanted to teach Kumar and his sons a lesson for notselling the chak to them and not to kill them.It is, ofcourse, true that according to the prosecution, accusedMohan fired a shot from a country-made pistol but there isno satisfactory evidence to conclusively prove that it wasaimed at Bandhoo.If the common object of the unlawfulassembly of which he (Mohan) was a member was to commit themurder nothing prevented him form firing further shots toachieve that object.In arriving at the above conclusion asregards the common object of the unlawful assembly, we havealso drawn inspiration from the fact that except thepuncture a wound on the left side of the chest of Bandhoowhich was caused by Tapsi and which resulted in his death,the other three injuries which were found on his person,were simple injuries inflicted on non-vital parts of thebody, namely, right thigh, left arm and right arm.Similaris the injuries that were found on the person of Chhotai.and Kumar.Considering all these aspects of the matter, wehold that the common object of the unlawful assembly was tocause grievous hurt and not to commit murder; l and theinjury that was inflicted by Tapsi to cause the death ofBandhoo was his individual act for which he would have beenliable for conviction under section 302 IPC (Simpliciter).For the foregoing discussion we alter the convictionsof the three surviving accused-appellants, namely, Mohan,Muneshwar and Kantoo under Sections 302/149 IPC and 307/149IPC to Section 326/149 IPC (two counts) but maintain theirconviction under Section 323/149 IPC.We also maintain theconviction of Mohan under Section 148 IPC and that of Kantooand Muneshwar under Section 147 IPC.Since they have already served out the sentences imposed fortheir other convictions, we direct that they be releasedforthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.The appeal is thus disposed of.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
179,959,942 |
The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit vide order dated 28.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.As per prosecution case complainant, Hemlata Singh made a complaint on 13/11/2015 averring that her minor daughter Harshita Singh had been kidnapped by her unknown friends on the pretext of marriage.Her daughter used to talk on mobile with her friends so, she had sent her to her grandparent's house at Village Tilman, District Katni (M.P.).It is further stated that despite being sent to Village Tilman, she continued talking to her friends over the phone.On 13/11/2015 the complainant, along with her son and prosecutrix went to Railway Station to go to Bhopal.However, on account of excessive rush at the Railway Station, some unknown friend of Harshita took her away under the false pretext of marriage.On that, police registered Crime No.256/2015 at Police Station G.R.P. Jabalpur.It is also revealed that the applicant asked her to leave her house without telling anybody.The proceeding convened through video conferencing.Subsequently case diary of the crime was transferred to Police Station Crime Branch Bhopal on account of the fact that the matter pertained to District Bhopal.On that, Police Station Crime Branch Bhopal registered a fresh FIR bearing Crime No. 65/2016 under section 363, 323, 506, 373, 376, 376(2) (n), 366(A), 342, 294, 34 of I.P.C. and U/s 5(a)(i) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against unknown accused persons and investigated the crime.During the investigation, Police recorded the statements of the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13758/2020 (Shakshi Sharma Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and it was revealed that prosecutrix, who was minor came into contact with the applicant through Facebook and became her fan on account of her looks and that gradually she started talking with the applicant.On that prosecutrix came to Bhopal without informing her parents and contacted the applicant.She blackmailed her and pushed her in flesh trade.She forced her to make physical relation with many people in Bhopal.She also sent her to Surat and Goa where Akash and Mukesh also forced her to make sexual relation with many people.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime.He further submitted that the applicant knew the prosecutrix through Facebook and the prosecutrix continuously used to send messages to her and called her.He further submitted that the applicant gradually came to know that the prosecutrix has fled away from her parent's home without letting her parents know.The applicant used to console her and make her understand that she should go back to her parent's house however despite grave efforts made by the applicant to guide her in this regard she remained stubborn all throughout.He further submitted that the applicant initially used to meet her at malls, however, due to paucity of time, it became difficult for the applicant to meet with prosecutrix frequently or attend her phone calls as the applicant was studying in college and had her educational priorities so she started ignoring her in order to focus on her studies.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix could not digest the fact that she was being ignored by the applicant and she used to force the applicant to meet her.It is further submitted that the applicant gradually realised that the prosecutrix and her company are not good and she was indulged in immoral activities so the applicant made the distance from her.Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on a bare perusal of the WhatsApp chats produced by the applicant in support of her application it is evident that the prosecutrix had engaged in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13758/2020 (Shakshi Sharma Vs.State of M.P. ) 3 immoral activities and went to Goa on her own.She has adopted a lifestyle to earn easy money.The prosecutrix along with her parents are in a habit of falsely implicating friends and people around them in criminal cases so as to blackmail them for money.On that police filed the charge sheet against Arbaz Khan after the investigation in that crime.Although earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated28.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 54766/2019 on the ground that at that time investigation was going on but thereafter charge sheet has been filed.Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposed the prayer.Although earlier bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated28.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. 54766/2019 but said application was rejected on the ground that investigation is going on but thereafter charge sheet has been filed, so looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant is a lady, she has no criminal past and is in custody since 18.12.2019, charge sheet has THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13758/2020 (Shakshi Sharma Vs.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
179,961,720 |
1 29.07.2019 63 sdas Allowed C.R.M. 6504 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.07.2019 in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No. 153 of 2019 dated 26.06.2019 under Sections 147/148/149/186/ 332/ 333/353/354/326/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Souvik Mandal @ Souvik Mondal @ Sampi ...... petitioner Mr. Subhabrato Chowdhury, Mr. Biswajit Gswani, Ms. Tripti Pandey, Mr. Akash Shaw .....for the petitioner Ms. Faria Hossain, Ms. Baisali Basu ....for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is the leader of an opposition political party in the State and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to political vendetta.No overt act has been attributed to him in the instant case.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,996,198 |
Shri Rahul Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.I.A. No.1546/2020, an application under section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18/12/19 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Lahar, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No.367/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 307, 294, subsequently enhanced 427 read with 34 of the IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 14/11/2019, at about 2 AM while the complainant was returning home and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5749/2020 (Yogendra Singh alias Pappu Vs.In his memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, applicant has admitted that the gun was handed over to co-accused Dhirendra, which has been recovered from Dhirendra only.Besides, applicant has criminal antecedents to his discredit.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
179,962,728 |
On sufficient cause if shown, the Bench maygrant such time and on such conditions as it thinks and proper.The writ petition isaccordingly, dismissed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,799,632 |
The fact that they were named, excludes the possibility of other persons to be in the appellant's party and especially when there be no occasion to think that the witnesses naming all the accused could have committed mistakes in recognising them.In the absence of such a finding, it is not possible, to hold that there were other persons who, along With the three convicted, could be said to have formed the unlawful assembly.There is nothing here to show that there were other persons who were either absconding or could not be identified and therefore unnamed and they together with the convicted accused would have constituted an unlawful assembly.In the absence of such evidence and such a finding, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.The Revision Petition is allowed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,799,638 |
I am stating all the facts relevant to the case.The facts are partly admitted facts and partly they are the allegations of the prosecution initially but they had been alleged by accused No. 1 as he unfolded his case during the trial.Those facts are stated partly because they are no longer in dispute but mainly with a view to complete the chronology of events.Both those letters are produced at Ex. 10 (collectively) in these proceedings.But the same does not appear to be on record.The above two letters, Ex. 10 (colly.) appear to have been addressed not to the complainant as such.The case was initiated at the instance of the complainant who is the appellant before me.The charge was that respondent No. 1 (who will be referred to hereafter as accused No. 1) and three others had defamed the complainant and as such had committed an offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C. I may state here at the outset that though all the four accused have been acquitted by the learned Magistrate, the present appeal is filed against accused No. 1 only.At the outset, I may very briefly state the substance of the grievance of the complainant against the accused.They have formed a co-operative housing society and accused No. 1 is the Secretary of that society.They entered into an agreement with he complainant, who is a builder, for construction of their residential building and in the quibblings which started at the later stage in the transaction, accused No. 1 addressed a letter dated 28-3-1977 to the complainant and a copy of the same was sent by accused No. 1 to the Architects of the society.I will refer to the said letter hereafter as the 'impugned letter'.The defence contention in the beginning was that at the most it could be said to be a strongly worded letter.The learned Magistrate seems to imply that the letter does not go beyond the stage of vituperation.The complainant is seriously aggrieved by the said view of the learned Magistrate.The purpose of the society was to construction a building for the society for its members who were essentially the employees and officers of the State bank of India.Accused No. 1 has been at all the relevant times the Secretary of the society.Accused No. 2 was the treasurer at the relevant time.An agreement dated 31-3-1971 was arrived between the Promoters of the society and the complainant by virtue of which agreement the complainant undertook to construct a building for the society on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement, which is produced at Ex. 4 in these proceedings.As has been the common feature of such transactions these days, there started bickerings between the builder on the one hand and the members of the Managing Committee of the society on the other.Arguments were advanced by Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate for the accused, almost ad nauseam, on this point and on some other points.Hence on 27-10-1974 the complainant filed the present complaint against the four accused.Thereafter, the learned Magistrate framed the charge against all the accused under section 500 I.P.C.The complainants led his evidence thereafter.He examined himself as well as Architect Shri Thakkar.In addition to the oral evidence, the complainant produced a few documents.I may state here that the additional documents produced by the complainant do not take his case any further than what is done by the impugned letter Ex. A itself and hence no reliance was placed upon the same before me by Shri D.M. Rane, the learned Advocate for the complainant.No oral evidence was led on behalf of the accused as such but quite a few documents were produced or got produced and proved by them.Those documents are produced at Exs.Accused No. 1 admitted in his examination under section 313 that he had signed the impugned letter Ex. A. He stated that the same was sent by him to the complainant but he denied that he had sent the copy of the same to the Architects.He denied that the contents of the letter, Ex. A, were defamatory and stated that he did not know whether the position of the complainant was lowered in the eyes of the society by virtue of the said letter.However, he alleged that the complainants and Shri Thakkar had joined hands and that was the reason why they were deposing falsely against him.In his statement he stated that he was filing the written statement.His examination under section 313 Cri.P.C. is dated 13-8-1976 and on the same day, i.e. on 13-8-1976, he filed a written statement in the case.He denied that the copy of the impugned letter was sent by him to Shri Thakkar, the Architect.He stated in para 4 of the written statement that a copy of the impugned letter Ex. A was lying in the file of the society which was handled by the witness Shri Thakkar as the Architect of the society.All the same he denied in para 5 of the written statement that there was any publication of the alleged defamatory statements.Thereafter the learned Magistrate heard the arguments.His contention is that truth in the allegation contained in the impugned letter was sufficient justification and when the accused was required to establish the said truth it was not necessary for him to establish it to the hilt.The learned Magistrate had observed that the complainant had used strong and indecent words in his letter dated 12-3-1973 addressed to the accused and he had observed that the impugned letter was an equal and opposite reaction to the said letter.Mr. Shah adopted this line of reasoning.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
179,971,765 |
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Convicted accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 5/2002, challenge judgment and order dated 27.09.2002, delivered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara.There were total 4 accused.Deceased Lobhan Urkada Raut and victim Nepal Urkada Raut intervened in the quarrel and attempted to persuade the parties to get the property demarcated.Accused no.4 Ramlal and accused no.1 Shamkumar uttered that they also have share in open land, where pit was being dug.Lobhan stated that they had no share.Before the court for the first time she deposes that Bhimabai and Vasantabai had caught hold of her hair or then caught hold of her brother-in-law Nepal.She states that both the ladies brought Nepal in courtyard of Moreshwar.Lobhan then inquired as to why they were beating Nepal, accused no.4 administered blow of stick on leg of Lobhan and accused no.1 Shamkumar gave blow on his scalp.She went to save her husband, but, accused no.2 and accused no.3 caught hold of her hair and pulled it.Her husband became unconscious and fell down.Bhimabai and Vasantabai then pulled down Nepal.Accused no.2 Bhimabai caught his testicles and accused Vasantabai gave him kick on stomach.She could not explain why there was omissions in her police statement.She further deposes in cross-examination that she never informed police about Nepal lifting and shifting her husband Lobhan.Moreshwar thereafter has stated that Nepal went to his house on his own after the quarrel.examination states that they lifted Lobhan and brought him to house, but, then immediately attempted to dilute its impact by submitting that he did not lift Lobhan.Accused no.1 Shamkumar is punished under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.Accused no.2 and accused no.3 (both ladies) are found guilty under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Accused no.4 Ramlal was punished under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and has been let free after imposing upon him punishment for 10 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.Accused no.4 had already suffered his punishment in the meanwhile.Case of prosecution in brief is - Moreshwar and Ramchandra Walde, two brothers had some dispute about sharing of property.On ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 4 02.11.2001 at about 9 a.m., Moreshwar was digging a pit for drainage of latrine and Ramchandra obstructed in it.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Accused no.1 and accused no.4 assaulted Lobhan by means of stick, kicks and fist blows.Nepal, brother of Lobhan also received injuries.After death of Lobhan, it was altered to Section 302 read with other provisions.We have heard Shri R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant -Learned A.P.P. Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, has advanced arguments in both the appeals on behalf of the State Government.4. Effort of Shri Daga and Shri Chitaley, learned counsel is to demonstrate that injured witness Nepal as also other eye witnesses have twisted the facts and attempted to project incorrect story before the trial ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 5 Court.Trial Court also did not peruse and appreciate the evidence of all witnesses.Accused no.1 Shamkumar did not inflict any injury on Lobhan, and Lobhan was well even after the alleged incident.He left his house to report the quarrel to police patil and had a fall on road.Medical evidence does not show any external injury on his head and hence, any assault on his head by Shamkumar is totally ruled out.The Trial Court has also accepted the alleged recovery of a stick under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from him, but, then that recovery is without any disclosure memorandum and seizure panchnama.There is no report of C.A. on it.It is pointed out that Nepal was also active after alleged attack on him and gave incorrect version to falsely implicate two ladies in the family of Shamkumar.Bhimabai is mother of Shamkumar, while Smt. Vasanta is also relative of Shamkumar.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::His contention is both the ladies attacked on his private parts, is not supported by any medical evidence.Respective counsel has taken us through relevant evidence to urge that effort was made by Bhimabai to lodge report first, but, she was given understanding that it was a non-cognizable offence.Bhimabai was also injured because of attack on her by Lobhan and Nepal.Shri Daga, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment reported at 2011 Cri.L.J. 2631 (SC) Swapan Kumar Senapati .vrs.State of West Bengal), to point out the impact of finding that Lobhan had not suffered any external injury on his head.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Dadarao Thorat .vrs.The State of Maharashtra), is also relied upon by him to show how delivery of single blow needs to be appreciated.Shri Chitaley, learned Counsel for the appellants, has submitted that there is no evidence of any grievous injury suffered by victim Nepal.He relies upon the provisions of Section 320 [8] of Indian Penal Code and draws support from 1962 (1) Cri.L.J. 652 (Mathu Pally .vrs.State of Kerala), 1969 Cri.L.J. 1498 (State of Gujarat .vrs.Samaj) and 2008 (4) AIR Bom.R. 265 (Syed Afzal Ahmed .vrs.State of Maharashtra), to explain what grievous hurt means.As against this Mrs. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. relies upon the evidence as looked into by the trial Court and submits that Lobhan who has lost his life and his younger brother Nepal were assaulted by accused persons.It is submitted that Nepal or any of the eye witnesses have no reason to lie.She states that medical evidence shows Haematoma and Hemorrhagic shock, as cause of death.Recovery of stick though not under Section 27, is a vital in this respect.She relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (1979) 3 SCC 90 (Prakash Chand .vrs.State ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 7 (Delhi Administration), to urge that said recovery shows knowledge of incriminating facts.Even if on technical grounds recovery may fail, cognizance of knowledge with accused or of his conduct could be taken.She points out that the report of Bhimabai is at about 1.30 in the afternoon, while hospital had given phone call to police station about injuries to Lobhan and Nepal and attack on them at 11 a.m. itself.State of Rajasthan), to buttress her contentions.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Prosecution has contended that accused no.1 Shamkumar has committed murder of Lobhan by using stick as a weapon.Accused no.4 Ramlal is found guilty by the trial Court under Section 323 for attack on Lobhan with stick, but, Ramlal is not in appeal before us, as he has accepted the finding.He has accepted the finding because he was in jail for the period for which he has been asked to undergo imprisonment as he could not secure bail during trial.Accused no.2 Bhimabai and accused no.3 Smt. Vasanta are found guilty under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for attack on Nepal.After hearing respective counsel and after going through the ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 8 evidence on record, we find that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::FIR (Exh.58) is the first document which brings on record case of prosecution.It is taken down on oral report of Babinanda wife of deceased Lobhan on the date of incidence itself.Police Constable Sukhadeo Bhoyar has recorded it and then registered FIR at police station Duggipar.He received telephone from medical officer of Rural Hospital, Sadak Arjuni about assault on Lobhan and Nepal.He recorded Sana entry no.19/2001 and proceeded to Rural Hospital.Medical officer on duty told him that injured persons were not in a position to give statements.Babinanda w/o Lobhan gave oral report there, which he noted down.He brought that report to police station and lodged complaint.It is supported by P.S.I. Ashok Sakharkar, examined as P.W.17 by prosecution.Report lodged by Babinanda speaks of quarrel over a septic tank.She submits that after her husband Lobhan and his younger brother Nepal denied right of accused no.1 and accused no.4, accused persons who were already armed with sticks, beat her husband with stick, kicks and fist blows.Her husband sustained injuries on his head and blood came out from it.He also sustained injuries on his legs and became unconscious.Nepal also ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 9 sustained injuries.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Thus, in this report she does not name accused no.2 Bhimabai or accused no.3 Vasanta and does not ascribe any role to them.She also does not say that her brother-in-law Nepal was unconscious.She is examined as P.W.8 by the prosecution.She could not explain why this fact appeared in her police statement.Thus, variance in her report immediately after incident, her statement and ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 10 deposition in court is significant.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::It will be appropriate to see what P.W.16 Nepal Raut has to say.His deposition reveals that there was quarrel between Moreshwar and Ramchandra on account of digging of pit.He and Babinanda suggested to get the land measured from Patwari instead of quarreling.Bhimabai [accused no.2] and Vasantabai [ accused no.3] questioned their authority to intervene.Thus, a story not deposed by Babinanda and not disclosed by her is coming on record through this witness.Nepal further deposes that his elder brother Lobhan [deceased], then arrived and again made similar suggestion.Accused no.1 and accused no.4 then assaulted Lobhan with sticks in their hand on Lobhan's head, back and leg.There was serious injury on his head and he fell down unconscious.His bead was broken open.He rushed to his brother and lifted him and at that time accused no.2 Bhimabai pulled his testicles and Vasantabai gave kick blows on his private part.He therefore, fall unconscious.He regained conscious to some extent at the hospital at Sadak Arjuni.Then he was shifted to Bhandara Hospital and there he learnt about death of his brother Lobhan.He identified the wooden stick at Article '1', as stick with which accused no.1 Shamkumar assaulted Lobhan on his head and body.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Judgment apeal649.02 11In cross-examination, he accepted that Lobhan came to spot after quarrel had begun.He denied that he had come to spot with stick to assist Moreshwar in digging pit.He denied that Lobhan and Moreshwar assaulted Ramchandra.He denied that he assaulted Bhimabai with stick and gave its blows on her head.He denied that there was scuffle between Lobhan and Ramchandra, or that Lobhan fell down in pit and injured himself because of stones therein.He could not explain why police did not record the fact that head of Lobhan was broken open.In his statement he accepted the Lobhan was lifted and brought home by them, however, immediately he added that he did not lift Lobhan.He could not explain why name of Ramchandra was written by police in his statement in place of name of Bhimabai, was not known to him.He denied that he was not assaulted by Bhimabai and Vasantabai.In further cross-examination, he denied that he was not in a position to state who assaulted Lobhan by stick.He asserts that Shamkumar assaulted Lobhan by sticks.Impliedly, he states that accused no.4 Ramlal [father of Shamkumar] did not assaulted Lobhan with stick.This witness [Nepal] submits that police recorded his statement at Chikhali as also at Bhandara.Statement at Bhandara was recorded 4 to 5 days after the incident, while statement at Chikhali was recorded thereafter.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Judgment apeal649.02 12 He stated that his statement at Chikhali was recorded after recording of statement at Bhandara.He has denied that a false case was fabricated by him to implicate Bhimabai and Vasantabai.He submits that he found lacerated wound over left parietal region of the size of 2 x ½ x ½ Inch.Haematoma was present over right cerebral hemisphere.He further stated that injury on dead body could have been caused by hard and blunt object like stick, which was sent to him for opinion.In cross-examination this doctor has denied that lacerated wound could have been caused by fall during scuffle on stone.Injury i.e. haematoma cannot be caused by fall on edged sharp stone.He further stated that there was no evidence of fracture of skull.Post mortem report Exh.36, while taking note of wounds and injuries on deceased, against column no.17, PW-6 Doctor leaves everything blank.Thus, he mentions that there were no external injuries.While taking note of internal injuries in column no.19, lacerated wound over left parietal region, is recorded as seen upon internal examination of skull.While referring to brain, presence of haematoma over right cerebral hemisphere is recorded.In column no.22, Hemorrhagic shock due to head injury is given ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 13 as cause of death.Neither State nor doctor has even attempted to whisper that lacerated wound over left parietal region was in fact an external injury.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::This Doctor who has proved post mortem report never deposed that lacerated wound over left parietal region was not an internal injury.On the contrary, his deposition and post mortem report does not show that any external injury may have contributed to haematoma in right cerebral hemisphere.N.C. report lodged by accused no.2 Bhimabai reveals that quarrel between Ramchandra and Moreshwar and effort by her to persuade not to quarrel.She then complains that Lobhan and Nepal beat her with stick and she sustained injuries on left side of her head.Defence of accused no.1 Shamkumar in Section 313 statement, while answering the last question is, when he intervened to separate/save his mother, Santosh and Kailash assaulted Lobhan.Investigating Officer P.W.17 states that stick was recovered after statement of Shamkumar.Shamkumar stated that stick was lying outside his house and in normal seizure, he took it in custody.He identified Article-1 to be that stick and Article-A2 as the full pant of deceased.He has specifically ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 14 stated that he did not seize stick under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also states that Article-A2 was full pant seized from body of the deceased.In her report Exh.82, Babinanda states that Lobhan had sustained bleeding injuries on his leg.Seizure panchnama Exh.28 of said full pant shows blood stains on right leg portion.Again it is important to note that no corresponding injury is found on leg of Lobhan by P.W.6 - Dr. Meshram.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::There is no C.A. report either on stick or on this full pant.In this situation, if statement was made by accused no.1 to show the stick which he used for commission of offence, it's non seizure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is fatal to prosecution case.Neither this stick, nor blood stains on full pant of Lobhan can advance the story of prosecution.As already noted in Exh.82, there is no reference to accused no.2 Bhimabai or accused no.3 Vasantabai.In FIR also their names do not appear.We have already discussed evidence of P.W.8 Babinanda about role of accused nos. 2 and 3 in the matter.Evidence of P.W.9 Nisha Raut wife of Nepal, is that Bhimabai caught hold of his testicles and Vasantabai gave blow on his scalp.She could not explain why this fact of holding testicles or giving kick do not appear in her police statement.She deposes that police recorded her statement thrice.First her statement was recorded at Sadak ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 15 Arjuni on the day of incident itself.Her second statement was recorded after 8 days at Bhandara and her last statement was recorded at her village after about one month.Thus, improvements made by her about attack on her husband Nepal are apparent.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Deposition of P.W.10 -Subhash Nandagawli shows that Vasantabai gave kick blows on stomach of Nepal, while Bhimabai had caught hold of his testicles.P.W.12 - Lilabai Bhendarkar states that Vasantabai had caught hold of hair of Babinanda.P.W.13- Pyarelal Walde does not name Bhimabai or Vasantabai in his examination-in-chief and he was declared hostile.P.W.14 - Shobabhai Walde states that when Nepal came to rescue of Lobhan, Vasanta and Bhima came to spot, they caught testicles of Nepal.P.W.15 - Moreshwar Walde is the person who was digging pit for latrine.He states that Ramchandra obstructed in the process.Lobhan was standing near him.Accused nos. 1 and 4 beat Lobhan by sticks.Victim Nepal also came to spot at that time.Accused nos. 2 and 3 then caught hold and pulled the testicles of Nepal.Lobhan had a bleeding injury.Thus, this militates with the version that these two ladies caught ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 ::: Judgment apeal649.02 16 hold Nepal and brought him to spot.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::P.W.15 - Moreshwar during cross-examination accepts that he had stated before Police that when Kailash and Santosh were beating Nepal, Lobhan came to spot.In this connection perusal of evidence of P.W.11 Raghoba Walde reveals that after the attack was over, Lobhan had proceeded towards house of police patil to lodge a report, but, he fell down on square on stony surface.He also accepted that tractor had come from one side, but, he could not state whether Lobhan fell down because of tractor.Wife of PW-15 Moreshwar also throws some light.Evidence of said witness P.W.14-::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Judgment apeal649.02 17 Shobhabai shows that Kailash and Santosh were beating Nepal and Lobhan.Victim Nepal then went to his house on foot of his own and collapsed inside the house because of his injuries.Her husband Moreshwar Walde and Lobhan proceeded towards house of police patil.Lobhan fail down in the square because of giddiness, near tractor.We have already briefly mentioned evidence of her husband P.W.15 Moreshwar.He also states that he [Moreshwar] proceeded towards the house of police patil to lodge report.He further accepted that Lobhan was sitting in square and he followed him.P.W.12 -Leelabai in cross-examination states that Lobhan did not advise anybody in her presence to measure the plot and thereafter to proceed to dig a pit.Perusal of evidence of P.W.7-Dr.Kewalram Gahane shows that he examined Nepal as also Lobhan first.Nepal had tenderness over lower abdomen and injury may have been caused by stick.He further stated that he did not see any injury of size 2 x ½ x ½ Inch on Lobhan.He has stated that Lobhan was unconscious and his condition was poor.He does not state that Nepal was unconscious.Thus, there is no material to show that Nepal had complained to this Doctor about any injury or violence to his private parts.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Judgment apeal649.02 18It shows that after the incident, Lobhan was very much active and did proceed in the direction of house of police patil to report the attack.Nobody then attempted to stop him as there was nothing to worry.This militates with version of attack on his head and his falling down on spot or then relatives lifting him to carry to his home.It also negates use of any violence by accused nos. 2 and 3 on Nepal.In view of this conclusion, we do not find it necessary to discuss any of the precedents mentioned supra.With the result, we allow both the Appeals.Conviction and sentence of appellants by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 5/2002 dated 27.09.2002 is quashed and set aside and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::Judgment apeal649.02 19Fees of the Counsel appointed for accused nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 563/2002 are quantified at Rs.7500/-.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:20:03 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.