id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,970,660 | The applicant has sent a notice to the jail authority about the information of sentences to run concurrently.The jail authority vide order dated 18/4/2010 has pointed out that sentence under Section 8 read with Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 is going to be completed on 22/5/2010 and thereafter his sentence under Section 324, IPC will be started and there is no possibility to run it concurrently.Where several sentences are passed against the same person, the Code has enacted a different rule, namely, that such sentences should run consecutively; the one after the expiration of the other, unless the Court directs that they should run concurrently.In the present case, the applicant is convicted in two different cases. | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,706,640 | I. The application is hereby allowed.The applicants ANKUSH S/O. LAXMAN PAWAR and NIRMALA S/O ANKUSH PAWAR be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 88 of 2019 registered with Pachod Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 341, 143, 147, 148, vre/-::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 19:41:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 19:41:38 :::( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 19:41:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 19:41:38 ::: | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,066,961 | (LEKHU @ LEKHAN LAL KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 07-01-2020 Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.P .Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.Arguments heard.Case diary is available.T his is first b ail application filed b y t h e applicants-accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicants are in custody since 05.12.2019 i n connection with Crime No. 275/2019 registered a t Police Station Manpur, District Umariya (M.P.) for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.As per the prosecution story the allegation against the applicants is that they alongwith other co-accused have abetted the deceased to commit suicide by harassing physically and mentally.Learned counsel fo r the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated.It is further submitted that there is no ingredients under section 107 of IPC to implicate the applicants for the offence u/s 306/34 of IPC.There is no likelihood of applicants' absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence and their further custody is not required in this case.They are in custody since 05.12.2019 and the trial will take time to conclude.On these grounds, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on bail.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants :(1) The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;(2) The applicants will cooperate in the trial; (3) The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade them fro m disclosing s uc h facts t o t h e Court o r t o t h e Police Officer;(7) The applicants shall inform the trial Court about their address and residence in case they move out from their permanent address for any point of time; and (8) The applicants shall not contact any of the other accused persons in this case in any manner whatsoever.This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of jump a n d breach o f a n y o f t h e pre-condition o f b ail, i t s hall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.This application stands allowed. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,067,971 | (511)2014 under Sections 341/324/325/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Aditya Ghosh @ Jhantu Ghosh.....................petitioner Ms. Pinku Goswami..........for petitioner Mr. Nabanil De.........for the State The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that out of group rivalry, false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties.Accordingly we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail 2 upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti-J.) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,706,913 | This petition has been filed u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant to set- aside the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal Appeal No. 16/17, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal No. 16/17 presented by the applicant-accused and remanded the case to the trial Court to take evidence for new charges.Heard both the parties and it is found evident that respondent No. 2-accused Laxmi Narayan was convicted and u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that initially respondent-accused was charged under section 420 of IPC.The prosecution has examined all the witnesses.This application was allowed by the trial Court on 08.05.2015 and trial Court framed the charges against the respondent-accused under section 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC but the learned trial Judge has not given any opportunity to the respondent No.2-accused for cross-examination regarding the new charges.So the learned Judge set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and remanded the case back to for additional evidence in regard to new charges.So there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed with the instruction that the respondent No. 2-accused will cross-examine the witness with regard to new charges only. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,076,313 | Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Gabbar Singh @ Ranveer Singh in Crime No.18/2017 registered by P.S. Khurai District- Sagar under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, At about 1.30.p.m.on 20.01.2017, the petitioner tried to take an Auto-rickshaw carrying flag of Congress party and a loudspeaker towards Jhanda Chowk from Vardan Hotel.When the complainant, Vikram Singh, who is the Station House Officer of P.S. Maalthon tried to stop the petitioner, he argued with the complainant and threatened that if he was stopped from going towards Jhanda Chowk, he would call the members of the Congress Party and would launch an agitation.He also said that he was the President of the Block Congress Party.In this manner, the petitioner created obstruction for the complainant in discharge of his official duty.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that;t h e p e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t a s s a u l t t h e complainant or anyone else;he simply threatened to launch an agitation;Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Gabbar Singh @ Ranveer Singh 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 a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,970,768 | ORDER P.K. Tare, J.This petition purports to be one under Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code.As some instalments were not paid the truck was taken possession, of by the applicants.It was the non-applicant's case that the applicants forcibly took away the truck against his consent and thereby committed an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,020,348 | (2) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on on 30/07/1997, complainant Rameshwar (PW-1) lodged FIR Ex.P1 at about 08:45 am at Police Station Ambah (District Morena) that he told his son Devendra Singh to join a service on a truck.However, Devendra Singh did not join the service and left the house.Thereafter, there was a rumour of Devendra Singh's abduction.On 30/07/1997, at about 07:30 am, accused appellant Arjun Singh called a Panchayat to resolve the matter as to why Rameshwar etc. were putting a blame upon appellant Arjun Singh etc. that they had abducted Devendra Singh.When villagers and concerned Panch of Panchayat were gathering at the spot appellants Surendra Singh, Dinesh Singh, Shankar Singh, Ramnaresh Singh, Rajveer Singh and Arjun Singh came to the spot armed with farsa, bhala (spear) and lathis.Appellant Surendra Singh gave a blow of farsa on the head of victim Raghuvir Singh (PW-2).Appellant Arjun Singh gave a blow of stick on the head of Rameshwar (PW1).Appellant Dinesh Singh gave a blow of bhala on the head of Jagdish (PW-3).Appellant Shankar Singh assaulted victim Jagdish (PW-3) with a farsa on his palm.Appellant Ramnaresh Singh assaulted deceased Ramveer Singh with a stick on his back.Appellant Rajveer Singh gave a blow on the back of deceased Lal Singh.In the meantime, appellant Rajesh came to the spot having a mouser gun.He fired with a gun causing injury on the abdomen of deceased Lal Singh which came out of the back.Lal Singh died on the spot.Appellant Rajesh fired for the second time and bullet 4 CRA 515/2001 of which struck on the back of Ramveer Singh and took exit from the abdomen.Thereafter, the appellants ran away.Complainant Rameshwar quoted the name of various eye-witnesses like Laxman Singh, Rambharose Singh, Rama Bai, Kalla Bai and Munni Bai, etc. The injured persons were sent for their medico- legal examination.The condition of deceased Ramveer Singh was serious.G.C.Arya (PW-8) examined Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuvir Singh, Ramveer Singh and Rameshwar and gave MLC reports Ex.P8-A to Ex.P12 respectively.Ramveer Singh had an entry wound on his back and exit wound on his abdomen.He also sustained a lacerated wound on his little finger.Various injuries were found to victims Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuvir Singh and Rameshwar.After sometime, Ramveer Singh had died.(3) SHO SR Sankhediya (PW10) went to the spot, took the dead body of deceased Lal Singh and sent it for post mortem.After death of deceased Ramveer Singh, his body was also sent for postmortem.G.C.Arya (PW8) performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Lal Singh and gave a report Ex.He found a contusion on his left thigh, teeth-bite on left arm, one entry wound on the back and one exit wound on the left abdomen.Due to firing, various vital organs of abdomen were found damaged and hence, Lal Singh had died.He found stitch wound on his abdomen and back.There was a fracture on left ulna bone of deceased Ramveer Singh.According to Dr. Madhup Kumar spleen was removed by operation and various vital parts in the abdomen were found injured.According to him, deceased Ramveer Singh died due to injury caused by speedy projectile.(4) SHO SR Sankhediya (PW-10), thereafter, arrested various accused persons and recovered weapons from them including 5 CRA 515/2001 farsa, sticks etc. One mouser gun was recovered from appellant Rajesh and recovery memo Ex.P31 was prepared.Various weapons; soil taken from the spot, and clothes of the deceased persons received from the hospital, were sent for their forensic science analysis.Forensic Science Laboratory had given a report Ex.P40 relating to various arms whereas a report Ex.P41 was given relating to presence of blood on various weapons, clothes and soil.Serologist also submitted its report Ex.After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Ambah (District Morena) who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately, it was transferred to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.).(5) The appellants abjured their guilt.According to them, in Panchayat when Sudama told his version before the nominated Panchayat then the complainant party started quarrelling.G.C. Arya (PW-8).Blood is coming from wound"By that FIR, the presence of all the appellants is duly proved.(Delivered on 22/02/2017) Per N. K. Gupta, J:-The appellants have preferred the present appeal, being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19/09/2001, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.19/1998, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as mentioned below:-In that quarrel, appellants Rajesh Singh, Shankar Singh and Dinesh Singh sustained injuries.Fire was done from the side of complainant party and appellant Dinesh Singh had snatched the gun of Lal Singh which was retained in the police station.A false case was lodged against the appellants.In defence, the appellants got MLC reports Ex.D7 to Ex.D9 of appellants - Dinesh Singh, Arun Singh and Shankar Singh respectively with help of Dr.Similarly, FIR Ex.D13 was proved by SHO SR Sankhediya (PW10).No other defence was adduced.(6) After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.(7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.(8) First of all, it is to be considered as to whether the death of deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh was homicidal in nature or not? In this connection, the evidence given by Dr.G.C.Arya (PW8) is important.Dr. Arya proved postmortem report Ex.P15 of 6 CRA 515/2001 deceased Lal Singh.According to him, deceased Lal Singh sustained the following injuries:-"(i) Contusion 8 cm x 2cm on the ant-medial aspect of left thigh 10 cm above left knee red in colour.(ii) Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm oval- shape with 4 teeth mark on upper side and 4 teeth mark on lower side on the post- aspect of left forearm 5 cm above left wrist red in colour.(iii) Firearm wound 2 cm x 2 cm oval shape on the right side back 5.5 cm right and lat.to the vertebral column at the level of L3 and L4 vertebrae margins are everted blackening seen and underneath tissues seen black, an area of 4 cm x 4 cm around on wound is also black blood with shining tench is coming out from wound.(iv) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2.5 cm on left side abdomen 7 cm left lat.to umbilicus in midclavicular line omentum was coming out from wound and margins were everted'' On opening of the wounds he found the various organs of the abdomen were damaged and deceased Lal Singh died due to such injuries.According to Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-8), death of deceased Lal Singh was homicidal in nature.(9) Similarly, Dr. Madhup Kumar (PW-9) performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Ramveer Singh and gave a report Ex.He found stitched wounds on the abdomen and back of deceased- Ramveer Singh whereas various organs of abdomen were found damaged.Spleen of deceased Ramveer Singh was removed in surgery because it was damaged.Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-8) examined Ramveer Singh when he was alive and gave a report Ex.P.11A. He found the following injuries:-"(I) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2.00 cm on left penal area margin of wound inverted charring and blackening present, blood is oozing from wound.6 cm on left side abdomen omentum and intestines coming from 7 CRA 515/2001 wound.Blood is coming from wound.(II) Lacerated wound size 3 cm x 1 cm on the palmar aspect of left little finger at distal phalanx.According to him, there was an entry wound on the back and exit wound on left abdomen of deceased Ramveer Singh.Condition of Ramveer Singh was critical and he was immediately referred for surgery.If MLC report given by Dr.G.C.Arya (PW-8) and postmortem report given by Dr. Madhup Kumar (PW-9) are considered simultaneously, then it would be apparent that deceased- Ramveer Singh sustained so many injuries caused by one gunshot and all the vital organs of the abdomen were found damaged, spleen was ruptured and thereafter, it was removed by surgery.However, deceased - Ramveer Singh could not be saved.Under these circumstances, it is established that the death of deceased Ramveer Singh was also homicidal in nature and he sustained such injuries which were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of his life.(10) In the present case, various witnesses; like Rameshwar (PW-1), Raghuvir Singh (PW-2), Jagdish (PW-3), Bhagwan Devi (PW-4), Narendra Singh (PW-5) and Rama Bai (PW-7) were examined as eye-witnesses.They have categorically stated that Surendra Singh gave a blow of farsa on the head of Raghuvir Singh.Shankar Singh gave a blow of farsa to victim Jagdish causing injury on his left palm.Dinesh assaulted the victim Jagdish with a spear (bhala).Various other accused persons assaulted victims Lal Singh, Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuvir Singh, Jagdish and Rameshwar with lathis.Statements of these witnesses are duly corroborated by medical evidence as proved by Dr.G.C. Arya (PW-8).He proved MLC report Ex.P8A of Bhagwan Devi (PW-4).and found following injury to victim Bhagwan Devi:-Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on the left shoulder reddish and blackish colour."8 CRA 515/2001 Similarly, Dr. Arya examined victim Narendra Singh (PW-5) and gave MLC report Ex.P9-A of victim Narendra Singh.The injury found to victim Narendra Singh is as under:-Contusion of size 6cm x 2cm on the front of left thigh above 4 cm from knee."Dr. Arya examined Raghuvir Singh and gave MLC report Ex.He found following injuries to victim Raghuvir Singh:-"(I) Incised wound size 8 cm x 2.5 cm x1.5 cm on the right side of head at frontal and parietal region, margins are sharp-angle and blood was oozing from wound.(II) Lacerated wound size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x through and through on the left lip in zigzag shape.Blood is oozing from wound.(III) Abrated contusion 4 cm x3 cm over right shoulder red in colour".If such injuries found to the victims are considered with the allegations made against the appellants, then it would be apparent that all the appellants had participated in the crime with help of various weapons.Surendra Singh assaulted victim Raghuvir Singh with a farsa.Dinesh Singh assaulted victim Jagdish with a spear (bhala).Shankar Singh also used a farsa causing injury to victim Jagdish.Other appellants like Rajveer etc. have assaulted victim Bhagwan Devi etc. with sticks.However, the witnesses have told a common story of appellant Rajesh that he came with a gun and fired for two times.For first time he caused injury on the abdomen of Lal Singh and second time he caused injury of gunshot to deceased Ramveer Singh on his back.There is no material contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses so that their testimony may be discarded.(11) The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the witnesses, deceased Lal Singh sustained gunshot injury on his abdomen whereas Dr. G.C.Arya (PW-8) in his postmortem report Ex.P15 found that entry wound on the back of deceased Lal Singh and, therefore, it is a material contradiction.However, such contention cannot be accepted that it was a 9 CRA 515/2001 material contradiction.When a victim is beaten by a particular weapon then everyone can view the injury caused to a particular place of body where the weapon touches the body but in case of gunshot, it cannot be said that gun was fired by whom and gunshot was received by whom.The injury due to gunshot can be caused in such a quick span that no eyewitness can claim definite view about entry of bullet.Therefore, the witnesses could say that on firing of the gun by the accused Rajesh, deceased Lal Singh sustained injuries but where that bullet struck they could not say definitely.After the incident when they found two wounds of the gun then their conclusion that the bullet stuck on the abdomen of deceased Lal Singh was depending upon their observation and not as an eyewitness.Hence, when Dr.G.C.Arya (PW-8) in his postmortem Ex.P15 found that bullet stuck on the back of deceased Lal Singh and there was an entry wound on the back, then the evidence of eyewitness cannot be discarded.It is proved beyond doubt by evidence of these witnesses that appellant Rajesh had fired with a gun causing fatal injury to deceased Lal Singh.(12) In this connection, evidence of eyewitnesses is duly corroborated by FIR Ex.P1 which was lodged within 1 hour and 15 minutes whereas complainant Rameshwar (PW1) had to go to the Police Station with various injured persons.Also, when a counter- FIR in the case is proved as Ex.D13, it was lodged by appellant Dinesh Singh.That FIR was lodged after 2 hours and 25 minutes after the incident.Also, evidence given by various witnesses is duly corroborated by medical evidence as proved by Dr. G. C. Arya (PW-8) and Dr. Madhup Kumar(PW-9).The SHO S.R. Sankhediya (PW-10) has seized various weapons from the accused persons and sent them for their forensic science examination.The Forensic Science Laboratory gave its report Ex.P41 and according to that, 10 CRA 515/2001 all the weapons recovered from various accused persons, namely, Shankar Singh, Dinesh Singh, Arjun and Rajveer are found blood- stained.However, in the report of serologist Ex.P42, it could not be determined that the bloodstains found on the weapons were of human origin and no grouping could be done due to various reasons as mentioned in the report Ex.But the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P41 clearly indicates that blood was found on the weapons recovered from concerned appellants.Hence, evidence given by various victims specially when the victims were injured witnesses, is acceptable and it is proved beyond doubt that that appellant Rajesh fired with the gun causing death of Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh.Appellant Surendra Singh and Shankar Singh with the help of farsa caused simple injuries to various victims like Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Jagdish Singh and Ramveer Singh.Appellant Dinesh and Rajveer have assaulted the various victims with lathis causing simple injuries.However, no specific allegation has been made by witnesses against appellant Ramnaresh as to whom he assaulted with any weapon and, therefore, it is not proved against appellant Ramnaresh that he assaulted anyone out of the victims.(13) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of right of private defence.The appellants filed the certified copy of FIR ExD13 and MLC reports of various appellants including Dinesh Singh, Arjun Singh and Shankar Singh.Out of them, Dinesh Singh had sustained various fractures and no explanation is given by the prosecution witnesses about the injuries caused to the appellants.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the genesis of the crime should be proved by the prosecution in respect of accused persons also.Neither complainant Rameshwar has stated anything about the injuries of the appellants in FIR Ex.P1 nor any of the eyewitnesses has stated about the injuries caused to the victims.Actually, the 11 CRA 515/2001 Panchayat was called by appellant Arjun Singh because the complainant party was giving a blame upon him that Devendra Singh son of complainant Rameshwar was abducted by the appellants and, therefore, to erase that blame, the Panchayat was called.Hence, it is for the eye-witnesses to explain as to how the incident took place and who started the quarrel first.(14) In this connection, the reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in various cases of "Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab'' [(2010) 2 SCC 333], ''Puran vs. State of Rajasthan'' [AIR 1976 SC 912], ''Lakshmi Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar '' [1976 SC 2263], ''Mariadasan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu'' AIR 1980 SC 573], ''Bhagwan Swaroop vs. State of Madhya Pradesh'' [AIR 1992 SC 675], '' Subramani and Ors.vs. State of Tamil Nadu'' [AIR 2002 SC 2980] and ''Suresh Singhal vs. State (Delhi Administration)'' [2017 SCC Online SC 82] and submitted that right of private defence was accrued to various appellants.(15) After considering the aforesaid judgments passed by the Apex Court, a little portion of para 11 of the judgment of Lakshmi Singh (supra), may be referred as under:-" hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence."According to the judgment, if injuries caused to accused persons are denied, genesis is suppressed and the defence version is probable, then advantage of right of private defence should be given to the accused persons.In the present case, it is true that none of the prosecution witnesses has stated about the injuries caused to appellants Dinesh Singh, Arjun Singh and Shankar 12 CRA 515/2001 Singh.When the Panchayat was called by appellant Arjun Singh then it was for the prosecution to prove that who started the quarrel.Hence, in absence of genesis of crime told by the prosecution witnesses, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, it appears that the appellants except appellant Rajesh had a right of private defence against various persons of the complainant side and, therefore, if they caused simple injuries to various injured persons like Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuveer Singh and Ramveer Singh, then in the light of their right of private defence, they did not commit any crime.They had the right of private defence to save themselves and, therefore, they had not committed any crime towards these persons.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting various appellants for offence under Section 324 or 323 of IPC.When most of the appellants were defending their right of private defence, then it cannot be said that any unlawful assembly was constituted and, therefore, in absence of any unlawful assembly none of the appellants could be convicted of offence under Section 148 or 147 of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 148 of IPC.(16) So far as the case of appellant Rajesh is concerned, various witnesses have stated that appellant Rajesh was present at the spot with gun and during the quarrel, he fired with a gun causing injuries to the deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh.Learned defence counsel has given suggestions to all such witnesses and their attention was invited to the FIR Ex.P1 in which it is mentioned that at the end of quarrel appellant Rajesh went to his house and brought a mouser gun and thereafter, he fired with the gun for two times.Since the witnesses have stated against the FIR Ex.P1 that appellant Rajesh had the gun from the very beginning then looking to the contradiction in the FIR their allegations cannot be accepted.They have changed their version only to implicate all the 13 CRA 515/2001 appellants with appellant Rajesh and, therefore, their changed version cannot be accepted.But the witnesses have proved that it was the appellant Rajesh who fired with the gun causing injuries to deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh.(17) The appellants in their defence evidence including the FIR Ex.D13, did not mention about the injuries caused to deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh.If description given by the appellants in the FIR Ex.D13 and the evidence as given by all eye-witnesses in the case is considered then it would be apparent that when appellant Rajesh came with a gun the quarrel was already over.Nobody was beating anyone from his rival party.Hence, the right of private defence which had accrued to other appellants was not available to the appellant Rajesh.He fired the gun when the quarrel was over.It is not a case that to stop the quarrel appellant Rajesh fired with a gun in haphazard manner and the injuries were caused to deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh.As opined by Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-8), Lal Singh as well as Ramveer Singh had sustained gunshot injuries on their back and, therefore, they were not doing anything against the appellant or anybody at that time when appellant Rajesh fired upon them and, therefore, it is not at all a case of right of private defence relating to appellant Rajesh.When quarrel was going on, appellant Rajesh went to take the gun and when he came back with the gun the quarrel was over but still he fired upon two victims 14 CRA 515/2001 who were not assaulting him or anyone.In FIR Ex.D13, Lal Singh was not shown to be an assailant whereas appellant Rajesh gave his first fire on the deceased Lal Singh and, therefore, when name of deceased Lal Singh was not there in the counter-FIR Ex.D13, lodged by appellant Dinesh Singh then he was not the assailant and there was no need to appellant Rajesh to fire upon him.A defence was taken by the appellants that the appellants have snatched the gun of deceased Lal Singh when he was firing from the gun and it was given to the Investigating Officer who recovered the same in a counter-case.However, there is no evidence that deceased Lal Singh had a gun at the spot or he used the gun.Investigating Officer SR Sankhediya (PW10) has accepted in para 32 of his evidence that since Lal Singh had expired who had the licence of the gun, therefore, his brother produced that gun and it was deposited in Malkhana of the Police Station.Under these circumstances, claim of the appellants is incorrect that Lal Singh had a gun or he used the gun.If he would have used the gun then his name should have been mentioned as assailant in the counter- FIR Ex.After firing once there was no need to fire for the second time but again appellant Rajesh fired with the gun causing injuries to deceased Ramveer Singh, whereas, at the time of firing, Ramveer Singh was not beating anyone.Even when he was participating in the crime then the quarrel must have stopped at the time when Lal Singh received fire and, therefore, no second fire was required but it was done by appellant Rajesh, hence his intention to cause death of deceased Ramveer Singh is established.(19) Under these circumstances, it is established beyond doubt that appellant Rajesh fired with the gun for two times when quarrel was over and he had no right of private defence in his favour.Initially he fired upon deceased Lal Singh who was not at all an assailant according to the FIR Ex.D13 and, therefore, his overt act falls within the purview of intentionally killing.Hence, he was liable 15 CRA 515/2001 for offence under Section 302 of IPC.Similarly, when the quarrel was over, appellant Rajesh fired with a gun upon deceased Ramveer Singh causing his death and, therefore, he is liable on two count charges of Section 302 of IPC.The trial Court has rightly convicted him for that offence.(20) When it is established that the appellants except appellant No.1- Rajesh had right of private defence in the case then none of the appellants can be convicted of offence under Section 324 or 323 of IPC.Since appellant Rajesh did not assault anyone of the victims except deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh then it cannot be said that he had common intention with other accused persons and when other accused persons shall be acquitted from the charge of Section 324 or 323 of IPC then appellant Rajesh shall also be acquitted from aforesaid charges.Similarly, when it is established that the appellants were defending themselves then it cannot be said that they were the part of unlawful assembly.Common object of five persons or more, could not be proved with appellant Rajesh and, therefore, none of the accused can be convicted of offence under Section 148 of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants of offence under Section 148 of IPC and other offences with the help of Section 149 of IPC.On the similar description, none of the appellants except Rajesh can be convicted of offence under Section 302 with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC because no overt act of the other appellants was proved that they intended to kill deceased Lal Singh or Ramveer Singh.(21) Appellant Arjun Singh has also been convicted of offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act but it would be apparent that appellant Arjun Singh kept his gun in his house.He did not bring the gun to the spot.On the other hand, appellant Rajesh went to his house and brought the gun.Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant Arjun Singh had provided the gun to appellant Rajesh contrary to the condition of licence.If he had kept the gun in safe 16 CRA 515/2001 custody and Rajesh went to his house and brought the gun but in that over act of Rajesh there was no role of Arjun Singh and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was guilty of offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act.(22) So far as the sentence is concerned, appellant Rajesh is found guilty of offence under Section 302 of IPC on two count charges.The trial Court has recorded a minimum sentence for that offence.Hence, there is no reason to further dilute the sentence recorded against appellant Rajesh.(23) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by various appellants except appellant Rajesh is acceptable.They cannot be convicted of any offence for which the charges have been levelled against them.Hence, their appeal is accepted.Their conviction of offences under Sections 148, 302/149 (two counts), 324 or 324/149, 323 or 323/149 of IPC is set aside and consequently, the sentence inflicted by the trial Court is also set aside.They are acquitted from all the aforesaid charges.Appellant Arjun Singh is also acquitted from the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act. The appeal filed by appellant- Rajesh is partly allowed.He is acquitted from the charges of Sections 148, 324/149 and 323/149 of IPC.His conviction and sentence for aforesaid offences are set aside. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,020,953 | The present is a case based upon three incriminating circumstances against the appellants, which are: (i) PW2 and PW9 lastly saw the deceased in the company of the accused persons before his death; (ii) the conduct of the accused in absconding on the night of the incident i.e., 18.11.2010, from the place where they were residing; and (iii) motive attributed to A1- Virender.PW2 deposed that he worked in factory at C-47, Naresh Park Extension in which break shoes were manufactured.Another unit of the said factory - doing welding work, was also plying from the said address.He stated that on 18.11.2010, at about 08:20- 08:30PM, the two accused persons had come to the factory doing welding work to meet the deceased- Yogesh.He further stated that when he left the premises at around 09:00PM, both the accused persons were present there with the deceased- Yogesh.He then went back to his house.24. PW9- Sharwan Kumar was another worker working in the factory at C-47, Naresh Park Extension.He deposed that there are two units in the factory.In one unit, there was welding work and in the other unit of the factory, break - shoes were manufactured.He stated that on 18.11.2010, he Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 8 of 27 was working in the unit where break-shoes are manufactured.He had seen both the accused persons sitting with Yogesh.He further stated that at about 08:45PM, Yogesh and Virender were inside the factory with a third person whom they were referring to as Deva.All three persons were talking to each other at that time when PW9 left the factory after finishing his work.Thus, both PW-2 and PW-9 have consistently deposed that they saw the deceased Yogesh with A-1 Virender and another person inside the factory premises, when they left the factory premises at about 8:45-9:00 p.m. PW-9 further stated that the person accompanying A-1 Virender was being referred to as Deva.A.1494/2014 Page 8 of 27The dead body of the deceased was found by PW1 on 18.11.2010 at 11:00PM.PW1- Mukesh Kr.Yadav deposed that he was running the welding workshop at C-47, Naresh Park Extension and that the deceased- Yogesh and PW7- Khairati were working as his employees.The deceased- Yogesh used to sleep in a room in the workshop itself.On 18.11.2010 at about 11:00 PM, he had gone to park his car in a plot adjacent to his workshop.While passing the front gate of his factory, he saw that the small gate of his factory gate was lying open.He went inside.He went to the room where Yogesh used to reside.The door was partly bolted from outside and on seeing through the gap in the door, he saw Yogesh lying on the takht in his room with an orange coloured welding wire wrapped around his neck.PW1 deposed that on seeing Yogesh, it appeared that he was already dead.Thereafter, PW1 came out of his factory and informed the police.Thus, the testimony was recorded after a lapse of little over a year.It appears that with passage of time, some amount of embellishment has crept in with regard to the said time.In any event, what emerges is that the said statements were recorded in the dead of the night.Thus, there is no merit whatsoever in this contention of the appellant.It is correct that when stood at main gate, the other gate is not visible.He stated that the deceased- Yogesh further informed him that he had already sought pardon from Virender and the matter had been resolved.PW1 stated that he had asked the deceased- Yogesh to stop visiting A1 and his wife.However, Yogesh did not stop visiting them.In his testimony, PW6 stated Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 16 of 27 that in the month of November 2010, Virender along-with his wife had gone to his native village and after two days of Diwali festival, came back to their house with one Dev Raj @ Deva.VIPIN SANGHI, J.The present appeal has been preferred by the two appellants Virender and Devraj @ Deva who were arrayed and tried as accused Nos. 1 and 2, to assail their conviction by the Ld. ASJ (FTC) (W): DELHI in Sessions Case Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 1 of 27 No. 49/2011, arising out of FIR No. 240/2010, under Section 302/34IPC, registered at PS Nihal Vihar, vide judgment dated 08.09.2014 and the order on sentence dated 16.09.2014 whereby both of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each.In default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302IPC read with Section 34 IPC.A.1494/2014 Page 1 of 27The background facts of the case have been taken note of in para 1 of the impugned judgment.We reproduce the same herein below:"Mukesh Kumar is carrying on work of Angel Iron Welding from Plot No.C-47, Naresh Park Extension and for that purpose he has kept 2 employees namely Yogesh @ Yogender Singh and Khairati, he has also let out some part of the factory and in that part break shoes are manufactured and in that factory 2-3 boys were working.Yogesh was working on daily wages for 5-6 months and used to sleep in the room in the plot.On 18.11.2010 at about 11:00 pm when Mukesh came to park his vehicle in the adjacent plot, he found that small gate of his factory was open.He got suspicious and went inside.He found the door of the room was partly bolted from outside.When he peeped through the gap between the door he noticed Yogesh lying on the takhat and in his neck orange colour welding wire was tide.Yogesh appeared to be dead.Mukesh further mentioned that other boy Khairati working in his factory told that 1 week before Diwali festival Yogesh has altercation with his uncle's son working at Mundka, when Khairati inquired from Yogesh, he told that Virender his cousin had seen him with his wife in compromising position due to which he was beaten by his cousin.Khairati told that even thereafter Yogesh used to go to wife of his cousin and was having illicit relations.Mukesh suspected that he has been killed by his cousin and his companion.On this FIR No.240/10 u/s 302/34 IPC was registered."A.1494/2014 Page 2 of 27Charges were framed against both the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To prove its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, including PW1 Mukesh Kr.Yadav- Complainant; PW2 Manoj- Last seen witness; PW6 Bindravan- Landlord of A1- Virender; PW7 Khairati; PW9 Sharwan Kumar- Last seen witness, and PW16 Manoj Dhingra- Doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased.On appreciation of evidence and material brought on record, the trial court convicted the appellants as aforesaid.Feeling aggrieved of the same, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.Ld. counsel for A1- Virender, Mr. Davlender Hora submits that the present is a case based on circumstantial evidence.Thus, to prove the guilt of the accused, it was essential for the prosecution to conclusively establish a complete chain of circumstances, pointing only to the guilt of the accused.He further submits that the Trial Court has not believed the case of the prosecution insofar as the motive for commission of the crime is concerned.Thus, the said circumstance has not been proved on record.Mr. Hora points out that the Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of (i) last seen evidence, and (ii) the conduct of the appellants in Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 3 of 27 absconding on the night of the incident i.e., 18.11.2010, from the place where they were residing.A.1494/2014 Page 3 of 27So far as the evidence relating to the deceased being lastly seen with the accused is concerned, the submission of counsel for the appellants is that the testimony of PW-2 and PW-9 - both of whom claim to have lastly seen the two accused with the deceased at about 8:45 to 9:00 p.m. on 18.11.2010, is full of contradictions.In this regard, it is submitted that even though the statement of PW2 was recorded at about 1:30 - 2:00AM, yet, the name of the co-accused/A-2 was not disclosed either in the rukka or in the FIR which were prepared by ASI Suraj Singh in the early hours of 19.11.2010 at 02:30Am and 02:50AM respectively.Counsels further submit that PW2 and PW9 were working in the adjoining factory engaged in the manufacture of brake shoes, whereas the deceased was working in the factory doing welding work.He submits that the two factories were running on the same plot as adjoining units.In this regard, learned counsels for the appellants submit that since PW-2 and PW-9 were working in the adjoining factory making brake shoes and not in the factory in which the deceased was working, they possibly could not have witnessed the accused with the deceased as claimed by them.In this regard, he relies upon the cross examination of PW-9, wherein he, inter alia, stated:A.1494/2014 Page 4 of 27"The said factory was divided in two units by constructing a wall between them.It is correct that if someone is working in other factory, that is not visible from my factory.It is correct that there are two gates of the factory i.e. one gate for each unit.One gate is in front side and the other is on back side.It is correct that when stood at main gate, the other gate is not visible.It is correct that when one stood at the gate, the inner premises of the room of both the factories are not visible".Thus, PW2 and PW9 are not reliable witness.Insofar as PW-1 is concerned, ld. Counsels for appellants submit that PW1 in his original complaint had claimed to have arrived at the factory only after the commission of the crime, yet, he casts a doubt on accused no.1 Virender without any basis, and also claims that Virender might have come with some other accomplice.The submission on behalf of appellant no.2 is that there was no basis for PW1 to claim that Virender was accompanied by some other person, or that some other person was also involved in the commission of the crime apart from Virender.Counsel further submits that there was no occasion for PW1 to see that the smaller gate of the factory had been left open when he had gone to park his car near the other gate next to the vacant plot adjacent to his workshop.Thus, the said witness is not reliable.A.1494/2014 Page 5 of 27Learned counsels further submit that both the accused surrendered voluntarily before the Magistrate by moving an application.The fact that they surrendered before the court on their own points to their innocence.Counsel for A2 further argues that so far as he is concerned, he had absolutely no motive to commit the crime.Even in respect of A1, the motive has not been proved.Learned counsel for A2 has vehemently argued that after surrender of A2 before the learned Magistrate on 26.04.2011, he was interrogated by the I.O. in the Court premises and thereafter produced before the Court with muffled face.He submits that, thus, accused no.2 had refused TIP by the said witnesses.In this regard, he places reliance on his statement made under Section 313 Cr PC, wherein, in response to the last question no.34, he stated:"I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.On becoming aware that the police officials from Delhi are visiting at the native village of co-accused Virender and the police officials were asking about Deva and on being the apprehension of my false implication in the present case, I surrendered before the Court where I was shown to the public persons/ witnesses at outside of the Court room at the time of my surrender and later on I was falsely implicated in the present case."A.1494/2014 Page 6 of 27 chance prints were lifted by the crime team member and the name of the person who had who had lifted the chance prints was Ajit Singh.PW-20 stated that finger prints were lifted from takth and welding wire.Ld. counsels further submit that even the I.O. PW-24 had deposed that chance prints were lifted from the spot.A.1494/2014 Page 6 of 27On the other hand, Mr. Katyal has supported the impugned judgment and countered the submissions of learned counsels for the appellants.We shall take note of his arguments in our discussion.The same was established from the testimony of PW1- Mukesh Kumar and PW7- Khairati.We may dispose of this objection of the appellants at this stage itself.Since the appellants stand convicted, there was no occasion for the State to prefer an appeal only to assail the finding on one aspect.The appeal/ leave petition is maintainable against the final decision of conviction or acquittal- as the case may be.The appeal/ leave petition is not directed against only a finding that may be returned by the Trial Court.It is directed against the final decision.Attention may be drawn to Section 386 Cr.P.C., which, inter alia, provides that "in an appeal from conviction" the appellate Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 7 of 27 Court may "alter the finding, maintaining the sentence." Thus, this submission of Ld. Counsels is rejected.A.1494/2014 Page 7 of 27We have heard ld.Counsels for the parties, examined the evidence on record and have given out thoughtful consideration to the matter.A.1494/2014 Page 9 of 27In his testimony, PW16- Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased, stated that the time since death was approximately one and a half days to two days at the time of conducting the post mortem.The post mortem on the dead body was conducted on 20.11.2010 at 01:00PM.His body was found by PW1 at 11:00PM on the same night, i.e., within two hours of the deceased having been lastly seen in the company of the accused persons.He was, therefore, murdered between about 9:00 PM and 11:00 PM.The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists.In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased, A-1 and A-2 were seen together by witnesses i.e. PWs 14, 15 and 18; in addition to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2." (emphasis supplied) Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 10 of 27A.1494/2014 Page 10 of 27PW2 has deposed that apart from the accused persons and the deceased, there was no other person present in the factory at the time when he and PW9 left the factory premises.The accused persons have failed to set up a defence that they had left the factory premises after meeting the deceased after PW-2 and PW-9 left the same at about 9:00 PM.In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr PC, they do not state as to when they left the factory premises.No Alibi has been set up by them, much less established.Counsels for the appellants have tried to cast a doubt on the authenticity of the testimonies of both these "last seen" witnesses.We shall now deal with their submissions in this regard one by one.Counsels for the appellants submit that even though PW2 stated that his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded in the early hours of 19.11.2010 around 01:30-01:45AM, yet the name of the accused Devraj @ Deva/A-2 is not mentioned either in the rukka or the FIR.In this regard, ld. APP, Mr. Rajat Katyal points out that the rukka was recorded on 19.11.2010 at 02:30 AM and the FIR No. 240/ 2010 was recorded 20 minutes later at 02:50AM.The recording of statements of persons interrogated under section 161 Cr.The FIR in this case was only registered at 02:50AM and investigation in the case was handed over to PW24- SK.Pertinently, PW24 stated that he received the investigation of this case at about 03:00AM.He reached the spot at about 03:15-03:30AM along with constable Virender and it was only after this that he had recorded the Crl.Pertinently, it was not suggested to PW-24 that the statements of PW-2 and PW-9 under Section 161 Cr PC were recorded around 1:30-1:45 AM, or that they were recorded before registration of the FIR.He was not confronted with the statement of PW-2 that his statement was recorded around 1:30-1:45 AM on the same night.Thus, the statements of these prosecution witnesses could not have been recorded at 01:30-01:45AM when the FIR itself had been registered at 02:50AM.The time mentioned by PW-2 as 1:30-1:45 AM - when his interrogation was undertaken is an approximate time.A.1494/2014 Page 11 of 27The ld.Counsels for the appellants has also referred to the cross examination of PW-9, wherein he stated:"The said factory was divided in two units by constructing a wall between them.It is correct that if someone is working in other factory, that is not visible from my factory.It is correct that there are two gates of the factory i.e. one gate for each unit.One gate is in front side and the other is on back side.It is correct that when one stood at the gate, the inner premises of the room of both the factories are not visible".A.1494/2014 Page 12 of 27The submission of the appellants is that the two adjoining units of the factory i.e., the welding unit and the break- shoe manufacturing unit are separated by a wall and a person working in one unit of the factory could not see the persons working in the other unit of the factory and, as such, PW2 and PW9 could not have possibly seen the accused with the deceased as claimed by them.In the cross- examination of PW1- Mukesh Kr.Yadav i.e., the owner of the factory, he has stated that the main gate for entry to both the units of the factories is the same.There is also a gate towards the side of the vacant plot, however, the workers enter and exit the factory from the main gate.Mr. Katyal has relied upon the scaled site plan of the place of incident Ex. PW 11/A, to submit that the same shows that there is no dividing wall in the factory premises to partition the two portions i.e. the portion where PW-1 was running his welding unit and the other unit where shoe brakes were being made.He points out that there is common open area between the two units and there is visibility between the two units.Having examined the evidence carefully, in our view, there is no merit in the submission of the appellants that, since PW-2 and PW-9 were working in the adjoining factory making brake shoes, and not in the factory in which the deceased was working, they possibly could not have seen the accused with the deceased together, as claimed by them.A perusal of the scaled site plan reveals that, firstly, the entry and exit, to and from either unit of the factory is only through a single main gate.PW-1 has deposed without challenge, that the same main gate entry was used by all the workmen in both the units for entry and exit into the factory premises.The plan Ex. PW-A.1494/2014 Page 13 of 2711/A shows that there is no door in the portion marked "verandah" outside the room where the deceased Yogesh used to sleep, and where his dead body was recovered.There is an open unobstructed entry into the verandah leading to the room occupied by the deceased from the area/ passage show as "tin shed" leading to the main gate.Reliance placed on the cross examination of PW-9 as quoted above, is of little use.It appears he was put the questions in cross examination generally, without reference to the scaled site plan Ex. PW-11/A. It cannot be made out from the cross examination of PW-9, as to which wall he had in mind while making the said statement.Pertinently, PW-2 was also with PW-9 and he too was the "last seen" witness.No such questions were put to him and his testimony that he had seen the accused with the deceased has not been dented.Inter alia, while exiting or entering the premises of the factory through the single main gate, passage of which is through the common tin shed, PW2 and PW9 could have witnessed the accused persons with the deceased- Yogesh in his room, as claimed by them.Thus, we are of the view, it was possible for PW2 and PW9 to have witnessed the deceased- Yogesh sitting with the appellants in the adjoining room.The reliability of the last seen witnesses- PW2 and PW9 is further established by the fact that PW9 had stated that the deceased- Yogesh and A1- Virender were talking with each other and they were referring to the third person present as Deva, who is A2 in the present case.PW-9 was a stranger to A-2 Devraj.Pertinently, there was no confrontation of PW9 during his cross examination with his statement Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 14 of 27 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.- presumably because he had named "Deva" in the said statement as well.A.1494/2014 Page 14 of 27Counsels for the appellants have also raised doubts on the reliability of the owner of the factory- PW1 Mukesh Kr.They have argued that A1 Virender was named as the suspect by PW-1 out of the blue.Pertinently, in his original complaint (rukka) Ex. PW 3/A1, Mukesh Kr.Yadav PW-1 had stated that he knew that the deceased- Yogesh was having illicit relations with the wife of A1- Virender.Due to this reason, the latter had even given beatings to the deceased some days prior to the date of incident.Mukesh Kr.Yadav PW-1 had, thus, stated that he suspected A1- Virender might have committed the murder of the deceased with some of his accomplices.In his testimony before the court, PW1 stated that the deceased- Yogesh had told him that he had committed some mistake and hence there was dispute between him and his cousin- Virender (A1).He stated that on his asking, the deceased had told him that A1- Virender had seen his wife with the deceased- Yogesh in a compromising position and hence there was a quarrel between them.Pertinently, it was in this background that in the original complainant Mukesh Kr.Yadav PW-1 had suspected A1- Virender to have committed the murder of Yogesh with his accomplice(s).Thus, the Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 15 of 27 submission of the ld.Counsels that there was no basis for PW1 to raise allegations against A1- Virender is devoid of merit.A.1494/2014 Page 15 of 27Counsels have also contended that there was no occasion for PW1 to have seen the main factory gate when he had gone to park his vehicle in the plot adjacent to his workshop.Firstly, in his testimony, PW1 has clearly stated that on 18.11.2010 at about 11:00 PM he had gone to park his car in the plot adjacent to his workshop and while passing from the front gate of his factory, he saw that the small gate of his main factory gate was lying open.Secondly, it was not suggested to PW1 that he could not have seen the small gate of the factory when he went to park his car on the adjoining plot while passing in front of the main gate.The contention of the ld. Counsel for appellants that PW1 did not explain as to why he came to park his car at the factory must be rejected at the outset.Counsel for the accused did not raise any question, or give any suggestions to PW1 during his cross- examination in this regard and, as such, these innovative arguments cannot be raised in appeal before this Court for the first time.There was no meaningful cross examination of PW-1 on the aforesaid aspects and his testimony was not challenged.Thus, there is no reason to now raise a doubt on the truthfulness of the said statement.The conduct of the accused persons in absconding from the place where they used to reside is also an incriminating circumstance against the accused.PW6 has been examined as the person in whose house the accused person Virender A1 was staying as a tenant.PW6 stated that A1- Virender told him that Deva- A2 was his co- villager and would be staying with him for one or two days.He further stated that on 18.11.2010, in the night, they all left his house and left behind the minor brother in law of Virender A1 in the said house.In his cross- examination, PW6 further stated that the accused A1 had taken all his belongings with him except one folding cot, one small- TV, one small LPG cylinder and some utensils which were later on taken by some relative of accused Virender in the presence of police.A.1494/2014 Page 16 of 27The accused have sought to cast a doubt on the testimony of PW6 by urging that he was interrogated and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after about 7 months of the incident.Thus, it is claimed, he has been planted as a witness by the prosecution.We cannot agree with this submission.Just because the statement of Bindravan (PW6) u/s 161 Cr.Pertinently, PW6 was an independent witness.From his cross- examination, nothing has emerged to disbelieve his testimony.Furthermore, no challenge was raised by the accused to claim that A1- Virender and his wife did not leave their tenanted premises.So far as A2- Dev Raj @ Deva is concerned, there was no suggestion put by him to PW6 to say that he was not present with A1- Virender at his house on the fateful night.PW6 has categorically stated that some relative of A1- Virender had collected certain articles from his house, and this statement has also not been Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 17 of 27 disputed by the accused before the trial court.In our view, the testimony of PW6 is truthful and reliable.Thus, the conduct of the appellant Virender A1 abandoning his tenanted house on the night of the incident- with his wife and Dev Raj A2, without taking with them items like TV and a LPG cylinder, and leaving the minor brother-in-law of A1 is unnatural and suspect, and is another incriminating circumstance against the appellants.A.1494/2014 Page 17 of 27The fact of the accused persons surrendered in court on their own does not enure to the benefit of the accused in the facts of this case.Till then, they were not to be found.We may now proceed to consider the aspect that A2 Dev Raj @ Deva refused to join the TIP proceedings, and whether the same raises an adverse inference against him.It is pertinent to note that in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, A2- Dev Raj @ Deva has stated that he was shown to the public witnesses by police officer who arrested the appellants on 26.04.2011, when the appellants had come to surrender in court.However, A1- Virender, has not so stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.A.1494/2014 Page 18 of 27The two accused surrendered before the Court of their own.They did not choose to appear in muffled faces when they surrendered before the Court.Moreover, there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses - especially PW2 and PW9, to be present in the court premises on 26.04.2011 when the accused surrendered.They are independent witnesses, and not family members of the deceased, who could be interested in attending the court hearings to sustain the conviction of the accused.Furthermore, in the cross- examination of these witnesses, it was not suggeted that they had been shown the faces of the appellants on the day when the appellants had surrendered in the court.So far as PW2 is concerned, there is no cross examination on the said aspect.It was not suggested to him that the accused had been shown to him on the day of their surrender and arrest i.e. 26.04.2011, or any other day.So far as PW9 is concerned, his cross examination on this aspect reads as follows:"I had seen Dev Raj accused first time with Yogesh and Virender as stated above and thereafter I had seen on the other dates in the Court while he was being produced from lock up.I have no knowledge when both the accused were apprehended by the police in this case.However, I came to know that police had arrested both the accused persons in this case.It is correct that I had identified both the accused persons also while they were in the police custody.I do not remember the name of the police officer who had shown both the accused to me".The above shows that PW9 stated that he had seen A2 firstly on the day of the incident, and thereafter on the day when he was produced from Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 19 of 27 the lock up.When Devraj @ Deva was arrested upon his surrender, he was not produced from lock up.Pertinently, PW9 was not aware when the accused were apprehended.He clearly states that he had identified the accused while they were in police custody- which could have happened only after their surrender/ arrest, and after police remand was granted.A.1494/2014 Page 19 of 27There are no questions asked to PW15, PW17 or PW24 in their cross- examinations to suggest that they had not produced the appellants before the ld.Metropolitan magistrate in muffled face and as such, there is no evidence to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses.Importantly, it was not suggested to PW15 and PW17 that they had taken photographs of the accused persons.Pertinently, the reason given by A2 for refusing TIP before the Ld.MM was "I do not wish to participate in TIP proceedings as my photographs have already been taken by the police." This reason is at variance with the reason given by A2 in his statement recorded under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; it was not suggested to PW2 and PW9 that they had been shown the photographs of A2 prior to their coming for the TIP.Feeble suggestions were given to PW15 and PW24, which were denied Crl.Thus, this justification given by A2 for refusal to join the TIP is false and rejected.The refusal of A2 to join in the TIP raises the adverse inference that if he had joined the TIP, he would have been identified by PW2 and PW9 as the person accompanying A1 Virender when PW2 and PW9 saw them visit the deceased on the fateful night at the factory premises.A.1494/2014 Page 20 of 27Counsel for A2 has contended that the chance- prints collected from the takth or the welding wire have not been led in evidence.PW 24, the I.O. deposed that finger prints/ chance prints were taken on the spot but foot prints were not taken.The finger print report was marked by PW24 as mark PW24/ PA.A perusal of the said document shows that the prints taken from the utensils and some other things found at the spot, could not be developed.That being the position, there was no purpose of leading the finger print proficient report in evidence.It is in this light that the statement of PW24 that the finger prints could not be matched with those that of the accused, has to be read and understood.In this regard, we may firstly refer to the Rukka Ex. PW1/A. The Rukka was prepared on the statement of PW1- Mukesh Kumar.In the said statement, he, inter alia, stated that he saw the deceased Yogesh lying on the takht and the welding wire of orange colour was tied around his neck.Yogesh appeared to be dead to him.He stated that another worker in his factory- Khairati had told him, that in the week before Diwali, the deceased Yogesh had a fight with his cousin (chachera bhai) who stays somewhere in Laxmi Park and works in some company.A.1494/2014 Page 21 of 27Mukesh Kumar stated that when he came to know of the said dispute, he asked Yogesh the reason for the dispute.Yogesh informed him that his cousin had caught him (Yogesh) in compromising position with the wife of the cousin brother and, thereafter, there was a scuffle between the two.Mukesh Kumar stated that he learnt that Yogesh continued to visit the wife of his cousin brother and he continued to have illicit relationship with her.He stated that he doubted that Yogesh had been killed by his cousin (chachera bhai) Virender with the help of someone.Thus, in the Rukka itself, by naming A1- Virender, PW1 narrated the motive for the commission of the crime.In his testimony recorded before the Court, he was consistent in this regard when he deposed as follows;"A few days prior to Diwali, I had a talk with Yogesh as I had been informed by Khairati that Yogesh had some quarrel with son of his Chacha.On my asking about it, Yogesh had told me that he had committed some mistake and hence there was dispute between him and his cousin Virender.He claimed that Virender had seen his wife with him (Yogesh) in a compromising position and hence there was a quarrel between them.Yogesh further informed me that he had already sought pardon from Virender and matter had been resolved.I had asked Yogesh to stop visiting Virender or his wife.However, Yogesh did not stop visiting them."In his cross examination PW1 stated that Khairati had informed him about the illicit relationship between Yogesh and the wife of A1- Virender a few days prior to Diwali.He denied the suggestion that the story about the Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 22 of 27 relationship between Yogesh and the wife of Virender had been falsely concocted to falsely implicate Virender.A.1494/2014 Page 22 of 2754. Khairati- PW7 in his examination in chief, while identifying the accused No.1- Virender, stated that he was the cousin of Yogesh.Yogesh used to visit the residence of Virender, situated somewhere in Nihal Vihar.He stated that about a week or ten days prior to Diwali, in the year 2010, Virender had given beatings to Yogesh.He asked Yogesh as to why Virender had given him beating, to which he replied that Virender had seen him in a compromising position with his wife Usha.He further stated that he brought this fact to the notice of PW1- Mukesh Yadav- that Yogesh was having an illicit relationship with the wife of his cousin brother Virender.He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.While stating that he had not seen A1-Virender give beatings to Yogesh, he stated that he had seen the injury marks on the body of Yogesh while he was taking bath.There were minor abrasions on the body of Yogesh and that Yogesh had not taken medical treatment for those abrasions.He further stated that he had informed Mukesh Yadav- PW1 regarding the beatings received by Yogesh at the hand of A1-Virender on the next day of his coming to know about the said fact.He denied the suggestion that the deceased Yogesh had not told about the beatings given to him by Virender, or that the deceased Yogesh had not told him that A1-Virender had seen Yogesh with the wife of Virender in a compromising position.He denied false implication of the accused by him at the instance of PW1- Mukesh Yadav.The statement of PW1 - Mukesh Yadav and PW7 - Khairati that the deceased had an illicit relationship with the wife of A1-Virender is based on Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 23 of 27 the personal knowledge derived by them from the deceased directly.The statement of these two witnesses corroborate each other.However, what has been established from the testimonies of PW1 and PW7 is that the deceased Yogesh had claimed that he had an illicit relationship with the wife of A1-Virender; that Virender had seen his wife and the deceased in a compromising position and; that on that account A1 Virender had given beatings to Yogesh- the deceased.A.1494/2014 Page 24 of 27(1) when it relates to cause of death.--When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question.Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question."The verbal statement of the deceased made to PW1 and PW7 before his death is relevant to the circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death.It has come in the evidence of PW6-Bindravan that Virender introduced A2 as his co-villager.A2 was lastly seen with the deceased some time before his death.The conduct of A2 and A1 in jointly absconding and, thereafter, jointly surrendering, also establishes their nexus.The deceased was throttled by the use of welding wire.The deceased - who was himself a young man, would have resisted the attempt to throttle him.However, it is evident that he was over- powered by the two accused and they continued to throttle him till he died.A.1494/2014 Page 26 of 27Consequently, the appeal in respect of both the appellants stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms. | ['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. |
197,031,838 | He has to his credit theauthorship of numerous Research/Reference Books and Textbooks.P.Sathasivam,J.21.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in A.B.A. No.3230 of 2011 whereby the High Court rejected the application foranticipatory bail filed by the appellant herein.3) Brief facts:He was selected by the Members of the ExpertCommittee including the Chairman of the JPSC.(c) The allegations against the appellant, Chairman and other Members ofthe JPSC are that they provided highest marks to the candidates whom theydesire to be selected or appointed by giving undue favour.The appellantis also responsible for conspiracy with the Chairman, Members of the JPSCand the candidates who were given highest marks by the Interview Board.Itis also alleged that the appellant is responsible for cutting,manipulation, interpolation in the marks sheet of the Interview Board inorder to provide benefit to the candidates for selection and appointment.It is alleged by the prosecution that the examination was notheld in accordance with the guidelines.The Members either have not givendeclaration regarding their relation appearing in the examination and thosewho have given declaration have not provided the required details.Thefurther allegation of the prosecution is that there has been manipulationin the numbers awarded to the students.The prosecution examined 22 copiesand it has been alleged that they have found manipulation in the answersheets.It is the further case of the prosecution that there has beenlarge-scale bungling, manipulation, tampering of marks, irregularity in theappointment of Examiners and Members of the Interview Board and theChairman in connivance with the Members and also in conspiracy with thesuccessful candidates for securing monetary gains to the officials of JPSCin utter disregard to the rules and by practicing corrupt methodrecommendations for appointment of various persons were made to theGovernment.Accordingly, a First Information Report (in short "FIR") waslodged against several persons including the appellant.(e) By order dated 01.08.2011, the Special Judge (Vigilance) Ranchi, onconsideration of the materials refused to enlarge the appellant onanticipatory bail and rejected his petition.Against the order of theSpecial Judge, the appellant preferred A.B.A. No. 3230 of 2001 before theHigh Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.By impugned order dated 21.09.2011, theHigh Court confirmed the order of the Special Judge and dismissed hispetition for anticipatory bail.4) Heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant andMr.Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State ofJharkhand.5) After taking us through all the materials including the FIR and theallegations pertaining to the present appellant, Mr. Lalit, learned seniorcounsel submitted that in the FIR except for stating that the appellant wasone of the Expert, there is nothing which can even remotely connect theappellant with any offence much less the offences alleged therein.He alsosubmitted that the appellant who hails from District Pithoragarh,Uttarakhand, presently posted at Faridabad, Haryana has no relatives,friends or kinsmen in the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, had no reasonor motive to favour anybody and in that event be a part of any conspiracyto commit the alleged crime.He further pointed out the role of theappellant as Expert Member was only to award marks to each candidate on aseparate sheet and had nothing to do beyond it.He also pointed out thatthe observation of the High Court in the impugned order rejecting hisanticipatory bail application on the ground that the appellant stands on asimilar footing as that of other accused is factually incorrect inasmuch asthe appellant cannot be equated with the case of other Experts who belongto the State of Jharkhand and are alleged to be related or known tocandidates and, therefore, had no reason or motive to commit the allegedcrime.Mr. Lalit,learned senior counsel for the appellant pointed out his higher academicqualifications.All those details are available in Annexure-P1 which showsthat the appellant possesses qualifications of M.Com., (Gold Medallist) andholder of 5 Ph.He has 13 years administrative experience as Head of theDepartment of Business Administration and 13 years experience as Dean inthe School of Management Studies.The appellant has specialization inHuman Resources Management, Organisational behaviour and EntrepreneurshipDevelopment and besides that, he has experience on International Exposureof visiting Professor in other foreign countries.It is also pointed outthat the appellant has been a regular expert in the Selection Committees ofUGC, AICTE, ICSSR and other Universities.15) The appeal is allowed on the above terms.(P. SATHASIVAM) ........................................... | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,037,106 | Shri Rajesh Shukla, Advocate for the complainant.Considering the I.A. No.3247/2015, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection in this regard.Counsel for the complainant is allowed to assist the prosecution.This is the first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail.The applicant is in custody since 30/03/2015, in connection with Crime No.388/2014, registered at Police Station-Gohad, District Bhind, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC.It is alleged that as per FIR dated 20.11.2014, at about 12:30 noon at village Bankepura when the complainant-Harendra Singh with his brother Ramveer Singh were returning from the field, the accused persons Brajendra, Raju, Ramveer and applicant-Suresh started an altercation with them and opposing them not to plough the field.Accused-Brajendra and applicant-Suresh inflicted injuries to Ramveer by Lathi (wooden stick) and they also inflicted injuries to Premnarayan.The complainant-Harendra Singh tried to intervene, then accused-Raju with intention to kill fired a gunshot which hit on his right thigh.One Jandel Gurjar and other villagers saw the incident.(Brijendra Vs.Applicant has not been attributed to have caused injury by gun.The applicant also claimed that they lodged the report against the complainant party in the same incident and Crime No.389/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506-B, 336, 34 of IPC has been registered against Harendra Singh, Ramveer, Premnarayan and Rajkumar.It is also submitted that the specific act attributed to the applicant is not mentioned in the complaint.The applicant, therefore, be given benefit of bail.On behalf of the complainant Shri Rajesh Shukla, Advocate opposed the application stating that due to the enmity of disputed land the applicant along with other accused persons jointly with common object.Therefore, prayed for rejection of the application.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application on the ground that the applicant and other co-accused persons with common object while committing the crime.On perusal of the police diary, it is observed that the applicant Brijendra and other accused persons namely Ramveer and Suresh inflicted injuries by Lathi to Premnarayan.It is also seen that the cross case has been registered against the complainant party coupled with the fact that the applicant is not attributed to the injury to the complainant-Harendra by any firearm.Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of (Brijendra Vs.C. No.3474/2015 the Trial Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. PALO) Judge Ashish* | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,044,790 | Criminal Appeal No.2015/2008 Conviction Sentence Under Section 201 of R.I. for 3 years and fine IPC of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine,further R.I. for one month.The prosecution case is that on 07-04-2008, at about 9 a.m. Amrit Singh was on his field, at that time deceased Mahendra Singh came and sat there for drinking water.At that time, appellant Rammu came with an axe and assaulted deceased Mahendra Singh on the neck and had given one blow on the head.Mahendra died at the spot.The appellant had thrown the dead body in the runnel.The family members of Mahendra Singh started searching him when he did not return to the house, then Amrit Singh 3 informed them about the incident.They came on the field but the dead body was not there.He deposed in the court that the accused persons Rammu Singh, Dal Chand and deceased Mahendra are residents of the same village and they are known to him.On the date of incident, he was on his field, 4 at that time deceased Mahendra came to him and they went to take rest as the deceased asked for drinking water.He was discussing to re-open the account of Self Help Group as he was the President of the said group.It is alleged that at that time Rammu came armed with an axe and uttered "Jai Ram Ji" and had given axe blow on the neck of the deceased and thereafter another blow on the head.Deceased Mahendra died at the spot itself.It is stated that one Munkesh also reached at the spot.Accused Rammu asked Amrat Singh to help him to throw the dead body in the runnel.He refused and had run away from the spot as he became uncomfortable and started feeling headache.On the next day, when brother of the deceased and other family members were searching the deceased, he informed the brother, wife and children of the deceased about the incident.FIR was registered vide Ex.In para-8 of his statement he stated that accused Rammu Singh had told the deceased that he had been enjoying company of his wife.In para-9 of his deposition he stated that when alongwith others he reached in the field, the dead body was not there and thereafter the villagers and the Investigating Officer started searching the dead body.In the cross- examination also this witness has been firm to 5 his statement that he had seen accused Rammu Singh causing injuries with the help of axe to the deceased.He denied the suggestion of the defence that he had not seen the incident as he had gone from the spot to bring water for the deceased.He clarified that he had explained for not informing the incident or lodging any report on the same day that having been scared with the incident, he did not inform anyone and went to the house as he started feeling headache and uncomfortable.Both the witnesses said that the dead body was buried in the filed belonging to Deshu and in the presence of appellant Rammu and on the information given by appellant Dal Chand, the dead body was taken out.The dead body panchanma is Ex.P-6 and the place from where the dead body was taken out for that the panchanma is Ex.PW- 9 Pyarelal admitted his signature on the seizure memo.However, PW-10 Inderlal was declared hostile as some part of the prosecution case, he did not support.The weapon axe, rope and other articles were seized vide Ex.Investigating Officer PW-13 Bhagat Singh desposed that on the information received from PW-1 Amrat Singh, he registered Ex.He prepared the seen map Ex.P-3 and the seizure of blood stained soil is Ex.He also stated that he had recorded the memorandum Ex.P-8 and on the statement of appellants Rammu Singh and Dal Chand, the memorandum was prepared and the dead body was discovered and the other articles were seized.PW-17 Vinod Tiwari, Head Constable has been examined, who proved that vide Ex.P-19 blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized by him and the accused persons were arrested vide panchnama Ex.P-14 and Ex.(Jabalpur dt.: 11.07.2018) Per : V.K. Shukla, J.-Both the appeals are filed against the common order of conviction and sentence dated 08-09-2008, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori in S.T.No.85/2008, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Criminal Appeal No.2400/2005 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of Imprisonment for life IPC and fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months.Under Section 201 of R.I. for 3 years and fine IPC of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month.The report was lodged by Amrit Singh at the police station and the case was registered under Section 302 of IPC and thereafter, the investigation was carried out.During the investigation, the dead body was recovered, which was buried by appellant Rammu Singh with the help of appellant Dal Chand.After the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, alternatively under sections 302 read with section 34 and 201 of IPC.Appellant Rammu Singh was convicted under sections 302 and 201 of IPC, whereas appellant Dal Chand was convicted under section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of evidence and he was acquitted under sections 302 and 302/34 of IPC.The prosecution case is based on the testimony of sole eye witness Amrit Singh(PW-1) therefore first, we proceed to examine his testimony, as he had also lodged the first information report.His testimony gets corroborated with the testimony of wife of the deceased PW- 2 Singhani Bai and also daughters of the deceased PW-3 Santoshi and PW-7 Deepa Bai.They stated that on the date of incident, the deceased had gone to take bonus card regarding tendupatta and when he did not return, they started searching him and on the next day, PW-1 Amrit Singh informed about the incident that Rammu Sing had killed Mahendra by causing injuries on neck and head with the help of axe.Some minor contradictions in the statements of PW-2 Singhani Bai and PW-3 Santoshi have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants but they have stated that on the next day, PW-1 Amrit Singh had informed about the incident.During the investigation, the dead body was recovered on the memorandum of the accused persons.The seizure has been proved by independent witnesses PW-9 Pyarelal and PW- 10 Inderlal.The seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.Thus, the recovery of dead body and the seizure of weapon and other articles have been proved by the independent witnesses PW- 9 Pyarelal and the Investigating OfficerPW-13 Bhagat Singh.The postmortem was carried out by Dr.P.C.Verma(PW-14) who stated that the dead body was kept in two gunny bags and there was blood on the dead body.He found that Injury No.1 was incised wound 3x2x3 inch on the back side of the neck.There was also injury on the back bone and the spinal cord was found damaged.Thus medical 8 evidence supports the testimony of eye witness PW-1 Amrit Singh.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no proper explanation for non disclosure of information by PW-1 Amrat Singh on the same day.On consideration of the statement of PW-1 Amrat Singh, we find that the deceased was killed at the spot by use of axe by giving one blow on the neck and the other blow on the head by uttering words "Jai Ram Ji Ki" in a brutal manner and thereafter the accused asked him to help to throw the dead body in a runnel.It was not unnatural conduct of a witness to be scared or to be uncomfortable.He went to his house and in the next morning itself when the family members and other villagers were searching the deceased, he informed about the incident and thereafter immediately information was given to the police.In the cross- examination also, nothing has come on record to disbelieve the testimony of this witness or there was any any reason for him to falsely implicate the appellants.Presence of the other accused Dal Chand is not stated by this witness at that time and therefore, he was acquitted for commission of offence of murder and has been convicted under section 201 of IPC for destroying and causing disappearance of the 9 evidence because he helped the appellant Rammu Singh in concealing the dead body.The statement of this witness has been corroborated by the other witnesses, who stated that on the very next day, he informed about the incident.The testimony of this witness is further corroborated with the medical evidence and the seizure of articles has been proved by the independent witnesses PW-9 Pyarelal and PW-10 Inderlal.In view of the above assimilation of facts and evidence specially taking into consideration the testimony of PW-1 Amrit Singh, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by appellant Rammu Singh.Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.2227/2008 is dismissed.In Criminal Appeal No.2015/2008, it has been argued that considering his role in the facts of the case, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.The appellant has been convicted under Section 201 of IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-.Taking into consideration the role played by appellant Dal Chand in the present case and also the fact that his jail sentence was suspended by this court on 24- 09-2008, we consider it appropriate to allow the appeal in part by reducing the sentence from R.I. for 3 years to the period already undergone by him.However, the fine amount of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, which shall be paid as compensation to the family of the deceased.In default of payment of the said amount, appellant Dal Chand shall under go further R.I. for 2 months.Thus, Criminal Appeal No.2015/2008 is partly allowed in respect of sentence.The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.The High Court Legal Services Authority shall remit fee of Rs.4000/-(Rs.four thousand) to the amicus curiae who assisted this court. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,045,128 | Accordingly A1 and A2 served as Secretary and Assistant Secretary respectively of the above society.4.During their office tenure there were some irregularities found committed by A1 and A2, such that there were fabrication of documents false entries made in the accounts and records.5.Therefore, departmental actions were initiated against both of them and an enquiry was conducted and both were found delinquent and involved in misdemeanor.This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment made in C.A.No.75 of 2011 dated 28.08.2014 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore confirming the Judgment dated 01.03.2011 made in C.C.No.90 of 2006 on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.2.The Revision petitioner herein is the 1st accused in the above C.C.No.90 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.Resultantly a criminal complaint dated 24.08.2005 came to be lodged by the Special Officer of the above society and a case was registered on 08.10.2005 as against the Revision petitioner and the said Ramalingam for offence under sections 419, read with 109, 467, 471, read with 109, 407, read with 109 of I.P.C. by the 1st respondent.After investigation final report in C.C.No.90 of 2006 was filed by the respondent police under sections 467, 471, 477(A), 406, and 419 of I.P.C.6.On the side of prosecution totally 22 witnesses were examined and 33 documents were marked.The learned trial judge on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence discharged the 2nd accused namely Ramalingam for want of prima facie evidence.The Revision petitioner was found guilty of charges under sections 406, and 477(A) of IPC and accordingly he was sentenced one year RI and Rs.1000/- fine towards each of the above offence and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.With regard to other offences under sections 467, 471, 419 of IPC the trial court found the charges against the accused as not proved beyond reasonable doubts.Accordingly the Revision petitioner was acquitted from the charges under sections 467, 471, 419 of I.P.C.7.As against conviction for charges under sections 406 and 477(A) of I.P.C. an Appeal in C.A.No.75 of 2011 came to be filed by the Revision petitioner before the learned 1st Additional District Sessions Judge, Vellore.The appeal came to be dismissed vide a judgment dated 28.08.2014 by confirming the judgment of the trial court.The said Judgment dated 28.08.2014 of Appellate Court is under challenge in the present criminal revision.8.I heard Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.9.The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner would submit that when the Revision petitioner and the Assistant Secretary, namely Ramalingam both by designation and work have undertaken jointly along with the Special Officer who is also the signatory of the majority of vital documents, the conclusion of the court below as such A1 alone was responsible for the alleged irregularity is untenable.It is his case that when 10 people were working in the society-institution and the documents were handled by all of them, picking the Revision petitioner and holding the Revision petitioner for the alleged lapses is unsustainable.When the trial Court found there were no material particulars with regard to A2, the same yardstick would also be applicable to the Revision petitioner being placed identical.10.Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner is that the documents marked were mere Xerox copies and the original documents were not produced before the trial court.Thus Xerox copies are not reliable and liable to be rejected.11.According to rule 24 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act only an authenticated copy issued by the Chief Executive Officer or the President of Society has to issue a Certified Copy after the same found checked and compared.The said formalities are not adhered in the instant case.12.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the Revision petitioner being the Secretary of the society, he is exclusively liable for the irregularities as the officer-in-charge of the Society.The fabrication of document and false entries made in the records are made by the Revision petitioner.Further beyond the knowledge and without consent of member records were forged as if certain loans were disbursed, while actually without disbursing such loan.Only on due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge was pleased to hold the Revision petitioner guilty under sections 406, and 477(A) of IPC.The learned appellate Judge was also right in confirming the sentence passed against the Revision petitioner.According he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision.14.On perusal of records, as stated above the charges against the revision petitioner originally were found to be framed for the offences punishable under sections 467, 471, 477(A), 406 and 419 of IPC.Previously the second accused namely Ramalingam, the Assistant Secretary was discharged by the trial court for want of Prima facie evidence against him.Being as such, there was no appeal filed by the State as against the acquittal of accused from the other charges and thus the same became final.Whereas said Ramalingam has denied the receipt of Rs.40,000/-.Accordingly the Revision petitioner was held to be guilty of breach of trust of member PW4 for falsification of accounts.By fabricating the account maintained in daily ledger in respect of loan entries, the Revision petitioner was held to be guilty for offence under section 477(A).1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.R.C.No.433 of 201608.10.2018 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,045,562 | First Information Report (FIR) no.101/2004 was registered by police station Shalimar Bagh for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at the instance of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant").The case was subjected to investigation and on the basis of evidence gathered, report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) was submitted seeking trial of the second and third respondents, they being the husband and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant.The prosecution proposed trial to be held on charge for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC.The Crl.M.C. No.3372/2016 Page 1 of 4 Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences on the basis of evidence which was presented with the charge-sheet and thereafter considered the question of charge.M.C. No.3372/2016 Page 1 of 4By order dated 05.03.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the view that no charge was made out against the third respondent (mother-in-law).She also concluded that no charge was made out against the second respondent (husband) for offences under Section 498A IPC, charge, however, directed to be framed for offence under Section 406 IPC against the second respondent (husband).The above said order dated 05.03.2015 of the Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged in the court of the Sessions by the petitioner (complainant), the State and by the second respondent (husband) invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the said court by Criminal Revision Petition Nos.14/2015, 31/2015 and 17/2015 respectively.M.C. No.3372/2016 Page 2 of 4While the first respondent / State supports the petition insisting that the discharge order was erroneous, the petition was resisted initially by the second and third respondents.Nonetheless, the private parties being ad idem on this submission, the matter is considered on the assumption that the third respondent has indeed died and the proceedings against her have abated.After some hearing, on instructions from the second respondent who is present in person, his counsel submitted, without prejudice to his contentions and defences, that he would like to concede that charge be framed and he be put on trial for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.On perusal of the material submitted with the charge-sheet, this court finds this fair concession of the defence to be appropriate.M.C. No.3372/2016 Page 3 of 4 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,047,040 | On 29th July, 1981 at about 6:30 a.m. the complainant Ajabul Sk.after being shaved by a barber, Bhulu Pramanik, left the latter's house.He walked about 30/40 hands away when he saw Riasat Sk.Habibur Rahaman incited and instigated the others to kill Riasat Sk.Nureman, appellant no.3 dealt a blow on the lower limbs of Riasat who collapsed there.Torab Sk., appellant no.1 then assaulted him on his left heel.Nurul and Hasimuddin, appellant nos.3 and 4 also dealt blows on the lower part of Riasat's legs.The complainant cried out and some people ran towards the place of occurrence.On being threatened by the appellants all the people including the complainant and Bhulu fled away from that place.The villagers went to the place of occurrence later and found Riasat Sk.lying on the ground, bleeding, and with many more injuries.Riasat expired about 10 to 15 minutes later.The appellants have all been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 148 of the IPC.They have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of `10,000/- each in default of which rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.They have also been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of `10,000/- in default of which, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC.proceeding to Bhulu Pramanik's house for a haircut.He saw the appellants, who were led by Habibur Rahaman, appellant no.2, armed with sharp edged instruments like Heso and Kati.According to the prosecution, the motive for the crime was that Riasat Sk.and the appellants had a long standing dispute over the ownership of a field.An inquest was conducted by the Investigating Officer who found that there were injuries on the left hand and left leg of the victim.The post mortem examination was conducted on the victim.The autopsy report indicates that the death was due to the effect of injuries as described ante mortem and homicidal in nature.The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.The charge was framed against the appellants alleging that they had committed the offences punishable under Section 148 of the IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.PW 1 is the complainant.He has spoken of the incident which occurred about 23 to 24 years prior to the date on which he deposed in Court.He has stated that while Bhulu Pramanik, the barber, was dressing the hair of Riasat Sk., the 5 appellants appeared armed with Heso, Kati etc., all sharp edged weapons.This is contrary to what he stated in his complaint where he mentioned that he saw Riasat proceeding towards the barber's house.The witness has then described the assault.He has embellished his version in the complaint by stating that Habibur instigated the others by exhorting them to "finish them all".He has also stated that a Kati was recovered from the house of Torab Sk., and that he had signed the seizure list after this recovery was made.He has reiterated that the accused assaulted Riasat on his limbs only and that Nureman had caught hold of Riasat's hair, making him lie flat on the ground.The discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW 1 are not so significant for his evidence to be discarded in its entirety.PW 2 is the witness to the seizure of articles from the scene of offence, such as, blood-stained earth, a blood-stained wrapper, clotted blood and garments of Riasat which were also blood-stained.He has stated that the body of the victim was placed on the road between the houses of Bhulu Pramanik and Kanai Choudhury.However, he has stated that he saw Bhulu Pramanik dressing the hair of Riasat on the road near Bhulu's house.He has further stated that he saw the accused persons arrive at the spot.On the directions of Habibur Rahaman, the others and Nureman dragged Riasat while Torab assaulted him with a Kati and then Hasimuddin injured him with a Heso.He has narrated that Nurul and Nureman also assaulted the victim with the aforesaid weapons.He has spoken about the accused fleeing away after the people around raised an alarm and that Riasat died within a few minutes.This witness has, in his cross-examination, contradicted himself and said that he saw Riasat lying on the western verandah of Bhulu Pramanik's house, injured and bleeding profusely.He has further mentioned that the victim was assaulted on the lower part of his body and on one hand.According to this witness, the police arrived in the evening and conducted the inquest.PW 4 is a villager who also claims to have seen Riasat while he was having a haircut.He has stated that the 5 accused persons surrounded the victim and that Habibur instructed the others to kill Riasat.He has spoken of Nureman clutching Riasat's hair and pulling him down while the other four persons assaulted him with sharp edged weapons.He has mentioned the names of some persons who were present and raised a hue and cry when Riasat was assaulted.After which the accused fled away.From the cross-examination it appears that this witness has contradicted himself and has denied having mentioned to the IO that he had seen Riasat with Bhulu or that the accused Nureman had dropped the victim down by catching hold of his hair or that the other accused assaulted Riasat with a Heso and Kati.The witness has reiterated the fact that the injuries sustained by the victim were all on the lower part of his body and one on his left hand.Thus, PWs 1, 3 and 4 appeared to be eye-witnesses to the incident.They have largely corroborated each other's version of the incident.PW 5 is witness to the inquest report and the seizure list which is exhibited at Ext.3/1 namely all the blood-stained earth etc. In his cross- examination he has stated that the body of the victim was lying in front of Bhulu's house and that the Police arrived at 5 p.m. to conduct the inquest.PW 6 is a witness to the seizure of a blood-stained Heso which was about 11/2 feet in length and recovered from Torab's room.PW 7 is the Constable who took the dead body of the victim to the Morgue.PW 8 has spoken about receiving the compliant from PW 1 and transcribing it himself pursuant to which a case was started against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC.PW 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case who conducted the inquest.He has spoken about preparing the sketch-map and the seizure of the blood-stained earth and hair and clothes stained with blood.He has further stated that these articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.The Investigating Officer has produced the post mortem report and has mentioned that the Doctor who conducted the post mortem had expired.The Investigating Officer has further stated in his cross-examination that when the inquest was held, Bhulu Pramanik and others were not available to be cited as witnesses.He has stated that the post mortem examination report was prepared by Dr. Shankar Prasana Chatterjee who had expired.The injuries sustained by the victim have been described by him.He has identified the signature of Dr. Chatterjee on the post mortem report.In his cross-examination he has candidly stated that he had no personal knowledge about the post mortem examination.The learned Counsel has pointed out that from the post mortem report it is evident that all the injuries sustained by the victim were on the non-vital parts of the body and that there was no evidence that such injuries could have caused the death of the victim.The learned Counsel then submitted that besides PW 1 none of the so called eye witnesses have mentioned the abuses or exhortations of Habibur Rahaman.He also pointed out that there was no evidence to link the Heso which was recovered from Torab's house to the commission of the crime.The learned Counsel submitted that the charge framed is defective as it alleges that offences punishable under both Section 302 read with 34 and Section 148 read with 34 IPC have been committed, thus causing them prejudice and consequently their conviction for both those offences is illegal and bad in law.The learned Counsel has relied on several judgments which we will presently advert to.Mr. Manjit Singh, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the exhortations of Habibur incited the others to commit the crime as he had shouted "de sesh kore" which means "finish him off".He further submitted that although the Doctor who was examined in Court as PW 10 has not opined as to whether the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the Court can always examine the nature of injuries for itself and decide whether they resulted in the death of the victim.It appears from the evidence on record that Habibur who is 79 years of age has not inflicted any blow on the victim.All the eye- witnesses have mentioned the names of other accused who assaulted the victim with sharp edged weapons.However, the witnesses have insisted in their depiction of the incident that the others assaulted the victim on the instigation and incitement of Habibur.There must be sufficient evidence on record which unmistakably proves that the accused had a common intention to participate in the crime or had any common intention to murder the deceased.In the present case there is no doubt that Habibur had instigated the others to attack the victim and that they had acted as per his directions.The main focus of the argument on behalf of the accused is that the victim sustained injuries on his limbs which are non-vital parts of his body which could never have led to the death of the victim.They could not be considered to be fatal injuries.The injuries sustained by the victim are as follows:One incised wound 4" X 4" X 3" on left ankle posteriorly.It cuts all muscles, vessels, Tibia and Fibula.One incised wound 6" x 3" X bone deep on left knee posteriorly.It cuts all muscles and vessels.One incised wound 5" X 2" X bone deep on right leg, middle part, posteriorly.One incised wound 4" X 2" X muscle deep on right thigh posteriorly.One incised wound 4" X 2" X muscle deep on left thigh posteriorly.6.One incised wound 3" X " X skin deep on left hand.The post mortem report suggests that "the death was due to effect of injuries as described ante mortem and homicidal in nature." As mentioned earlier the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination had expired before he could be examined at the trial.However, the Supreme Court declined to do so and opined that in the absence of the specific and definite opinion of the Doctor it was not safe to form an opinion as to whether the injuries caused by the accused with a spear were such that one could say with certainty that they were also fatal by themselves.The conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC was not sustained and instead he was convicted under Section 326 of the IPC.In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Hazara Singh and another reported in AIR 1981 SC 451 the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination had not stated in his report that the injuries found on the abdomen of the victim were likely or sufficient to cause the death of the victim.The Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy, could not be examined.No other medical expert was examined to ascertain his opinion as to whether, on the basis of the data available from the post mortem report, the abdominal injuries were sufficient or likely to cause death.L.J. 49 the injuries sustained by the victim were, one on his chest and abdomen and the other on his back near the first lumber vertebrae close, to the mid line.No medical expert had opined whether such injuries individually could cause death in the ordinary course of nature.This included the fracture of 5 ribs on the left side towards the sternal end, the fracture of some of the fingers and extravasation of blood on the remaining injuries included a few lacerated wounds, contusions and aberrations.There was one minor incised wound on the left pinna.The right lung was congested.But a mere omission to put that question was not enough for the Court to reach an incorrect conclusion.The Court observed that the Sessions Judge, who would have been an experienced Judicial Officer, should have looked into the injuries described and himself deduced whether those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Moreover, by doing so and applying our own assessment, as rightly argued by Mr. Basu, the appellants would have no right of cross- examination of any Doctor on this point.When the prosecution has failed to ascertain the opinion of the Doctor, who proved the post mortem report, as to whether the injuries sustained by the victim could cause death in the normal course, it would be unsafe for us to infer that the death was indeed caused by these injuries.Moreover all the injuries sustained by the victim are on the non-vital parts of his body.The injuries on the left ankle, left knee and on the thigh appeared to be muscle deep; the vessels, Tibia and Fibula have been cut.The testimony of the eye-witnesses proves that the victim was bleeding profusely due to the injuries.The ocular evidence also establishes the fact that appellants attacked the victim by injuring him on the non-vital parts of his body.There can be no doubt that the appellants all had a common intention to inflict injuries on the victim.Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and the instruments used by the appellants to inflict them, there can be no doubt that appellants are guilty of causing grievous hurt by dangerous means.The appellants are convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of `2,000/-.In default of payment of the fine, the appellants shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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. |
197,103,283 | Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo, for the Petitioners.Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the State.The petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for quashing FIR bearing C.R. No.55 of2016, registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune, at theinstance of Respondent no.2 for the offences punishableunder Section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.We have gone 1/2 7-WP961-16.doc through the same.The main allegation is against the husband, who is already expired.The allegation to that effect is that he was not keeping physical relationship.So far as the present petitioners are concerned, allegation made against them that they were supporting the Respondent no.2, complainant husband.The allegations made in the FIR in our considered view cannot constitute an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.So far as under Section 323 and 504 is not cognizable and in the absence of the allegation of the 498A Indian Penal Code, the FIR could not have been lodged.In the light of above, the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside and quashing the impugned order. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,105,450 | The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of petitioner who stated that he had four daughters and two sons.His son Vinod aged about 18-19 years was employed in Delhi by his neighbour's son Dilip.Respondent No.2 also came to Delhi with them and both the boys started working with Dilip at Azadpur at his momo stall.His son was doing fine and concentrating on his work.On 3rd July, 2017 and 4th July, 2014 he had conversation with his son and it came to his knowledge that their relative Mahender met his son and assured him of a job on higher salary.When the CRL.REV.P. 370/2018 Page 1 of 3 complainant asked his son Vinod about the nature of work and salary to be paid, he informed him that he was getting 3,000/- per month and Mahender has assured him that he will get 9,000/- per month but the nature of job was not informed.By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 26th March, 2018 whereby the Juvenile Justice Board discharged the respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Sections 304A/201/34 IPC registered at PS Prasad Nagar.Thereafter phone of his son was switched off and when he went to the house of Mahender his parents told that he had not come to their house and also did not give the mobile phone number of Mahender.He felt suspicious and thus he visited the house of respondent No.2 where he met him.He demanded the mobile number of Mahender which the respondent No.2 refused stating that he did not have his mobile number.Later on internet the complainant saw the photo of his child, he made call to PS Prasad Nagar and came to know about the death of his son near Tank Road, PS Prasad Nagar.Thus he doubted Mahender and respondent No.2 for having knowledge and causing the death of his son.CRL.REV.P. 370/2018 Page 1 of 3On reaching the spot unknown body of a male was found wearing blue colour underwear.No apparent injury was found on the body.The body was preserved and messages were sent in newspapers, internet and circulated.When the body could not be identified on 17 th July, 2017 the post-mortem was conducted and the body was cremated as unknown dead body.As per the post-mortem report the cause of death was opined to be electrocution and brain damage due to blunt force.It was also opined that the head injury was possible due to fall.On the basis of subsequent opinion Section 304A IPC was invoked.On 21st July, 2017 the petitioner came to PS Prasad Nagar inquiring about his missing son and thus FIR No.195/2017 under Sections 304/201/34 CRL.REV.P. 370/2018 Page 2 of 3 IPC was registered.During the course of investigation brother-in-law of the deceased Vinod namely Mahender and respondent No.2, his friend were apprehended.CRL.REV.P. 370/2018 Page 2 of 3Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the investigation it was revealed that Mahender was residing in factory where the incident took place and as per the disclosure statement of Mahender both Vinod and respondent No.2 had come to meet him and when Vinod went to take a bath he got electrocuted resulting in his death; whereafter he along with respondent No.2 dragged the body outside the factory.Learned Juvenile Justice Board noted that the bathroom in which Vinod was taking bath, was in the factory and it was not the duty of respondent No.2 to maintain the same.Thus he cannot be implicated for a rash and negligent act and charged for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC.There is no error in the impugned order for the reason the respondent No.2 was only a visitor in the factory premises as was the deceased and was not responsible for maintaining the premises.Further the allegations, if any, of removing the dead body from inside the factory to outside are based on the disclosure statement with no consequential recovery, hence not admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.Thus this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 29, 2018 'vn' CRL.REV.P. 370/2018 Page 3 of 3CRL.REV.P. 370/2018 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,710,820 | The material facts are briefly stated as under:In his complaint he has mentioned that he has a compact chak of 19 bigha land towards western side of railway line.Towards south of his field Jhanjhan Lal's 58 bighas of land is situated adjacent to his field.The agricultural field of Jhanjhan Lal is at slightly lower level than the land of the complainant.In front of filed of Jhanjhan Lal there is a culvert under the railway line from which the rainwater flows from west to east.The railway line runs towards North-South.The agricultural field of the complainant and the Jhanjhan Lal is parallel to the railway line hence the water flowing from culvert makes it way over the agricultural filed of Jhanjhan Lal.This flow of the rainwater damages the crop of Jhanjhan Lal.Jhanjhan Lal wanted that this water may be diverted by constructing a small water channel between the boundary of the complainant and Jhanjhan Lal's field.In this respect Jhanjhan Lal has made a request to father of the complainant to part with his some land for the construction of water channel so damage to his crop may be minimized but father of Nathu Lal whose land was at the higher level and was unaffected with rainwater flow from the culvert, refused to oblige him.It was stated in the F.I.R. that due to the said reason Jhanjhan Lal was nursing grudges against the complainant.It is stated that due to the said reason Jhanjhan Lal in order to harm the complainant's field, filled the earth in the small water canal which runs from south to north parallel to their field with a view to damage his paddy crop.On the date of the incident in the morning the first informant, his father Chheda Lal and two uncles Ramcharan and Chiraunji Lal went to their field and they cut the water canal so that the water was diverted on the railways land which was lying between the railway line and their field so they may divert this water to their field.At that time Jhanjhan Lal and his son Chhatra Pal were irrigating their field from the water channel.When the complainant's father cut the water channel to divert it on railway land so that they may utilize the water after their paddy field, Chhatra Pal got agitated and he uttered loudly that how you have mustered courage to divert the water from his field to railway field and he will face consequence.After threatening them he went to village.In the meantime the complainant moved from the field and sat near the railway line and was talking to Jhanjhan Lal.At about 9:00 A.M. Chhatra Pal returned on the spot along with Nathu Lal who was armed with rifle, Tauley armed with lathi, Chhatra Pal was also carrying a lathi.When they reached about 25-30 paces Chhatra Pal and Taule Ram shouted that Chheda Lal has lost his senses and he had gone forcibly from the field of Jhanjhan Lal to railway line so he has to be taught lesson.He exhorted Natthu Lal to fire his rifle.It was stated that before the complainant could be alerted suddenly Nathu Lal fired his rifle at his father Chheda Lal.He was hit by bullet in his chest.He succumbed to his injuries on the spot.When the first informant Natthu Lal and his uncles Chironji Lal, Ramcharan rushed towards the accused Natthu Lal to catch hold on him, he shot two more shots towards the first informant and his uncle Chironji Lal.They deposited the rifle of Natthu Lal in the police station.After registering the first information report, the PW-8 started the investigation.In his deposition the P.W.-8 stated that the first information report was registered at 10:20 A.M. in his presence and after preparation of chik (Exh.-1) he had signed it and immediately he took the investigation in his hand after necessary entry in the case diary and G.D.. He recorded the statements of Natthu Lal, Ramcharan and Chironji at the police station itself and after recording their statements, he reached on the spot where he found the dead body of Chhedalal.The inquest was conducted and he prepared Naksha Laash (Exh.-14), Chalan Naash (Exh.-15) and the body was sent for postmortem.A letter addressed to the Chief Medical Officer (Exh.-16).The body was carried by civil constable Ram Swarup and Jograj Singh to Pilibhit for autopsy.He has deposed that he collected the bloodstained earth and simple earth and prepared its fard (Exh.-7 & 8).He had recorded the statements of inquest witnesses Mewa Ram and others and after the spot inspection, prepared a site plan with the help of the complainant (Exh.-18).The investigating officer found two empty cartridges (Exh.-4 & 5) and one spade (fawda) (Exh.-6).He has further deposed that from the injury report of the accused appellant Natthu Lal he came to know that he had also received two injuries in his head and there were other five injuries on his body, but he did not make any enquiry from the prosecution witnesses regarding those injuries.The first eye-witness P.W.-1 is the son of the deceased Chheda Lal.From the F.I.R. the statement of the P.W.-1, P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 and the site plan it emerges that a railway line goes from Pilibhit to Shahjahanpur from north to south near the place of incident, there is a culvert under this railway line.The water flows under the culvert from east to west.Chheda Lal received a bullet injury and died instantly on the spot and Chironji Lal also suffered injuries.He has stated that Nathu Lal accused appellant fired on Chhedalal from about 30 paces.He had also stated that he himself had seen firing Nathu Lal.He had told this fact to the investigating officer.He had also told the I.O. that Chhedalal was using his spade in water channel and when the accused exhorted he stood staring and on that moment he was hit by the bullet.This witness has also admitted that accused Natthu Lal had sustained some injuries in the head and he was bleeding.The P.W.-3 Ramcharan Lal in his statement has stated that on the date of incident when he along with his brother Chheda Lal, Chironji and his cousin Natthu son of Chheda Lal, reached at their fields they found that Jhanjhan Lal and his son Chhatrapal were irrigating their field.Brother of P.W.-3 Chheda Lal had cut the water channel from which the accused-appellant was irrigating his field.Chhatrapal protested his action and he was agitated.He has stated that Jhanjhan Lal was irrigating his holding for the last several days and since he has large holding it would have taken 10-12 more days to get it irrigated.He has denied in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he rushed towards the accused appellant with their lathi.He had admitted the fact that he had seen the bleeding from the head of accused Natthu Lal.It was stated by him that the scuffle which ensued for snatching the rifle went on for 2-3 minutes.The Investigating Officer in his statement stated that on the spot he recovered two empty cartridges and one spade.He was aware about the injury of accused Natthu Lal.The accused-appellant in that case protested and left the place leaving his son with instruction not to pick up quarrel with the appellant till he returns.Thereafter, after sometime they returned to the field and they found that the appellant was irrigating his field.The deceased diverted the flow of water towards his paddy field thereby blocking the course of water to the field of appellant.Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.(Delivered by: Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.) This appeal is preferred by three appellants, Nathu Lal, Chhatrapal and Tauley Ram against their conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 324 I.P.C. by the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit.They have been sentenced and convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and for two years R.I. under Section 324 I.P.C.. The appeal was entertained on 15.2.1983 and all of them were enlarged on bail by this Court.During the pendency of the appeal two appellants, namely, Chhatrapal and Tauley Ram died.This Court vide its order dated 16.5.2012 abated the appeal in respect of the aforesaid two accused appellants.The accused appellants and complainant are from the rural background.They are small farmers and none of them have any criminal history.The incident in which one person was killed by gunshot injury by one of the accused appellants Nathu Lal occurred due to the dispute of irrigation of their fields.A separate fard was prepared.His injuries were medically examined on 11.7.1979 by P.W.-5 Dr. R.R. Dwivedi.The I.O. arrested the accused-appellant Nathu on 11.7.1979 when he went to Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-4).A cross case was then registered.The Magistrate committed the matter to the Session.The Sessions Court framed the charges on 12.4.1982 under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 against Nathu Lal, Chhatra Pal and Tauley Ram.The prosecution in its support has examined P.W.-1 Natthu Lal who is son of the deceased Chheda Lal, he is also an injured witness P.W.-2 Mewa Ram who also reached on the spot at the time of incident, P.W.-3 Ramcharan Lal is the uncle of Natthu Lal and was present at the time of incident.He had also received injuries.P.W.-5 Dr. R.R. Dwivedi had examined the injuries of the accused appellant.P.W.-6 Dr. Amrendra Singh who conducted the autopsy on the deceased Chhedalal.P.W.-7 Ramm Das Sharma is a formal witness, P.W.-8 Randhir Singh was I.O. who conducted the investigation.Following documentary evidences were filed by the prosecution:Ext. Ka-1 F.I.R.Ext.2 & 3 Bloodstained vest of Natthu Lal and Ramcharan Ext. 4 & 5 Empty cartridges Ext. 6 Spade (Fawda) Ext. 7 Bloodstained earth Ext. 8 Normal earth Ext. Ka-9 Formal chik report Ext. Ka-10 General Diary Ext. Ka-11 Recovery memo of rifle Ext. Ka-12 Recovery memo of blood stained Banian Ext. Ka-13 Inquest Report Ext. Ka-14 Diagram of the dead body Ext. Ka-15 Challan Nash Ext. Ka-16 Letter sent by I.O. to C.M.O.The accused-appellant submitted a written statement under Section 313, wherein he took the defence that on 10.7.1979 while he was irrigating his field with Tauley Ram, Chhatrapal and Jhanjhan Lal at about 9.00 A.M. Chheda Lal, Natthu Lal, Chironji Lal and Ramcharan came to his field and diverted water of his field.They were armed with spade, countrymade pistol and lathi.Chheda Lal had spade in his hand.When the accused asked him not to disturb his irrigation a scuffle took place.He was hit by spade on his head and fire was also shot from countrymade pistol.The complainant tried to snatch the rifle of the accused which accidentally went off and it hit Chheda Lal.The accused-appellant also sustained several injuries on his person.The trial court after considering the evidence on record found that the charges against all the accused appellants were established and it convicted all the three accused appellants for life imprisonment with the aid of Section-34 but it found that the offence under Section 307 was not proved against the accused appellants.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not come with clean version as the injuries sustained by the accused Natthu Lal was not explained.He further submits that the motive attributed for the murder was not real.Admittedly, they had diverted the water through which deceased and his son Natthu Lal were irrigating their field and it was forcibly diverted towards the railway line thus the irrigation of the agricultural field of the complainant was abruptly diverted.Nathu Lal the accused appellant when tried to stop the deceased Chheda Lal from diverting the water flow he hit Nathu Lal with a spade which caused injury no. 2 on his head and one of the complainants inflicted lathi blow on him which ensued a scuffle and accidentally the rifle went off and hit Chhatra Pal who died on spot.In support of his submissions he has placed the injury report and statement of the P.W.-5 Dr. R.R. Dwivedi to demonstrate that the prosecution has not explained injuries sustained by the accused-appellant and the statements of the eye-witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are not true version of the incident as the scuffle which has taken place has not been mentioned in their statement hence their statement does not reflect the true version of the incident and cannot be relied upon.He further submitted that the trial court has not considered the defence evidence in proper perspective and has brushed aside it on flimsy ground.Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out several material contradictions in Section-161 statement and in their statement in the Court.All the three had made a false statements as they have not mentioned the true version of the incident that a scuffle took place between the deceased and Nathu Lal and the complainant was the aggressor.In the cross case, a first informant has also been lodged by the accused appellants and they were medically examined.The P.W.-5 who was the prosecution witnesses has clearly stated that Nathu Lal has sustained injury no. 2 by a sharp weapon which can be spade.He further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the deceased had diverted the water drain by fawada thus from the prosecution witnesses itself it is clear that the deceased had a fawda in his hand and the injury no. 2 which has been sustained by the accused appellant on his head was not explained by the prosecution at all thus the evidence of the prosecution does not have ring of truth and they have set up a false case on the basis of concocted story regarding the proposed water channel as a motive for murder.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record.Before analyzing the ocular evidence of the prosecution and defence it would be useful to state some admitted facts regarding the topography of the place of incident and the facts which led to the incident.There are three eye-witnesses who claimed to remain present on the spot at the relevant time.Adjacent to railway line towards west there is a vacant land of railway line about 25 feet wide.Adjoining to this vacant railway land the agricultural field of the complainant and the accused persons lies.At the north end the deceased's land lies which is slightly on higher surface.The total holdings of the complainant and the accused-appellant are 19 and 58 bighas of the land adjoining to each other.Adjacent to Jhanjhan Lal's field there lies the field of Chetram, Dayaram and Natthu Lal.A water channel which irrigate all three fields runs north to south parallel to the railway line.The field of the complainant, Jhamman Lal, Chetram, Dayaram etc. received the water from this water channel.The dispute arose as the water channel which runs north-south was blocked by accused persons at the place G. & H. about 60 paces (about 150 feet) showing the place G & H in the site plan and about 15 paces (37 feet) was blocked at J & K and G & H. It is stated that Jhanjhan Lal deliberately blocked the water path so the water would not reach to the field of the deceased Chheda Lal as his land is towards north to the field of the Jhanjhan Lal.Prosecution case is that on the date of incident at 9.00 A.M. Chheda Lal accompanied with his son Nathu Lal, came to place of occurrence with a spade and diverted the water flow to vacant land of Railway.At that time the accused appellants were irrigating their field from the same water channel, when Chheda Lal stopped the water flow to the field of the accused appellant the course of water started flowing towards west side on the vacant land of railway.His intention was to irrigate his land from the water which flows to his field through the railway land.This action of Chheda Lal enraged the accused appellants.The P.W.-1 is the son of the deceased Chheda Lal.He has deposed that Jhanjhan Lal had asked his father to contribute some land to construct a common water channel for the flow of the rainwater from the culvert which extensively and exclusively damages the crop of Jhajhan Lal as the culvert was in front of his holding.His father had refused to accept his suggestion because their field was not affected.He submitted that due to the said reason Jhajhan Lal was unhappy with them and to cause loss to their crop they blocked the common water channel which is used for irrigation by all the farmers near their plot.To avoid the confrontation his father on the date of incident went to the field at 7:00 A.M. in the morning, at that time Jhanjhan Lal and his son Chhatra Pal were irrigating their field from the water of the common channel.His father Chheda Lal had cut the water channel and diverted the water towards the vacant railway land which was about 20 feet wide.When he cut the water channel Chhatra Pal asked him that he was irrigating his field from the water channel and how you dared to interfere in irrigation of his field.He threatened them of dire consequences and went to his village.The P.W.-1's uncle Ram Charan and Chironji Lal were talking to Jhanjhan Lal.They were sitting near the railway line and in the meantime his father continued to intercept the water channel towards the railway line.At about 9:00 A.M. in the morning the accused appellant Nathu Lal armed with his rifle, Tauley Ram and Chhatra Pal having lathi came on the spot.When Nathu Lal, Tauley Ram and Chhatra Pal were about 25-30 paces from them, Tauley Ram and Chhatra Pal uttered loudly that Chhotey Lal due to self pride is not in his senses and we will teach him lesson.Nathu Lal thereafter exhorted them to open fire.Before the complainant could be alerted in their defence, the accused Natthu Lal shot him by his rifle which hit his father Chhedalal.On his chest he instantly died on the spot.Thereafter the first informant and his two uncles namely Ram Charan Lal and Chironji Lal ran towards Nathu Lal who was armed with rifle.Natthu Lal fired two shots more towards them.One of the bullets hit his uncle Chironji Lal in his left hand and the second fire was missed.Hearing noise of a gunshot Balak Ram and Mewa Ram who were working in their field also rushed to the spot.The first informant and the other witnesses tried to overpower accused Nathu Lal, then Tauley Ram and Chhatra Pal inflicted lathi blow causing injuries on them.But they succeeded in snatching the rifle from Nathu Lal and in the scuffle Nathu Lal also sustained simple injuries.After snatching the rifle the first informant went to the police station along with his uncle Ramcharan and Chironji Lal for lodging the first information report and deposited the rifle of accused Nathu Lal in the police station.In his cross examination the P.W.-1 stated that the accused and his father had made request on several occasions for making an arrangement of the flow of culvert's water towards the west but his father did not accede to his request.It is also stated that due to culvert's water which flows over the plot of the accused person their crop of about 20 bighas of land get damaged every year.He admitted that the spade which was produced in the court was of his father and it was in his hand at the time when he received bullet injury.He has also admitted that the accused persons were irrigating their land for the last 3-4 days.At the time of occurrence of incident his father was having a fawda and P.W.-1 and his two uncles were unarmed.He had given detailed description of the scuffle.After firing when they snatched the rifle from Nathu Lal, he had stated that they knew that after making three fires, the rifle was empty and the accused was trying to load the rifle as he had extra cartridges with him.He has also deposed that accused Nathu Lal had received injury in his head and it was bleeding.Mewa Ram and Balakram had inflicted 2-3 lathi blows on the head of Nathu Lal.He has denied the suggestion that his father had hit Nathu Lal by his fawda.He has denied that Balakram is his relative.He has explained that in the F.I.R. he has not mentioned that Balakram had inflicted a lathi blow on Nathu Lal and he was injured.He had denied his 161 Statement in which he has stated that he and his two uncles had surrounded the accused and after inflicting lathi blow they snatched the rifle from his hand.The P.W.-2 Mewa Ram is an independent witness who has his holdings near the holdings of the accused and the deceased.In his deposition he has stated that when he was going from his house to his field he met Balakram and both of them were chatting near the culvert when they saw that the accused Nathu Lal, Chhatra Pal and Tauley were coming towards them armed with rifle and lathi respectively and they passed near them after crossing railway line towards north.When Nathu Lal opened fire they witnessed the said incident.After the firing he and Balakram rushed towards the accused.He was unarmed and Balakram had a lathi.Nathu Lal again shot the second fire, which missed but the third fire hit Chironji Lal in his hand.Therefore, they succumbed accused Natthu Lal son of Duja along with Balak Ram and Mewa Ram (there are two Natthu Lal; one is the first informant son of the deceased Chhedalal and the accused appellant Nathu Lal son of Duja Ram) rushed towards the accused appellant Natthu Lal.Mewa Ram caught hold the accused Nathu Lal from behind and Natthu Lal son of the deceased Chheda Lal and Ramcharan snatched the rifle from him.At that time Chhatra Pal and Tauley Ram inflicted lathi blow on Nathu Lal and Ramcharan.Balakram also inflicted lathi blow on the accused Nathu Lal and they left the rifle and fled away from the spot.He had sustained two injuries on his head and there were other five injuries also on his body.He has stated that Natthu Lal P.W.-1 had told him that he and his two uncles had surrounded the accused and had also given him blow of lathi and snatched the rifle.The I.O. denied the fact that Mewa Ram - P.W.-2 had told him that P.W.- 1 had caught hold the accused from behind and he had also told him that Balakram had given lathi blow to the accused.The defence has examined Dr. M.K. Arya and Prasadi Lal.Dr. M.K. Arya, Medical Officer who had examined the accused appellant had deposed that there were total seven injuries on the person of the accused appellant.The injury no. 1 was 8 cm.x 1/2 cm.on the right side of his skull near the right ear.It was a lacerated wound with clean cut edges.The injury no. 2 was 5 cm.x 1/2 cm.also on his left side of skull and it was also a lacerated wound.He has categorically stated that injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by some sharp-edged weapon and it could be spade also.Rest of the injuries, namely, injury nos. 3 to 6 were caused by a blunt weapon.The D.W.-2 Prasadi Lal is the resident of the same village.He has stated that in the morning at 8.00 A.M. when he was irrigating his filed, at that time the accused appellants were also irrigating their field.The D.W.-2's field is towards south of the field of the accused-appellant.At about 9.00 A.M. he saw that Chheda Lal, his son Natthu Lal (complainant), Chironji, Ramcharan came to the accused appellants' field and they cut the water channel from which the accused appellants were irrigating their field.The accused appellant told them that they are irrigating their field and when the irrigation is over then they could take water to their field.Suddenly, the complainant - Natthu Lal son of Chheda Lal fired from his country made rifle which hit the accused-appellant Nathu Lal.At the same time Chheda Lal hit the accused appellant by his spade and Ramcharan and Chironji Lal hit him with their lathi.The complainant Nathu tried to snatch the rifle from the accused appellant Nathu Lal and accidentally rifle went off which hit Chheda Lal who died on the spot.In his cross examination he has stated that the incident started when the complainant diverted the water to Railway's land.According to this witness the complainant / informant were aggressor of the incident.We have considered the evidence on record and submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties.From the evidence on record it is established that on the date of occurrence of the incident the accused appellants were irrigating their field.The accused appellants had blocked water channel which was going to the field of the deceased to cause loss to their crop.In the morning when the complainant reached on the spot they found that the accused appellants were irrigating their field.Admittedly, the deceased Chheda Lal cut and diverted the water flow from which the accused appellants were irrigating their field.Their action interrupted the irrigation of the accused appellants' field.Water started flowing towards west on the vacant railway land thus the quarrel ensued between the parties.According to the defence when the accused-appellant Natthu Lal stopped Chheda Lal from cutting the water channel, he was hit by Chheda Lal using his spade.The injuries sustained by the appellant Natthu Lal has been caused by a sharp-edged weapon.Dr. M.K. Arya - D.W. 1 who had examined the accused appellant Natthu Lal in his deposition has clearly stated that injury nos. 1 & 2 were caused by a sharp-edged weapon.The prosecution has not explained the injuries received by the accused-appellant on his head properly.In the F.I.R. the injuries of Natthu Lal was said to be simple injuries.But in their evidence in the court, P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have tried to make improvement.There was bleeding from his injuries.He has further stated that except Balakram no one had hit Natthu Lal.Significantly Balakram was not examined by the prosecution.The P.W.-2 has also stated in Paragraph-10 of his statement that he had mentioned the fact in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Balakram had hit accused appellant by lathi but the same was not recorded by the Investigating Officer.The P.W. - 3 in his statement in paragraph-13 has stated that he did not tell the I.O. that Balakram had hit the accused Natthu Lal by lathi.The D.W.-1 was cross examined by the prosecution but his statement that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon was not challenged.Thus it is an admitted case that the appellant had actually sustained injuries on his head by a sharp edged weapon.The evidence discussed above goes to show that the prosecution's version regarding the incident does not reflect the correct version of the incident.The trial court has not considered this aspect.The appellant went to his house and came back armed with a licensed gun.He opened fire with his single barrel gun and hit the deceased.Relevant part of the judgment reads as under:The case of the appellant as disclosed from his statement is that on the night of September 6, 1974 about 11 p.m. while he and his brother were taking water from the tubewell to irrigate their paddy field the deceased came there during the midnight and declared that he would irrigate his land and would not allow the appellant to take water to his land.The deceased during the course of his insistence to take water to his land abused the appellant which led to a quarrel.According to him, when he and the deceased grappled with each other, the appellant's brother separated both of them.The deceased left the spot threatening that he would teach a lesson to the appellant.Therefore, the appellant fearing imminent danger to his life loaded his gun and sat there.Half an hour thereafter the deceased came with a gandasi and attacked the appellant.Apprehending danger to his life, the appellant fired a shot in the air to scare away the deceased and others but it did not have any effect.When the deceased again attacked with a gandasi, the appellant reloaded the gun and fired at the abdomen of the deceased for self defence.*** *** ***Considering all the facts and circumstance of the case, we feel that the appellant has fired the shot in the exercise of his right of private defence but has exceeded his right in putting an end to the life of the deceased.On the strength of the above findings, we hold that the appellant would be liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part I and not under Section 302 IPC.In the result, we set aside the conviction under Section 302 and the sentence of imprisonment for life instead convict him under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence for 7 years' RI.The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification."The complainant has admittedly diverted water flow for irrigating his field and in the ensuing scuffle the deceased had hit Natthu Lal the accused appellant on his head by spade.After he sustained injuries it appears that he had shot the deceased who had caused him injury.From the evidence on the record we are of the view that the prosecution's evidence that after altercation the accused-appellant went to his village and brought the rifle, is not true.This part of the evidence is liable to be discarded.The evidence on the record establishes that the complainant was aggressor thus we do not find any evidence to show that the murder of Chhatrapal was a result of premeditation.The accused-appellant has shot Chhatrapal due to the situation which arose on the spot when the complainant interrupted in irrigation of the accused's fields.From the record we are satisfied that the intention of the accused-appellant was limited to infliction of bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death was caused unintentionally.There was no premeditation thus we are satisfied that the act of the accused-appellant was done on grave and sudden provocation.In such situation there is heat of passion which cloud a person's reason and he acts upon which in normal course would not otherwise do.We do not find that the accused-appellant has acted with cruelty with which the offence was committed.The finding recorded by the trial court is against the weight of evidence.The trial court has completely ignored the material fact that the complainant was the aggressor and in heat of passion the incident occurred.The trial court also failed to notice the admission of prosecution witness that they had forcibly diverted the water flow to their field.The sole surviving accused-appellant Nathu son of Duja Ram is on bail. | ['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', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,115,869 | The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.PW-1 is his son.On 06.10.2007, at about 01.15 PM, the deceased was standing in frontof the rest room of Hutch Tower.PW-1 and PW-2 claimthat they had gone to the Hutch Tower to hand over lunch to the deceased.Atthat time, it is alleged that these two accused came to the place of occurrenceand mounted attack on the deceased.The first accused cut the deceased withsickle on his right wrist and then on the neck.The second accused cut him withsickle on the left wrist and on the back side of the head repeatedly.PW-1 andPW-2 could not go near them out of fear.The deceased succumbed to the injuries on thespot.PW-5 is a resident of Kakkampatti Village.On 06.10.2007, he had goneto a tea shop at Ottapidaram.According to him, PW-1 and PW-2 came to the saidtea shop and informed him about the occurrence.Then, PW-5 drafted thecomplaint, in which PW-1 signed.PW-4, Mr.Then, he forwarded the above documents to the Courtand handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.PW-21, the then Inspector of Police, attached to the OttapidaramPolice Station, took up the case for investigation at 03.00 PM, on 06.10.2007.On reaching the place of occurrence at 03.10 PM, he prepared an ObservationMahazer, EX-P2 in the presence of PW-6 and another witness.He also prepared aRough Sketch, EX-P14, showing the place of occurrence.Then, he conductedinquest on the body of the deceased between 03.30 PM and 05.30 PM and preparedEX-P15, Inquest Report.During inquest, he examined PW-1 to PW-4 and few morewitnesses and recorded their statements.Then, he recovered bloodstained earthand sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of the samewitnesses.9. cut injury over the dorsum of the left hand injury 15 X 5 cm."EX-P12 is the Postmortem Certificate.He opined that the deceased would appearto have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut injuries.He further opinedthat the injuries would have been caused by a weapon, like MO-4, sickle.PW-21 continued the investigation and arrested the accused on07.10.2007, at 04.00 PM, near Ottapidaram Pallivasal in the presence of PW-6 andanother witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which he haddisclosed the place, where he had hidden the sickle.In pursuance of the same,he took the police and the witnesses to the said place and produced sickle [MO-4].*************[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] This is an appeal, against acquittal, filed by the State.The respondentswere the accused in S.C.No.198 of 2008, on the file of the learned AdditionalSessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi.ByJudgment dated 06.05.2009, the Trial Court acquitted them.As against the same,the State is now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.PW-1had fallen in love with one Muthulakshmi for about one and half years.The accused,who are the brothers of the said Muthulakshmi, opposed the said love affairstoutly.However, much against the wish of the accused, PW-1 married the saidMuthulakshmi.This was not to the liking of the accused.This is projected to be the motive for the occurrence.They raised alarm.PW-3 and PW-4 rushedto the place of occurrence.On seeing them, the accused ran away from the placeof occurrence with the weapons.S.Sundarraj also signed as a witnessin the said complaint.Then, PW-1 proceeded to the Ottapidaram Police Stationand at 02.30 PM, he presented the said complaint to the Sub - Inspector ofPolice.Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.2.4. PW-16, Dr.She found the following injuries:- "1. 'V' shaped cut injury over the (right) side of the occipital area ofthe scalp seen 3 X 3 cm depth; 8 cm A chip of occipital bone attached to theflap of skin.2. cut injury about 8 X 3 cm seen in the centre of the occipital area.3. cut injury about 12 X 5 cm on the vertex of the scalp extending to(left) parital region.4. cut injury about 8 X 4 cm seen on the right parital region of scalp.5. 'V' shape cut injury over sub mental are seen 3 X 3 cm depth over.6. cut injury at the level of C3 spinal cord.Spinal cord, surroundingmuscle, vessels and nerves were cut, except spin of posterior aspect of the neckwith posterior pant of skin is intact with body.7. cut injury spin 5 X 4 cm over flexer aspect of right wrist.cut injury spine 4 X 2 cm seen 2" below the previous injury.PW-21 recovered the same under a mahazer.PW-21 recovered the dressmaterials of the accused, [MO-9 and MO-10].He produced the accused before theCourt for judicial remand.The second accused surrendered before the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.On the orders of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, on 14.11.2007, he took custody of the secondaccused.On the same day, while in the Police Station, the second accused gave avoluntary confession in the presence of PW-6 and another witness.In the saidconfession, he had disclosed the place, where he had hidden the sickle.Inpursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the said placeand produced sickle.PW-21 recovered the same under a mahazer.Thereafter, on arequest made by PW-21, the Material Objects were sent for chemical examination.EX-P18 is the Chemical Analyst Report and EX-P19 is the Serology Report.As perthe opinion of the Chemical Analyst, bloodstain was found on one of the sickles.The other sickle was not sent for chemical examination.Finally, on completing the investigation, PW-21 laid charge sheetagainst the accused.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the sideof the prosecution, as many as twenty one witnesses were examined and nineteendocuments were exhibited, besides, ten Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined as eyewitnesses.PW-3 and PW-4 have turned hostile.PW-1 and PW-2 alone have vividlyspoken to about the occurrence.PW-5 has spoken to about the drafting of thecomplaint by him, [EX-P1].PW-6 has spoken to about the preparation ofObservation Mahazer, EX-P2 and recoveries of sickles at the instance of theaccused.PW-7 and PW-8 have also turned hostile.PW-9 has not stated anythingincriminating against the accused.PW-10 is the father of the deceased.He hasalso not stated anything against the accused.PW-16 is the doctor, who conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased.The others are the official witnesses.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to exhibitany document in their defence.Having considered the above materials, the TrialCourt acquitted the accused of all charges.That is how, the State is beforethis Court with this Criminal Appeal.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Stateand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused 1 and 2 andperused the records carefully.The Trial Court has disbelieved the evidenceof PW-1 and PW-2 for number of reasons.The foremost reason stated by the TrialCourt is that PW-1 and PW-2 would not have been present at the time occurrenceat all.According to the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2, they had gone to the HutchTower taking lunch for the deceased.Their houses are not situated anywhere nearthe place of occurrence.Thus, their presence at the time of occurrence ismerely by chance.It is the settled law that if a witness happens to be a chancewitness, his evidence requires a very close scrutiny and it is absolutelynecessary for the prosecution to explain as to what made the witness to bepresent at the crucial time in the place of occurrence.Here, in this case, theonly explanation offered by the prosecution is that PW-1 and PW-2 had gone toHutch Tower to serve food to the deceased.Let us, therefore, scrutinize their evidences with care and caution.But, PW-5 has statedthat the complaint was drafted only at the Police Station, as dictated by thepolice.Though in the chief - examination, he has stated that the complaint wasdrafted in a tea shop at Ottapidaram, in cross-examination, he has stated thatwhen he had gone to the Police Station, PW-1 and PW-2 were already present inthe Police Station, where as dictated by the police, the complaint was drafted.This positive admission made by PW-5 has been given weightage of by the TrialCourt to hold that PW-1 and PW-2 would not have been present at the time ofoccurrence and EX-P1 had come into being only after due deliberation.We do notfind any reason to take a different view on this aspect.PW-1, in cross-examination, has, however, stated that he found PW-5 near a tea shop, where thecomplaint was drafted.The said delay assumes much importance in thewake of the admission made by PW-5 that the complaint was drafted only asdictated by the police.The next ground recorded by the Trial Court is that the medicalevidence does not corroborate the eye - witness account.According to the TrialCourt, at the time when autopsy was conducted at 05.30 PM, on 06.10.1997, rigormortis had set in both the limbs of the deceased.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgmentdated 06.05.2009 made in S.C.No.198 of 2008, on the file of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.1.The Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi.3.The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Thoothukudi District. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,116,885 | However, after few days of the departure of her husband complainant left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents.Petitioner no.1 visited India in March/April as he had to attend marriage of his nephew (son of his sister).Complainant also joined his company in her matrimonial home.Petitioner no.1 returned back to USA on 15.7.2001 leaving behind the complainant.Soon after he left for USA, complainant again came back to her parents' Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 2 of 19 house.After going back to USA, petitioner No. 1 remained in contact with the complainant till July 2003 on telephone as well through e-mail.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 2 of 19In the complaint it was alleged that immediately after marriage petitioner no.1 demanded Rs. 20 lacs from her for settling in USA.Her husband had started physically torturing her before he left for USA.When his demands were not fulfilled, his sisters; petitioners no. 3 and 4 also used to mentally and physically harass her.Soon after petitioner No.1 left for USA, she was thrown out of the house by her sisters-in-law and she came back to her parents' house.It is also Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 3 of 19 alleged in the complaint that soon after her marriage petitioner No.3, Vinod had taken all her ornaments except a pair of Karas.She came back to her matrimonial home to reside with her husband; Manu Nischal when he revisited India to attend the marriage of his nephew.There she was made to take some cold drink forcibly and thereafter he removed her Karas which she was wearing.Om Prakash allegedly hugged her and indulged into indecent activities with her.She ran away from the house.After reaching her parents' home she became unconscious.She was removed to the hospital.To make out an offence under Section 406 IPC complainant has to show that she had entrusted her property with the petitioners which they misused or refused to return her back when demanded.The allegations of entrustment are only against petitioner no. 3 Vinod and petitioner no. 2 Om Prakash.Allegations of entrustment against Vinod is that soon after her marriage Vinod took in her possession the jewellery belonging to the complainant except two karas.Allegations of entrustment against Om Prakash are that when she had gone to her matrimonial home on the next day of Janmashtmi to chart out her programme for going to USA to join the company of her husband, Om Prakash removed her Crl.Averments in the complaint therefore are vague in nature with no details of the jewellery articles allegedly taken into possession by petitioner no. 3 Vinod.The date or month of the incident when the alleged ornaments were taken into possession is also not disclosed.It is not the case of the complainant that she had entrusted her jewellery with the petitioner no. 3 Vinod to keep it in safe custody to be returned back to her as and when demanded.At the time of alleged incident complainant's husband was living with her at Delhi, probably she never made such complaint to her husband against her sister-in-law; Vinod for having taken away her jewellery.Had she informed her husband about the conduct of her sister-in-law Vinod the same would have found mention in the complaint itself.Petitioner no.3 Om Prakash is alleged to have removed the karas from the hands of the complainant when she went to her matrimonial home on his invitation to make out a proper programme for her visit to USA.This allegation in itself also does not constitute any entrustment of jewellery i.e. pair of karas by the complainant with petitioner no. 2 Om Prakash.There are no allegations of dishonest misappropriation of her karas by any of the petitioners.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 11 of 19M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 11 of 19Significantly when petitioners sought anticipatory bail and the petition came up for hearing on 1.9.2003 the father of the complainant was also present in the Court and he made a statement to the Court that till that day no demand for return of the dowry articles was ever made from the petitioners.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 12 of 19 subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of the husband for non-fulfillment of their unlawful demand.Cruelty as defined in Section 498A IPC means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mentally or physically to the woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.Following are the ingredients in this Section:b. She was harassed for non-fulfilment of the demand.c. Complainant was severely and mercilessly beaten and thrown out of the house after her husband had left for USA.d. She was taunted and beaten whenever she visited her in-laws house in the absence of her husband.e. She came back to her matrimonial home in March 2001 when her husband came to attend the marriage of his nephew and after he left for USA she was again thrown out of the house.Allegations against all the petitioners are elusive, vague and are not illustrative of any specific act on the part of any of the petitioners so as to prima facie implicate them for an Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 15 of 19 offence under Section 498A IPC.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 15 of 19There is no dispute that complainant was earlier married to one Hitender Shokeen on 24.9.1993 and after few months of her marriage she separated from him and obtained divorce by mutual consent.In this case there are Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 17 of 19 no allegations of such a nature which might indicate willful conduct on the part of the petitioners to instigate her to commit suicide or the nature of cruelty was such that it was a danger to her life or caused grave injury to her limb or health whether mental or physical.She never received any physical injury on her person.Under the circumstances when she was already a divorcee and probably sought divorce because she wanted to marry petitioner No.1 Manu Nischal and in view of the nature of evidence collected by the investigating officer during the investigation of the case it is doubtful if any dowry articles were given to the complainant in her marriage.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 17 of 19As already discussed no list of dowry articles movable or immovable and jewellery has been provided by the complainant either to the police or to Crl.Meanwhile on 17.7.2003 Petitioner No.1 filed a suit in the court of Pennsylvania, USA seeking decree of dissolution of marriage between him and the complainant.On 25.8.2003 complainant filed a complaint in Police Station Paschim Vihar which culminated into registration of FIR No. 472/2003 dated 25.8.2003 against all the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A/406/328/354/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).After he left for USA, she was again thrown out of the house and she came back to her parents' house.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 3 of 19In the complaint it was also alleged that petitioner no.2, Om Prakash Nischal, the brother in law (Jeth) of the complainant allegedly called her to her matrimonial home on next day of Janmashtmi to chart out the programme of her visit to USA.Complainant suspected, rather, believed that petitioner no.2 Om Prakash and petitioner nos. 3 and 4, Vinod and Shobha intended to kill her.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 4 of 19M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 4 of 19After the investigation was complete chargesheet was filed in the court.The trial court vide its detailed order dated 13.5.2005 was pleased to discharge the petitioners for offence under Section 328 IPC and remanded back the case to the court of learned MM to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC.A revision petition was filed against this order by the complainant in this court.A divorce petition filed by petitioner No.1 in Pennsylvania was duly contested by the complainant.On that date a communication was filed by petitioners no.2 to 4 stating that despite their information to petitioner no.1 through registered post he had failed to appear in the court.Under these circumstances, it is made clear that this order in no manner would be taken as order passed by this Court in a petition filed by Manu Nischal, petitioner No.1 seeking quashing of the proceedings in the impugned FIR.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 5 of 19Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that allegations against the Crl. M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 6 of 19 petitioners in the FIR are vague as no details of the alleged incidents have been given, complainant has not given the date of the alleged demand of car by the petitioners, complainant was a divorcee when she married petitioner no.1 in November 2000, she of her own accord left her matrimonial home soon after petitioner no.1 went to USA where he was already residing prior to his marriage with the complainant, the FIR does not contain any allegations of cruelty for demand for dowry for the period from 19.11.2000 when she married to petitioner no. 1 till June 2001, the complaint has been filed with malafide intentions to wreck vengeance against the petitioners after petitioner No. 1 filed divorce petition against her in Pennsylvania, USA.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 6 of 19M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 7 of 19M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 7 of 19He has placed reliance on Jatinder Kumar and others v. State (Delhi Admn.) Delhi - 1992 Crl.All these allegations have been refuted by Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned APP for the State.He has argued that as per the contents of the FIR and the evidence available on the record prima facie an offence under Sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC is made out against all the petitioners as there are specific allegations of demand for dowry, tortures and beatings against the petitioners.There are also specific allegations that petitioners had thrown out the complainant from her matrimonial home soon after her husband left for USA Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 8 of 19 on both the occasions and that petitioner No.1 did not even care to find out the welfare of the minor daughter, rather obtained divorce from the complainant at Pennsylvania.He has also highlighted the conduct of petitioner no.1, husband of the complainant, who is living in USA and is avoiding his arrest and has not joined the investigation of the case at any stage.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 8 of 19No complaint was lodged by the complainant at that time against petitioner no. 3 Vinod.In the absence of any specific details of the jewellery items allegedly taken away by petitioner no. 3 and for want Crl. M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 10 of 19 of particulars of the alleged incident prima facie it would not be appropriate to say that complainant had entrusted her jewellery with petitioner no.3 Vinod.Alleged taking away of the jewellery belonging to the complainant by petitioner no.3 does not constitute an offence for criminal breach of trust as ingredients of entrustment defined in Section 405 IPC are not made out.It is not disputed that there was no entrustment of dowry articles by the complainant with any of the petitioners.There are no allegations of any dishonest misappropriation of the jewellery by any of the petitioners.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 9 of 19M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 10 of 19While granting anticipatory bail vide order dated 1.9.2003 the Court had observed that under the circumstances when no demand for return back of the dowry articles was made there was no question of petitioners having refused to return back the articles.It is pertinent to note that complainant was a divorcee and her marriage with Manu Nischal petitioner no.1 was a love marriage as stated by her in the complaint.Under these circumstances I find that ingredients of criminal breach of trust are completely missing in this complaint.Petitioners have been chargesheeted for offence under Section 498A IPC as well.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 12 of 19a. The woman must be married; b. She must be subjected to cruelty and harassment and such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or relative of her husband; c. Such harassment is with a view to coerce her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or on Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 13 of 19 account of failure of her or her relative to meet such demand.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 13 of 19Accusations of demand of dowry against petitioners No.2 to 4 as made out from the complaint are:f. On next day of Janmashtmi her Karas were Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 14 of 19 removed and her brother-in-law (jeth) tried to molest her.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 14 of 19g. She was forced to take cold drink and thereafter she became unconscious and was taken to the hospital where she was medically treated.The alleged accusations as narrated in the FIR at the best can be considered as a demand.The alleged demand is not coupled with cruelty so as to attract provisions of Section 498A IPC.No specific date, place or occasion has been indicated of the alleged demand or cruelty and half-hearted attempt has been made when complainant has alleged that she was given beatings by petitioners No.2 to 4 and was thrown out of the house.As regards the allegations of intoxicating her with a view to kill her as pointed out above, the court has discharged all the petitioners of offence under Section 328 IPC.Complainant had also filed a private complaint under Sections 406/498A/377 IPC against Hitender Shokeen on the basis of which FIR No. 278/94 under Sections 498A/406 IPC was registered against her erstwhile husband.Complainant had also levelled allegations that her jewellery was taken away.There were allegations of her erstwhile husband demanding Rs. 1 lac through his sister.It seems that complainant is in the habit of involving her husbands and their family members with similar nature of allegations for criminal breach of Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 16 of 19 trust and torture for demand for dowry.This complaint was filed in August 2003 only after petitioner No.1 had filed a petition seeking divorce in the court of Pennsylvania, USA, presumably as a counterblast to wreck vengeance against her husband and his family members.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 16 of 19Mere vague statement of the complainant that she was subjected to cruelty for demand for dowry and that her jewellery (unexplained) except her Karas were taken away by her sister-in-law Vinod and her Karas were subsequently removed by her brother-in- law Om Prakash; without any specific allegations, prima facie no offence is made out against petitioners no.2 to 4 for framing of charges under Sections 498A/406/354 IPC.As per the complaint, admittedly the marriage between the complainant; Sudha and petitioner No.1 Manu Nischal was a love marriage.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 18 of 19 the court.Under these circumstances an allegation of molestation against the petitioner no. 2 also are of no consequence, are trivial in nature to frame him in an offence under Section 354 IPC.In the absence of the same prima facie I do not find sufficient evidence on the record to proceed against the petitioners No.2 to 4 for offences under Section 406/498A/354 IPC.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 18 of 19For the foregoing reasons, petition is partly allowed.FIR No. 472/2003 and the proceedings of the Court in the case, only qua the petitioners no.2 to 4 are quashed.The petitioners no.2 to 4 are accordingly discharged.Petition qua petitioner no.1 Manu Nischal is dismissed for non prosecution.The trial court shall proceed as against petitioner No.1 Manu Nischal in accordance with law.Attested copy of the order be sent to the trial court through special messenger.(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE February 13, 2009 jk Crl.M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 19 of 19M. C. No. 2823/2007 Page 19 of 19 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,971,174 | Subedar Singh (P.W. 11) is father of deceased Putai Singh.He is the only eye-witness who has supported the prosecution case.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellants Lakhan Singh and Kishore Singh have been convicted under Section 304, Part II, read with Section 34, IPC and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/-.During the course of the hearing of this appeal, it has been pointed out that appellant Lakhan Singh has served out the sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court and, therefore, his appeal has not been pressed.Even so, the evidence on record has been scanned by this Court.So far appellant Lakhan Singh is concerned, his conviction under Section 304, Part II, IPC is well founded.Subedar Singh (P.W. 11) is husband of the sister of the accused persons.The incident took place on 15-7-1992 in Village Madaiya.According to Subedar Singh (P.W. 11), accused Lakhan Singh dealt a knife blow on the abdomen of Putai Singh which was a serious injury and proved fatal.The evidence of three doctors and the post-mortem report clearly establish that Putai Singh died on account of the stab injury on his abdomen.The omentum had come out.Putai Singh died as a result of this injury.So far as appellant Kishore Singh is concerned, it is an admitted fact that he did not cause any injury to deceased Putai Singh.According to the prosecution, accused Kishore Singh had exhorted his brother Lakhan Singh to cause injury to Putai Singh and he had also caught hold of Putai Singh and thereupon his brother Lakhan Singh brought a knife from his house and caused the fatal injury to Putai Singh.Ex. D-1 is the statement of Subedar Singh (P.W 11) which he had made to the police under Section 161, Cr.PC.This was the first version of Subedar Singh (P.W 11).In this statement, he has not said that accused Kishore Singh gave any exhortation to his brother Lakhan Singh.Therefore, the evidence of Subedar Singh (P.W 11) regarding ihe exhortation given by accused Kishore Singh is to be excluded as an afterthought.Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the evidence of Subedar Singh (P.W. 11), it is found that the words uttered by accused Kishore Singh do not amount to exhortation.Subedar Singh (P.W 11) has stated in para 5 that there was grappling between accused Kishore Singh and Putai Singh.Thereafter, accused Kishore Singh said to his brother Lakhan Singh whether he would see him being killed ? The words used by the witness are ^^fd'kksj flag us dgk fd D;k yk[ku flag ekjs Mkyks gks D;k-** From this statement it does not follow that Kishore Singh asked his brother Lakhan Singh to cause any injury to Putai Singh.Further, in cross-examination in para 23, Subedar Singh (P.W. 11) has stated that there was grappling between his son Putai Singh and accused Kishore Singh.Accused Kishore Singh shouted and said whether he would allow him being killed by Putai Singh.It is admitted by this witness that his son Putai Singh was much stronger in body than Kishore Singh.The words used by this witness are as follows :--^^vius HkkbZ yk[ku flag dks vkokt nsdj dgk Fkk fd dk;s gesa ejok nksxsA esjk yM+dk iqrbZ flag 'kkjhfjd :i ls vfHk;q fd'kksj flag ls T;knk rxM+k FkkA** The statement of the witness also does not give a definite indication that accused Kishore Singh had exhorted his brother Lakhan Singh to cause the fatal injury to Putai Singh.The words uttered by accused Kishore Singh at that time can also be interpreted to mean that he called for the help of his brother as he was being pressed and over-powered by Putai Singh.In such a situation, accused Lakhan Singh brought a knife from his house and inflicted an injury on abdomen of Putai Singh.It cannot be said that there had developed a common intention between Lakhan Singh and Kishore Singh to cause such an injury to Putai Singh.The knife blow was an act of Lakhan Singh and for this there was no prior meeting of minds between Lakhan Singh and Kishore Singh.There was no pre-concerted plan between the two brothers to cause any injury to Putai Singh by a knife on his abdomen and thereby bring an end to his life. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,971,180 | The respondents/accused and the deceased Ganpat Mahadeo Yelore, as well the other members of his family viz. his wife Smt. Bakubai (P.W. 2), sons viz. Shri Vittal (P.W. 1), Baliram (P.W, 3) and Maroti (P.W. 4) are the residents of the village Mouja Khapari, Tah.Seloo, District Wardha.The agricultural land of the accused Homdeo is situated just adjoining to the land of the complainant.On the day of incident i.e. on 21-4-1987 at about 3.00 P.M., Maroti Ganpat Yelore (P.W. 4) had gone in the agricultural land for the purpose of grazing cattles.The accused/respondent No. 3 Homdeo was informed that the cattles of Maroti are grazing in his field.Consequently, Homdeo Botre (accused No. 3) with an axe went to assault Maroti Yelore (P.W. 4).Homdeo pulled Maroti and assaulted by slaps.Maroti Yelore took shelter behind Laxman Urkuda.The said Laxman Urkuda intervened and, therefore, Maroti (P.W. 4) could save himself.Maroti (P.W. 4) returned to his home from the field and informed the above incident to his brothers and father.On this Maroti Yelore (P.W. 4) along with his brothers and father went to the agricultural land in order to question Homedo Botre as to why he assaulted Maroti.They searched for Homdeo but he was not found.On the same day, according to the prosecution, Smt. Bakubai (P.W. 2) had gone in the field for milching the cows.In the evening at about 7.00 P.M., the deceased Ganpat, his wife Smt. Bakubai, their sons Baliram and Maroti, four in numbers, started returning towards the village.When they arrived near the house of Dhyaneshwar Deolikar, according to the prosecution, all the four respondents/accused were seen standing armed with sticks.Bhaurao Doma Udan (respondent/accused No. 1) and Homdeo Mahadeo Botre (respondent/accused No. 3) delivered blows by sticks on the back of Smt. Bakubai.Deceased Ganpat and his sons viz. Baliram and Maroti intervened and tried to save Smt. Bakubai.Accused Bhaurao and Homdeo delivered blows by sticks on the head of the deceased Ganpat.Tukaram Bhaurao Udan (respondent/accused No. 2) and Dilip Bhaurao Udan (respondent/accused No. 4) assaulted Baliram and Maroti by sticks.The deceased Ganpat had sustained bleeding injuries on his head and he had fallen down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries on the spot of incident.On hearing hue and cry, Vitthal Ganpat Yelore (P.W. 1) reached the spot of incident and witnessed all the events of assault.He rushed to the Police Station, Seloo at about 9 or 9.30 P.M. and lodged the oral report (Exh. 34).In the night itself, the Police went to village Khapri.On the next day i.e. on 22-4-87 at about 8.00 A.M., the Police in presence of the panchas examined the dead body of Ganpat and scribed the inquest panchanama (Exh. 54).JUDGMENT B.U. Wahane, J.The State, by this appeal, has questioned the correctness and legality of the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Wardha, on 8th December, 1988, in Sessions Trial No. 53/87, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 324 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds that the learned trial Judge has not marshalled the facts and circumstances of the case and not appreciated oral and documentary evidence placed on record in true and correct perspective and recorded the findings which are not only erroneous but perverse, resulting in miscarriage of justice.The learned counsel for the respondents/accused, while supporting the findings, has urged that the reasons as adopted and the findings recorded by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Wardha, are just, proper and in accordance with the evidence on record.By inviting our attention to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in a case of Tota Singh v. State of Punjab, , we are reminded that unless the findings impugned are manifestly illegal and the conclusion as drawn can only be described as perverse, interference in appeal against acquittal is totally unwarranted.Bearing in mind the settled proposition, we propose to deal with the rival contentions.The facts in brief to prosecute the respondents/accused are as follows :The dead body was forwarded to the General Hospital, Wardha for the purpose of post-mortem examination.Dr. Chandak (P.W. 6) effected the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Ganpat on 22-4-1987 in between 11.15 A.M. to 12.15 P.M. and found the following injuries described in column Nos. 17 and 18 of the post-mortem report.(i) Lacerated wound over head 2" x 2" in size bone deep, mid point lies about 1" on left to centre of head.(ii) Abrasion with surrounding haematoma 1" x 1/2" on posterior lateral surface of right elbow.(iii) Fracture of clavical left lateral 1/3rd.On further examination, Dr. Chandak (P.W. 6) found internal injuries as follows :Head : Haematoma of size 4" x 3" on left side of skull under bone.Skull : Fracture extending from elbow to the zygomatic arch on left side directing upwards, medially and backward up to the centre of skull top, about 8" in length.Brain : Slight extra dural heamatoma over left cerebral hemisphere, coverings normal brain congestion present over left cerebral hemisphere, haematoma present on left side at basal area, introdural of size 3" x 2".According to Dr. Chandak, the death caused due to head injury, caused by hard and blunt object, leading to cardio respiratory failure.Dr. Chandak (P.W. 6) deposed that the injury No. 1 i.e., lacerated would over the head was grievous injury and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The spot of occurrence was inspected by Shri Sadashio s/o Rupchandaji Wasalwar, P.S.I. (P.W. 8) in presence of the panchas.The accused were arrested.On the basis of the voluntary statement made by the accused Homdeo, in presence of the panchas, the Police discovered the stick from his house.About the voluntary disclosure of each of the accused, the memorandum panchanamas were prepared, as also after the seizure, the seizure mernos were also effected.According to prosecution, Smt. Bakubai wd/o Ganpat Yelore (P.W. 2), Baliram s/o Ganpat Yelore (P.W. 3) and Maroti s/o Ganpat Yelore (P.W. 4) had also received injuries.They were referred to the medical officer for examination and treatment.Dr. Taksande (P.W. 9) attached to Primary Health Centre, Borkhedi, on 22-4-87 at about 00.25 A.m.(i) Fracture of lower end of left humerus, tenderness and deformity present, swelling present, movements restricted.Crepitation present over the left elbow joint.Doctor opined that the injury could have been caused by hard and blunt object.On the same day, Dr. Taksande (P.W. 9) examined Baliram Ganpat Yelore and found the following injuries described in Exh. 91-the injury report.(i) lacerated would over the scalp in the mid line transversely placed 2" x 1/2" in size.According to Doctor, the injury could have been caused by hard and blunt object.(i) Abrasion over the left leg 1" x 1" in size.(ii) Contusion over the upper lip on left side 1" 1/2" in size.According to the Doctor, the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object.On arrest, the Investigating Officer found the accused Bhaurao and Homdeo injured.They too were referred to the Dr. Taksande - the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Selu.(i) lacerated wound over left side of the skull 1/2" x 1/2" in size.(ii) Contusion over the right left arms.According to the Doctor the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object.Accused Homdeo Devrao Botre, aged about 30 yrs.(i) Abrasion over the left thing.,(ii) Abrasion over the right knee;(iii) Abrasion over the right chest.According to the Doctor, the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object.Doctor Taksande deposed that the injuries might have occurred 48 hours before his examination.The blood samples of the injured Baliram as also of Maroti were collected.All the incriminating articles were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur for examination and analysis.As per the report, the blood group of the deceased Ganpat and injured Baliram was of 'O' group.On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial according to law.To the charges framed against the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to bring home the charges in the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and relied on direct as well as circumstantial evidence.The defence of the accused is that the respondents/accused Nos. 2 and 4 viz. Tukaram Bhaurao Udan and Dilip s/o Bhaurao Udan were not present at all on the spot of incident.According to the accused Bhaurao and Homdeo, they were assaulted by Baliram (P.W. 3) and Maroti (P.W. 4) as also by deceased Ganpat by means of sticks and they sustained injuries on their person.They wielded the sticks in their defence.The learned trial Judge, appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, held that the Prosecution filed to bring home the guilt against the respondents/accused and exonerated them of the charges framed against them.The learned trial Judge, has specifically observed in para 25 of the Judgment that;"the Prosecution has miserably failed to point out as to who was the aggressor"."the prosecution witnesses made a clear statement that they did not see any assault on the accused persons and injuries on their persons."According to the learned trial Judge, the prosecution witnesses deliberately suppressed the fact of presence of injuries and fact of assault on accused.The learned trial Judge in para 20 of the Judgment observed that :"In the fact it appears that on the relevant date scuffle and beating ensued between the two groups i.e., one group of the deceased and the other group of the accused.There is absolutely no investigation on the point as to how the accused persons had sustained injuries, whether in the same quarrel and by whom it were caused.The dramatic manner in which the assault is said to have started and appearance of all the four accused on the spot of the incident without any rhyme or reason and their assault on Ganpat against whom there was no any concern or animus introduces an element of inherent improbability in the case."The learned trial Judge further observed in para 21 as follows :According to the prosecution, Smt. Bakubai (P.W. 2) while returning home with her husband-the deceased Ganpat and sons Baliram and Maroti, was ahead of them.As soon as they arrived near the house of Dhyaneshwar Deolikar, they found the respondents/accused standing armed with sticks.One Narayan and Vithhal had intervened.As deceased Ganpat fell on the ground, all the accused left the spot."When a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his evidence, it is the Marathi deposition of the witness which had to be taken into account".According to her deposition in vernacular, she had seen all the accused with sticks in their hands.Though, Shri H. Ahmad, the learned A.P.P. strenuously argued that as there is a direct evidence of Bakubai, it need not to explain why the respondents/accused assaulted initially Smt. Bakubai, Admittedly, when the earlier incident of assault by accused Homdeo to Maroti Yelore (P.W. 4) took place in the field at about 3.00 P.M., Smt. Bakubai (P.W. 2) was not present in the field.On information given by Maroti Yelore, Bakubai (P.W. 2) deceased Ganpat and her two sons had gone to the field in search of Homdeo but he was not found.Maroti (P.W. 4) has specifically deposed in para 4 of his deposition that;"Homdeo had assaulted by slaps on my cheeks.Homdeo had pulled me when I concealed behind the back of Laxman.Because of that I sustained injury on my leg and swelling on my mouth."In view of the assault on Maroti by Homdeo, it is but natural that the parents and brothers of Maroti had developed a grudge against Homdeo.They being aggrieved, they had gone to the field in search of Homdeo.It is not a case of the prosecution that the complainant party came to the village, sighting the respondents/accused, any member of the complainant party including Smt. Bakubai or deceased Ganpat accosted accused Homdeo.In view of this, it does not stand to reason that the respondents/accused or any one of them, assaulted elderly lady of 55 years of age, viz. Bakubai.Maroti s/o Ganpat (P.W. 4) has deposed that he was assaulted by accused No. 4 Dilip by stick.However, he has admitted in para No. 4 of his deposition that the injuries which were on his person were sustained in the field at about 3.00 P.M.P.W. 1 Vitthal s/o Ganpat deposed that he has seen accused Dilip delivering two blows by a stick to Maroti.Similarly, P.W. 3 Baliram also deposed that the accused Dilip and Tukaram assaulted him and Maroti.However, the doctor who examined them found no injuries other than described.Thus, the witnesses by exaggerating the role, even if not played by the respondent/accused, tried to involve them.It is specifically submitted by the defence that the accused Bhaurao and Homdeo were assaulted by the deceased Ganpat and his sons Baliram, Maroti and Vithhal and they sustained injuries.Dr. Taksande (P.W. 9) deposed that the injuries found on the person of the accused Bhaurao and Homdeo, were simple, and were caused by stick blows.Dr. Taksande further admitted in the cross-examination that the injuries could not be self inflicted injuries.The prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. 1 Vithhal, P.W. 2, Smt. Bakubai, P.W. 3, Baliram and P.W. 4 Maroti pleaded ignorance regarding the presence of injuries on the person of the accused persons.The prosecution witnesses specifically denied that they as saulted the accused Bhaurao and Homdeo.The prosecution witnesses also denied that they were armed with sticks.According to Smt. Bakubai (P.W. 2), her husband the deceased Ganpat had stick, because he being a cripple by one leg, he used to carry a stick with him.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is aptly clear that the respondents/accused had no grudge against the deceased Ganpat, his wife Bakubai and sons.The accused Homdeo had settled the score in the field itself at 3.00 P.M. assaulting Maroti as his cattles being found in his filed.Admittedly, the accused persons have received injuries.Dr. Taksande, deposed that though the injuries sustained by the accused were simple, they were caused by stick blows.P.w. 2 Bakubai admitted that the deceased Ganpat had a stick with him.The defence of the accused is that they wielded sticks in self defence and hence, they have committed no offence. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,118,025 | The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Ner, Police Station Shahpur, District Burhanpur.It was alleged that the 2 W.P. No. 1401/2018 criminal acts of the petitioner are seriously affecting the law and order and against the petitioner no person is coming forward to lodge a report and give evidence in police station and, therefore, the public tranquility and peace of Burhanpur City is likely to be seriously effected due to the act of the petitioner.Therefore he requested respondent No. 2 to pass an order under Section 5(b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 (herein after referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') against the petitioner regarding his externment.On the basis of the said report, respondent No. 3 has initiated criminal case against the petitioner and started proceedings against him for externment.In furtherance thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam on 13.02.2017 calling him to show cause about his involvement in the criminal activity since 2006 till date.3 W.P. No. 1401/2018 On the basis of these criminal activities why an order of externment should be passed against him.2 W.P. No. 1401/20183 W.P. No. 1401/2018The petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notice and denied the allegations made in the said show cause notice.He stated that the report submitted by respondent No. 4 is baseless.The police on the basis of false and frivolous facts has registered an offence against the petitioner and most of the criminal cases have already been finally adjudicated.Along with the reply, the petitioner has filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondents neither given any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examin the aforesaid witnesses nor produced any adverse material to establish the charges against him.Thereafter, respondent No. 4 passed an order of externment dated 24.07.2017 by exercising the powers given under Section 5(b) of the Act from District Burhanpur and contagious Revenue District Khandwa, Khargone, Harda, 4 W.P. No. 1401/2018 Badwani and directed him to went out from the aforesaid area.Being aggrieved by that orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.4 W.P. No. 1401/2018Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the orders dated 08.12.2017 and 24.07.2017 are illegal and bad in law.He submits that respondent No. 2 without considering all the facts and circumstances as well as law wrongly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.He further submits that the allegations made against the petitioner does not comes under the provisions of Section 3(b) and 5(b) of the Act, therefore, the order of externment is not legally just and proper.The offences mentioned in the impugned order of respondent No. 3 are old offences which has been registered since 2006 to 2013 & 2017 and these offences are simple in nature and out of most of the 5 W.P. No. 1401/2018 offences finally decided by the competent Court by acquitting the petitioner.In some criminal cases, the petitioner has been acquitted because of compromise with the complainant party.No offences of any serious nature has been ever lodged against the petitioner.5 W.P. No. 1401/20186 W.P. No. 1401/2018On the basis of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notice.7 W.P. No. 1401/2018 On the basis of the material available on record, it is prima facie made out that the petitioner had engaged in commission of offence and causing apprehension and threat to other persons and property of public.After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the District Magistrate has passed an order of externment against the petitioner under Section 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam.Against the said order, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed.The respondents have stated that before passing the impugned order, a show cause notice was issued and after following the due procedure, impugned order has been passed.He relied on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Guddu @ Amit Sahu Vs.7 W.P. No. 1401/2018The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice along with an affidavit.Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.From perusal of the record, it reveals that as many as 8 cases have been registered against the petitioner under the various Acts.Out of 8 cases, the petitioner has been convicted in respect of Crime No. 296/2006 which has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 336, 324 and 506 of I.P.C.. In such case the petitioner was convicted for imprisonment of one year.Thereafter on 03.02.2017 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 153-A, 431, 432, 447, 143 of the IPC vide Crime No. 56/2017, which is pending under investigation.9 W.P. No. 1401/2018Section 5 of the Act of 1990 provides for removal of persons about to commit offence.The Section 5(b) gives the powers to the Magistrate to pass an order of externment if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come 10 W.P. No. 1401/2018 forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.10 W.P. No. 1401/2018(ii) In the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the 11 W.P. No. 1401/2018 safety of their person or property.11 W.P. No. 1401/2018In the present case it is required to be seen whether these two conditions are fulfilled.In offences which has been registered prior to 03.02.2017, the petitioner has been acquitted and in some cases he was convicted.12 W.P. No. 1401/2018Hence, in absence of any 13 W.P. No. 1401/2018 existence of material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by reason of apprehension to give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order u/s 5 (b) of Adhiniyam, 1990 cannot be passed by the District Magistrate as held in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs.State of M.P. (Supra) by the Division Bench that for a passing an order of externment against the person both the conditions mentioned under section 5 (b) (i) and (ii) have to be satisfied.13 W.P. No. 1401/201814 W.P. No. 1401/2018 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,120,747 | Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.VIIth, District Bareilly in Discharge Application No.14 Kha, dated 25.09.2019, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge for under Section 308 I.P.C. in Case Crime No.163 of 2016, S.T. No.844 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 308, 336 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhuta, District Bareilly.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that an F.I.R. was lodged on 03.06.2016 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants along with others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 323, 427, 336 and 506 I.P.C., with certain allegations.Aggrieved by the charge sheet, the applicants have filed discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. dated 25.09.2019 for discharge the applicants.On 26.09.2019 learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.7, Bareilly rejected the discharge application of the applicants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The facts and grounds taken by the applicants have not been taken into consideration by the court below while passing the impugned order.Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be set aside.Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are based on correct finding of fact and prima facie, they had strong suspicion to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant.I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as have gone through the records of the present application along with the impugned order. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,122,578 | Heard on I.A. No.6768/2014, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant.Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 and 506-II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- in default R.I. for 2 years and R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for 3 months, respectively.He is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9.12.2014 and on such other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge psm/ | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,319,652 | FIR No. 556/2018 was registered at PS Rajouri Garden on 9 th September, 2018 on the complaint of Ram Singh who stated that he was working at Monu Tea Shop near ESI Hospital,.On 9 th September, 2018 at around 4.30 AM in the morning he was sitting on the footpath having a cigarette/ bidi at Ring Road towards ESI Hospital side, Bali Nagar Cut.On the same footpath Shukla, Manoj and Noora were sleeping.In the meantime a white colour car came at a high speed from Punjabi Bagh side.The driver of the said car was drunk and rammed the car over the footpath.The said car after hitting tree turned upside down due to which all four of them got injured.The complainant took help of people around and turned the car when he saw Shukla and Noora were not having any movement in their body.The driver of the said car was drunk and the people around him questioned him as to how he was driving the car in such a manner, to which BAIL APPLN.2760/2018 Page 1 of 8 he answered that these dirty people sleep on the footpaths to be killed, and he would clear the same.The name of the driver of the car was revealed as Devesh Kumar S/o R.L. Kumar who did not possess a driving license.An ambulance took all four of them to ESI Hospital where Noora and Shukla were declared brought dead by the doctors and complainant and Manoj were given treatment.He stated that the driver of the car had knowingly after being drunk drove the car in a wrong manner killing two people and injuring two other people thus action be taken against him.BAIL APPLN.2760/2018 Page 1 of 8The petitioner who was driving the said vehicle without the driving license was arrested on the same day i.e. 9 th September, 2018 and is in custody since then.Petitioner filed an application seeking bail before the learned Trial Court on 30th October, 2018 on merits which was posted for hearing on 13th November, 2018, when besides the merit the petitioner urged the additional ground that the petitioner is entitled to default bail as charge- sheet had not been filed in the case.Offence under Section 304-I being punishable up to life imprisonment and 90 days from the date of arrest having not elapsed, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail.Hence the present petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the face of allegations in the FIR it cannot be held that the petitioner committed the offence with any intention and at best knowledge can be attributed to him.Sanjeev Nanda and (2002) 4GLR 3344 Girishbhai Arunbhai Desai Vs.State of Gujarat to contend that on the face of it only an offence punishable under Section 304-II is made out and as charge-sheet was not filed within the period of 60 days, he is entitled to bail.4. Learned APP for the State on the other hand has taken this Court not only through the FIR but also the manner in which the petitioner was driving the vehicle as is evident from the skid marks, photographs whereof have been placed on record, also the manner in which the car rammed into the footpath and hit the tree resulting in injuries to the complainant and three other persons, two of whom succumbed to injuries.2760/2018 Page 4 of 8On 11-1-2017 when the High Court dismissed the application for bail filed by the petitioner, he had an indefeasible right to the grant of "default bail" since the statutory period of 60 days for filing a charge-sheet had expired, no charge-sheet or challan had been filed against him (it was filed only on 24-1-2017) and the petitioner had orally applied for "default bail".Under these circumstances, the only course open to the High Court on 11-1-2017 was to enquire from the petitioner whether he was prepared to furnish bail and if so then to grant him "default bail" on reasonable conditions.Unfortunately, this was completely overlooked by the High Court.It was submitted that as of today, a charge-sheet having been filed against the petitioner, he is not entitled to "default bail" but must apply for regular bail -- the "default bail" chapter being now closed.He filed a bail application on 30 th October, 2018 on merits when 60 days from the date of first remand had not expired and charge-sheet had not been filed.When the application for bail on merits came up for hearing on 13th November, 2018 admittedly 60 days from the date of first remand had passed and no charge-sheet had been filed.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE DECEMBER 21, 2018 'ga' BAIL APPLN.2760/2018 Page 8 of 82760/2018 Page 8 of 8 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,320,934 | 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).The petitioner is arrayed as accused no.1 for the offences under Sections 143 and 285 IPC, based on the complaint preferred by the second respondent.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner staged the protest against the Government Orders.In the course of agitation, the Government order namely G.O.Ms.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N.SESHASAYEE, J.sm Hence, the impugned FIR in Crime No.1034 of 2018 dated 26.11.2018 pending on the file of the respondent no.1 is quashed and accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.866 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,973,253 | JUDGMENTO R D E RCIVIL APPEAL NO.681 OF 2008(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.14474 OF 2006) Leave granted.The appellant herein was an I.A.S. Officer from Bihar cadre.The allegation against him was that he had sanctioned a loan of Rs.15 lacs in favour of a firm for financial gain and that he had awarded a contract to an advertisement agency without inviting tenders and caused financial loss while he was the Managing Director of a Public Sector Undertaking.The investigation report dated 21.4.1986 did not show any criminal liability on the part of the appellant.It was also decided to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellant.The sanction was not accorded for prosecution.When matters stood thus, nearly 20 years later (17 years after FIR was registered) on 12.12.2003 the sanction was granted.The appellant challenged the same.Heard both sides.The authorities had examined the case and held that the sanction was not to be granted and after a long period, the matter was considered and the sanction was granted.The learned Single Judge had given valid reasons for quashing the sanction.The Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge.We set aside the order of the Division Bench and uphold the order of the learned Single Judge.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,325,919 | On 04.02.1999, elections were being conducted in the Department of Economics to elect the office bearers.JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard Mr. U. Karunakaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Govardhanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent.The petitioners and some others had requested the head of the department not to conduct the department elections at the fag end of the year.During the elections, disputes had arisen amongst the supporters of the various candidates resulting in creation of serious animosity.As a consequence, a criminal complaint had been registered before the Sub-Inspector of Musiri Police Station.The petitioners have further stated that, based on the criminal complaint given by one Nandakumar, the Sub-Inspector of Musiri Police Station had registered a case, under Sections 147, 323 and 247-C of the Indian Penal Code.Based on the complaint, the third respondent had issued a suspension order to the petitioners and three other students, without furnishing a copy of the complaint and without conducting any enquiry.In the suspension order, it had been mentioned that one Hariharan, along with other students, had assaulted Nandakumar and that the petitioners had only consumed some alcohol.The third respondent had directed the petitioners not to enter the College premises till the enquiry that was to be initiated against them was completed.The petitioners had appeared before the Disciplinary Enquiry Committee and had given their oral and written explanations denying the allegations made against them.It is further stated that the members of the Enquiry Committee had advised the petitioners to accept the charges so that a lenient view could be taken in their favour.Even though the petitioners had denied the allegations made against them by the complainant by way of written submissions, the third respondent had issued a communication No. Na.Ka./1001/U/98, dated 16.3.1999, informing the petitioners that the charges against them, with regard to their consuming of alcoholic drinks, on 4.2.1999, had been proved.It is stated by the petitioners that by a non-speaking summary order, the petitioners were asked to show cause, on or before 23.03.1999, as to why they should not be expelled from the College.Following the communication, dated 16.3.1999, the petitioners had met the members of the Enquiry Committee and requested them to revoke the suspension order and to permit the petitioners to write the ensuing examinations.Since the members of the Enquiry Committee had assured that if the petitioners gave a signed letter, regretting for the incident and also undertaking that they would not involve themselves in any such incident in future, the petitioners would be permitted to write the final examinations and the suspension order passed against them would be revoked.Based on the assurance given by the members of the Enquiry Committee and on the advice of the third respondent, the petitioners had submitted the letters signed by them to the Enquiry Committee.Thereafter, on 23.3.1999, the third respondent had issued another communication No. Na.Ka./1001/U/98, dated 23.3.1999, informing the petitioners that their Transfer Certificates had been sent to the first respondent University, without assigning any reason for the said decision.It is further stated by the petitioners that it is not clear from the impugned order as to whether it amounts to imposing a punishment by way of expulsion from the College.Further, the third respondent had not permitted the petitioners to pay the examination fee for the final Semester examinations.Even though some of the other persons, on whom criminal proceedings had been lodged, were allowed to write the examinations, the petitioners had been denied such opportunity.The punishment of suspension imposed on the petitioners and their expulsion from the College thereafter, are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Further, the impugned orders had been passed without following the principles of natural justice.Even though the petitioners have been having a good track record till the false allegations had been made against them, the third respondent had not taken a sympathetic view in favour of the petitioners.The impugned orders had been issued on the basis of a false complaint and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.The learned Counsels appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioners do not deserve any sympathy as they have been found to have indulged themselves in serious misconduct, as found by the Enquiry Committee constituted to go into the charges against them.From the records available before this Court, it is found that an enquiry committee had been constituted to conduct an enquiry as the charges alleged against the petitioners were serious in nature.An enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry committee, after issuing show cause notices to the concerned persons.The petitioners had submitted letters to the enquiry committee regretting for the incidents that had taken place, based on which the disciplinary action was taken against them.In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that it is best left to the authorities concerned to find out and to decide as to whether the students concerned had indulged themselves in causing the misconduct as alleged and also to choose the punishment to be imposed on them.At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to make appropriate representations to the authorities concerned, with regard to the charges framed against them, the findings arrived thereon by the enquiry committee and the punishment imposed on the petitioners so that it may be possible for the authorities to opt for a lenient view in the matter, if they are so persuaded, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. | ['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. |
197,326,071 | C is disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE mohsin Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI Date: 26/06/2020 14:06:49With the consent, finally heard.This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 323, 294 and 506-B and 326/34 of IPC i n connection with Crime No.653/19 registered at Police Station Burhar, District Shahdol.Learned counsel for applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.The offence under Section 326 of IPC is added after few months from the date of incident as an afterthought.The applicants are the students and if they are sent behind the bar, it will hamper their studies and career.They will cooperate with the investigation and trial (if any).The incident is arisen out of a family enmity in which the applicants have been falsely arraigned, therefore the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.Prayer is opposed by learned P.L. on the strength of case diary.He stated that the applicants' father was granted regular bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.I have heard the parties at length.Considering the fact that the applicants are the students and incident has arisen out of a family dispute, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants subject to conditions that they will cooperate with the investigation and trial (if any), they shall not leave the town without giving prior intimation to the local Police Station and they will not influence the evidence/material etc. in any Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI Date: 26/06/2020 14:06:49 2 MCRC-18535-2020 manner.Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the applicants Himanshu @ Bobby, Shevi Patel and Shakti Prabha be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) along with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for their appearance before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as and when directed.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall also apply on the applicant during currency of bail. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,331,635 | 1 The appellants before this Court are a mother and son.Shiksha is the mother and Sanjeev is her son.They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2005 wherein they had been convicted under Sections 307/325 read with Section 34 of the IPC.Accused Sanjeev Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 1 of 25 Tyagi had been convicted separately under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Vide order of sentence dated 24.12.2005, each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC, each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for a period of 1 month.For the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, accused Sanjeev Tyagi had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 month.These sentences were to run concurrently.2 The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the statement of Renu (PW-1).She was the injured and the complainant.Her statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded on the intervening night of 26-27.05.2004 after she had been declared fit for statement.As per Ex.PW-1/A when she along with her two children had gone to Budh Bazaar to purchase vegetables, on her way back she saw accused Sanjeev sitting on the road; he started Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 2 of 25 abusing her with filthy language.On query, he stated that if she would not leave the place, he will kill her.PW-1 stated that she will report the matter to the police and went to the adjoining STD booth.Accused came there and snatched the receiver from her.She returned to her house.Accused Sanjeev reached her house and threatened to kill her because she had informed the police.He pulled out a knife and gave several blows upon her person.She suffered injuries on her chest, left wrist and abdomen.Her husband Mukhtiar Singh (PW-2) who had also reached, tried to intervene; accused Sanjeev gave him knife blows as well.PW-1/A), rukka (Ex.PW-12/A) was dispatched at 15 minutes past 12:00 midnight and the FIR was registered at 12:50 am.4 The investigating team comprised of ASI Mangu Lal (PW-12), constable Satpal (PW-9) and constable Raj Kumar (PW-10) who reached the spot.This was pursuant to DD No.52-B (Ex.She has deposed that on the fateful day i.e. 26.05.2004 at about 08:00- 09:00 pm when she was returning back to her house along with her two small children after purchasing vegetables from Budh Bazaar, accused Sanjeev who was sitting in front of her house started abusing her and on questioning, he threatened her that he will kill her.PW-1 went to nearby STD booth to make a call to the police.When she reached home, accused Sanjeev followed her and again threatened her that he would kill her as she had informed the police.He gave several blows with a Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 10 of 25 knife which hit her chest, shoulder and abdomen.Blood started oozing out."1. C/w present over distal (L) forearm underlying fracture (lenders bone) exposed c- deformity +ve.C/w present over (L) Breast over areolar region just lateral to nipple 6x10x0.5 cm.3. 2 C/w present over (L) enguival region measuring 2x0.5x0.5 cm and 1x0.5x0.2 cm respectively.C/w present over lateral aspect of (L) arm 2.5x0.5 cm." 23 Injuries No. 2 to 4 were opined to be sharp; injury No. 1 was opined to the blunt.This opinion has been given subsequent in time to her statement (Ex.PW-1/A) and it fully supports their oral version given Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 16 of 25 by PW-1 who had in Ex.PW-1/A described that whereas accused Sanjeev had attacked her with a knife; his mother had inflicted brick injury upon her.Police removed the injured to the hospital.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 1 of 25Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 2 of 253 Her statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded on the following day.It was on this statement (Ex.PW-7/A) which had been marked to them.Time in this DD has been mentioned as 09:45 Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 3 of 25 pm.On reaching the spot, PW-12 was informed that the injured had been removed to the DDU hospital.MLCs of PW-1 and PW-2 were collected.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 3 of 255 The MLC of PW-1 was proved as Ex.PW-3/A by Dr. Pooja Bhasin (PW-3).In her cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that the injuries caused on the victim are by a sharp object; they may have been caused by a blade also.6 Dr. Rahul Singh (PW-4) had opined the injuries of PW-1 as 'grievous'; this was on the basis of the orthopedic report evidencing a fracture on the wrist of the victim.His MLC was proved as Ex.PW-5/A. There were 6 injuries noted upon his person.Injuries No. 1 to 3 were sharp and injuries No. 4 to 6 were blunt.8 PW-12 in the course of investigation had prepared the site plan (Ex.PW-12/E).Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court to the version of PW-10 wherein in his cross-examination he has admitted that he had given his statement to the Investigating Officer Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 4 of 25 (Ex.PW-10/DX) wherein he had stated that the Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan at the instance of Mukhtiar Singh.Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants on this score being that there is no explanation as to why the STD booth has not been depicted in this site plan.The place of incident is also doubtful; the site plan has depicted the incident outside the house of PW-1 wherein PW-1 and PW-2 have both stated that the incident had occurred inside the house.Doubt on the prosecution version is created on this count as well.Reverting back to the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that lady constable Pushpa (PW-8) who was also a part of the investigative team, in her cross- examination, has stated that she could not recollect whether the Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 5 of 25 Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan at the instance of PW-2 i.e. Mukhtiar Singh.Site plan whether prepared at the instance of PW-1 or PW-2 is not clear.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 4 of 25Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 5 of 259 In the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, they have pleaded innocence; submission being that they have been falsely implicated in the present case; it was a dispute of Rs.200/- which the accused had refused to give to PW-2 who was in a drunken state which has led to this false implication.Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn attention of this Court to the cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-2; submission being that this defence has been projected even in their cross-examination apart from the additional defence that the incident had occurred in the Budh Bazaar when a dispute had arisen between PW-1 and PW-2 with the mangoes seller on the price of mangoes.10 Learned counsel for the appellants has in fact projected a sixfold defence.It is pointed out that the supplementary statement of PW-1 had been recorded 2 days later i.e. on 29.05.2004 where for the first time, the victim while Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 6 of 25 improving her statement had stated that the accused persons had attacked her with the intention to kill her and her husband.This essential ingredient was missing in her first statement.This is a material improvement.The second improvement in the supplementary statement is the fact that the victim in her supplementary statement had stated that the accused was armed with a knife.This was also missing in the first statement.The injuries as per the MLC are not penetrating; they are not on any vital part; they are also not opined to be 'dangerous'.The second argument is on the place of incident; as noted supra, it is pointed out that the versions of PW-1 and PW-2 suggest that the incident had taken place inside the house whereas the site plan (Ex.PW-12/E) suggests that the incident had taken place outside the house.The knife purported to have been recovered at the behest of Sanjeev was from an open place.It was not subjected to an expert opinion i.e. neither to the doctor and nor was it sent to the CFSL.Reliance has been placed upon 2006 (2) CC Cases (HC) 87 State Vs.Mohd. Akhtar & Others to substantiate a submission that where a knife was recovered at the instance of the accused but no effort was made to connect the knife with the offence, benefit of doubt Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 7 of 25 must accrue to the appellant as the investigation was noted to be faulty.No public witness had also joined the recovery.The fourth argument is the enmity angle.Submission being that it has come on record that the parties were inimical towards one another.The dispute was over water and enmity being a double edged weapon, this had been used by the complainant party to falsely implicate the accused.It has also been argued that adverse inference for not joining any member of PCR or from the STD booth must be drawn against the prosecution.They would have been the best witnesses to explain the incident but they have been deliberately withheld.To support this submission, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as 1997 (2) RCR 471 Gurnam Singh Vs.State of Punjab; submission being that whether material witnesses had not been examined, adverse inference for not examining them had been drawn; this was especially for the reason that had these witnesses been produced, they would have come out with the truth.It is pointed out that the serial number of MLC of PW-2 was prior in time to the Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 8 of 25 serial number of the MLC of PW-1 but the version of the prosecution is contrary; version of the prosecution being that PW-1 was medically examined at 10:40 pm whereas PW-2 was medically examined at 11:15 pm.This documentary evidence is irreconcilable with their ocular versions.On all counts, benefit of doubt must accrue to the appellants and they are entitled to an acquittal.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 6 of 25Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 7 of 25Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 8 of 2511 Arguments have been refuted by the learned counsel for the State.Reliance has also been Crl.When her husband (PW-2) returned home, he was also attacked by accused Sanjeev with a knife and he also sustained injuries on his left arm.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 10 of 2514 The site plan (Ex.PW-12/E) has reflected the place of the incident.This is at point 'A'.Her testimony when read as a whole clearly shows that accused Sanjeev had started giving filthy abuses to PW-1 when she was outside her house.After she had made a call to the police from the nearby STD booth, she reached her house.This terminology i.e. "on her reaching the house" does not in any manner suggest that she was inside the house when the occurrence took place.There is thus no conflict between this document (Ex.PW-12/E) and the place of incident as having been depicted outside the entrance to the house of PW-1 and the oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 on this point.The STD booth not having been depicted in the site plan also does not detract the authenticity and veracity of the site plan.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 11 of 25 15 Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that there were two site plans and this is event from the cross-examination of PW-10 is a submission bereft of force.The Investigating Officer is PW-Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 11 of 25He had prepared the site plan.His version is clear on this point.PW-10 had joined investigation only on 27.05.2004 when the accused persons were arrested.Although in his cross-examination, he had stated that in his statement to the Investigating Officer, he had stated that the site plan had been prepared at the instance of Mukhtiar Singh but this witness not being present at the time when the site plan was prepared would naturally not know at whose instance the Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan.In no manner, can it be said that there were two site plans and one site plan had been suppressed.16 Statement of PW-1 was recorded twice.Her first statement Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 12 of 25 (Ex.PW-1/A) which was recorded on 27.05.2004 pursuant to which the FIR had been registered.Her supplementary statement (Ex.Trite it to say that the investigation agency was well within its power to record a supplementary statement; such a supplementary statement however should not be contrary and in conflict with the earlier version of the said witness.The statement of PW-1 recorded on 29.05.2004 (Ex.PW-1/B) has been perused.There is no doubt that in this statement for the first time PW-1 has stated that the accused persons had attacked her and her husband with the intention to kill them.The gist of the first statement of PW-1 (Ex.PW-1/A) had also described the incident in detail.The specific role attributed to accused Sanjeev and to his mother as also the place and point where PW-1 and PW-2 had suffered injuries had been elucidated.Even presuming that part of the supplementary statement of PW-1 wherein it has been specifically stated that the offenders had attached PW-1 and PW-2 with the intention to kill them is substracted, the incident as otherwise detailed cannot be lost sight of.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 13 of 25 17 The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the supplementary statement contained another significant improvement which was to the effect that the knife which was the weapon of offence was in possession of Sanjeev Tyagi and this is another improvement is clearly incorrect.PW-1 in her first statement has stated that knife injuries had been inflicted upon her and her husband.Mere fact that she has not stated that the knife was in possession of accused Sanjeev at that time does not amount to an improvement; in fact it is an elucidation and detail of the manner in which the incident was committed.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 12 of 25Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 13 of 2518 Reverting back to the cross-examination of PW-1, she has stuck to her stand.She has reiterated that both the accused persons had attacked her when she had reached the entrance of her house.The role attributed to Sanjeev Tyagi was that he had attacked her with a knife; his mother had attacked her with a brick.So also is her version qua the role of her husband.She denied the suggestion that the accused have been falsely implicated because of a dispute of Rs.200/- which had been demanded by PW-2 from Sanjeev Tyagi when he was in a drunken state.She further denied the suggestion that this incident had actually occurred Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 14 of 2519 PW-2 the husband of PW-1 had also been categorical in his version.He has reiterated the averments made by his wife.He deposed that when he reached his house after returning from work, he saw accused Sanjeev Tyagi attacking his wife.She has sustained injuries on her chest and abdomen; blood was oozing out.When he tried to intervene, he was also attached by Sanjeev and he sustained injuries on his left arm and wrist.Specific role has been attributed by PW-2 to co- accused Shiksha as well; the mother of Sanjeev who had attacked both PW-1 and PW-2 with a brick.20 This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.He denied the suggestion that a dispute had arisen with him over a sum of Rs.200/- which he had demanded from Sanjeev and this was the reason for his implication.He also denied the second suggestion that this incident had occurred at Budh Bazaar when PW-1 and PW-2 had sustained injuries over the price of purchase of mangoes.21 Relevant would it be to state that the defences given to PW-1 and PW-2 are both conflicting defences.It appears that the defence is Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 15 of 25 confused.Whether the incident had occurred because of a dispute of Rs.200/- which PW-2 had demanded from Sanjeev or whether PW-1 and PW-2 had sustained injuries at Budh Bazaar when they had gone to purchase mangoes is not clear to the appellant himself.Where the defence itself is conflicting and confused, how it is possible to convince the Court on this point is difficult to understand?Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 15 of 2522 The medical record of PW-1 and PW-2 fully supports their ocular versions.The MLC of PW-1 (Ex.PW-3/A) shows that she was medically examined at 10:40 pm.Her MLC shows four injuries.They read as under:-The X-ray of the victim shows that she had suffered a left forearm fracture.Nature of the injuries suffered by PW-1 were 'grievous'.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 16 of 2524 The MLC of PW-2 (Ex.PW-5/A) shows that he was examined at 11:15 pm.C/w involving Ist web space and ventral aspect of (L) thumb at base 4x2x1.5 cm upto the first metacarpaphalangeal joint (joint visible and tendons cut).2. C/w 3x1x1.5 cm posterolateral aspect right forearm middle 1/3rd .C/w 7x1x1cm posterolateral aspect right arm middle 1/3rd .Linear abrasion 3 in no. approx 5 cm each (2) over right shoulder and once over right scapular region.Swelling, abrasion and bruise (L) temporal region.Small abrasions over forehead and nose."25 Injuries No. 1 to 4 were sharp and injuries No. 5 & 6 were blunt.This also supports his ocular version that he had been attacked by Sanjeev who was armed with a knife whereas co-accused Shiksha was armed with a brick.26 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the MLC number of PW-2 is 11632 which is an earlier serial number to the Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 17 of 25 MLC of PW-1 which has a serial number 11680 but the time of the medical examination of PW-1 and PW-2 shows that PW-1 was examined prior in time to PW-2 and thus the MLC of PW-2 having an earlier serial number cannot be reconciled with this version is an argument bereft of force.As has been rightly pointed out by the learned public Prosecutor in medico legal cases where the victims are brought in for a medical examination, understandably there is a rush; the MLC papers are prepared in advance prior to the actual examination by the concerned doctor.It is apparent that the MLCs of both PW-1 and PW-2 had been prepared with all details and information already recorded; since both PW-1 and PW-2 had been brought into the hospital together, the writing work for PW-2 must have been done prior in time but PW-1 who had sustained more serious injuries was examined first as is evident from her MLC.Her time of examination was 10:40 pm and that of PW-2 was 11:15 pm.This is the evident answer to this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.However, even presuming for the sake of argument that there is a difference between the serial numbers, it does not detract from the medical record which clearly shows that PW-1 and PW-2 had been injured details of which find mention in the Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 18 of 25 aforenoted documents.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 17 of 25Constable Lakhmi Chand (PW-7) has categorically deposed that at 09:45 pm he received information in PS Punjabi Bagh about a quarrel near the peepal tree of the STD book.This DD was reduced into writing vide Ex.PW-7/A. PW-7 has admitted that this information was given by the wireless operator.Thus non-examination of person from the PCR and STD booth, not being material to the incident in question, does not reinforce this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.28 The knife which was the weapon of offence had been recovered vide memo Ex.PW-10/D. It had been recovered on the same day i.e. on 27.05.2004 pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Sanjeev Tyagi from the bushes near the main gate of DDA, opposite Hastal village.The sketch of the knife Ex.PW-1/C has also been perused.He had joined the Investigating Officer.There Crl.The knife was also not sent to the CFSL.There is also no evidence that there was any blood on the knife.The recovery of the knife thus become inconsequential and has to be ignored.30 The facts established are that an incident had occurred in which PW-1 and PW-2 had sustained injuries details of which have been described in their medical record.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 20 of 25 "Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 21 of 2532 Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 and the medical evidence tested on this touchstone do not establish the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC.It could not be said that the appellants had the common intention to cause the death of PW-1; neither is the ocular version of PW-1 corroborative on this point and nor is the medical evidence.The intention for an 'attempt to murder' has to be gathered from all circumstances and not necessarily from the consequence that ensue.The nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, the motive for the crime and severity of the blows inflicted upon the parts of the body are some of the factors which may be taken into account for consideration of an intention.33 In the instant case, what was the immediate cause of quarrel between Sanjeev Tyagi and PW-1 was that filthy abuses were being given by Sanjeev Tyagi to PW-1 to which she objected.Thereupon, the Crl.It was a pocket knife and was in his possession.His mother joined him and hurled brick injuries upon PW-1. PW-2 intervened; he was also attacked.PW-1 suffered a fracture of her left forearm.The other injuries as described in the MLC cannot be said to be of such a depth or penetration of such a level of danger that they could cause the death of the victim.However, since PW-1 had sustained a fracture, the nature of her injuries were termed as grievous.PW-2 had admittedly received simple injuries.He had been discharged on the same day.There were two injured in that case; one injured had suffered two gandasa blows and the second injured had suffered one gandasa blow.One of these injuries was on the head.It was also a case of earlier grievance between the parties.The conviction was altered from Section 307 to one under Section 326 of the IPC.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 23 of 2536 The appellants have been sentenced for a maximum period of 5 years and have also been directed to pay fine.His mother Shiksha has undergone incarceration of almost about 3 months including the remission.37 Under Section 326 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment may be of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years as also fine.In the fitness of things, the incident being 10 years old; parties Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 24 of 25 being neighbours; the appellants i.e. both the mother and son have already suffered a protracted trial; they not having abused the process of bail since their release; their conduct being satisfactory at the time when they were incarcerated; the period of sentence already undergone by each of them is the sentence imposed upon them.However, in addition to the fine which has already been imposed, they shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- each which amount shall be paid within two weeks from today to the complainant.The Investigating Officer who is present in Court ensures compliance.In case the fine is not paid, the original sentence imposed upon the appellants shall be revived.38 With these directions, the appeals are disposed of.INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 27, 2014 A Crl.Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 25 of 25Appeals No.34/2006 & 128/2006 Page 25 of 25 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,332,204 | Heard on I.A. No.6200/2015 which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Ram Singh Uikey.The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under -Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story Nandlal, is the father of the prosecutrix.The father of the prosecutrix was intimated by Pawan that his daughter was kidnapped with an intent to commit rape with her.As seen by him, the present appellant has committed rape having blood stains over the private parts.It is, therefore, directed that, if appellant Ram Singh Uikey furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with a separate surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15.7.2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him shall remain suspended till further orders and he shall be released on bail.C.C. as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,973,327 | Krishan Kumar Khandelwal who belonged to Congress (I) was one of the main contestants and majority of the municipal committee members were supporting him.Respondent Pradeep Kumar who was a sitting MLA belonged to the opposite party.He did not want Krishan Kumar Khandelwal the deceased, to be the President.To avoid the municipal commissioners supporting him to be influenced or pressurised by the other group, the deceased had taken Ganga Dhar, Prem Kumar and some other Municipal Commissioners with him to Delhi, two days before the date of election.They all went to the factory of the deceased.ORDER Nanavati, J.The State has filed these appeals as the High Court allowed the appeals filed by Pradeep Kumar Choudhary, Ram Nath and Siriyans Kumar Jain, set aside their conviction and acquitted them of all the charges.Petition for special leave was filed not only against these three respondents but also against Gurvinder Singh and Krishan Kumar Jakhar as their conviction under Section 120B has been set aside while maintaining the conviction under other Sections including 302 read with 149 IPC.This Court granted leave to file appeal against Pradeep Kumar, Ram Nath and Siriyans Kumar Jain.So these appeals are now confined to these respondents only.The case of the prosecution was that on 13.10.1997 election for the post of President of the Municipal Committee of Hansi was to take place.After taking dinner at about 11 p.m. the deceased, his brother Satpal, Ganga Dhar, Prem Kumar, Ramesh Narula and Radhey Sham slept in the 'Gaddiwala' room of the office building situated in the factory.Ajay Sharma, Rajinder Thakur and some other persons slept in the adjoining room.Sometime between 3.30 and 3.45 a.m. Krishan Kumar Jakhar and Siriyans Kumar Jain armed with guns.Gurvinder Singh armed with a hockey stick and Ram Nath Bhumla came to the factory, and entered the Gaddiwala room where the deceased had slept along with others.Ram Nath took away the gun of Satpal which was lying near his pillow and raised a 'Lalkara' that Krishan Kumar Khandelwal be made 'President' implying that he should be killed.Krishan Kumar Jakhar then placed the barrel of his gun on the neck of the deceased and fired a shot.It caused an injury on his neck and he immediately died because of that injury.Ganga Dhar when he tried to go near the deceased was given a hokey blow by Gurvinder Singh on his left thigh.All the assailants then ran away from that place.It was also the prosecution case that Pradeep Kumar and about 30 to 40 persons belonging to his group had also come along with those four assailants and were present near the gate at that time.They had come in different vehicles and some of them were armed with weapons.The dead body of Krishan Kumar was then taken in the Maruti van in which they had come from Delhi to the Civil Hospital at Hansi.Thereafter, Sanjay Kumar and Bajrang Dass went in that van to the house of the deceased to inform his father about the incident.While returning when they were near Barsi Gate some persons belonging to Pradeep Kumar Choudhary stopped the van.Sanjay Kumar and Bajrang Dass got down and ran away from that place.The driver Ratan Singh was beaten and then taken to the bungalow of Pradeep Kumar Choudhary.There he was again given some slaps and then confined till night when he was rescued by the Police.With these allegations, 10 accused including the five named above were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 148, 302, 452, 392 and 323 all read with 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in the Court of Sessions Judge, Hissar.Other supporting evidence was also led.The trial court accepted the evidence of the three eye-witnesses and driver Rattan Singh.It also relied upon the discovery of gun belonging to Satpal by Ram Nath.It held that Pradeep Kumar was the main conspirator and the offences were committed by others in pursuance of that conspiracy.It also held that Krishna Kumar Jakhar had killed the deceased and Gurvinder Singh had injured Ganga Dhar by a hockey stick blow.On the basis of these findings all those five were convicted accordingly.They challenged their conviction before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.The High Court allowed the appeal of Pradeep Kumar Choudhary and acquitted him because (1) his name was not disclosed as an accused till about 6.30 P.M. on that day even though the FIR was lodged at about 5.15 A.M., (2) none of the four employees of the deceased who were near the main gate was examined to prove presence of Pradeep Kumar near the gate at the time of the incident or soon thereafter, (3) the evidence of Rattan Singh the driver suffered from serious omissions and was improbable.As regards the evidence of three eye witnesses with respect to the incident which took place inside the factory, the High Court held that:"Notwithstanding however the flaws and infirmities in the investigation, as pointed out the testimony of the three eye witnesses, Sat Pal, Sanjay Sharma and Radhey Sham deserves due weight.Not only is it, as mentioned earlier, that neither of them had any reason to falsely depose against the appellants, but it will also be seen that all three of them have come-forth with a consistent account of the occurrence with no contradictions or discrepancies to create any doubt therein.The close connection of these three persons with Krishan Kumar deceased and the occasion provided by his candidature at the election that next morning was ample reason and justification for them to be with him that night, particularly, in the context of the circumstances that he had returned that night from Delhi with the Municipal Commissioner who were on his side and with many of them spending the night at the factory.For supporters of a candidate to be with him the night before the election is clearly no unusual occurrence."The High Court also held that:"Another note-worthy feature of the prosecution case is provided by the testimony of PW 17 S.S. Chandna, Incharge of the Crime Van who deposed to the recoveries made from the scene of the incident.These recoveries clearly fit in and are in accord with the version as deposed to by the three eye witnesses."Taking note of the fact that all the four accused who had gone inside the factory were named in the first information report, it was held that:"As regards the identity of the assailants, it will be recalled, that it was the consistent testimony of the three eye witnesses that the lights in the factory and also in the two rooms where they were sleeping, were on at the time of the incident and it is natural also that this should be so when there were so many persons in the factory that night to assemble together for the impending election the next morning.No doubt can thus be entertained with to these witnesses naming the four appellants as the persons present there in the incident and playing the role attributed to them."Ultimately the High Court recorded the following finding:"Having regard, therefore, to the evidence on record and the circumstances of he case, there can be no manner of doubt that the incident took place as described by the three eye witnesses."It accordingly, confirmed the conviction of Krishan Kumar Jakhar and Gurwinder Singh.But as the High Court did not accept the evidence that there was the conspiracy between Pradeep Kumar and the other accused it acquitted Krishan Kumar and Gurwinder Singh of the charge under Section 120B IPC and confirmed their conviction for the other offences.Strangely having believed the eye witnesses and also having held that the incident did take place as deposed by the witnesses, the High Court acquitted Ram Nath Bhumla and Siriyans Kumar Jain."The question to consider now is with regard to the criminal liability to be fastened upon the appellants in the context of the part played by them in the incident.In so far as Krishan Kumar Jakhar is concerned, there can be no escape from holding him guilty for the murder of Krishan Kumar deceased as charged, in that, it was he who fired the fatal shot at the deceased.Constructively liable for this murder would also be the appellant Gurvinder Singh in view of the specific role ascribed to him namely of giving a hockey blow to Ganga Dhar when he sought to intervene to rescue the deceased.The case of the two other appellants, namely: Siriyans Kumar Jain and Ram Nath Bhumla, however, stands on a different footing.The only role attributed to them is that of having raised a Lalkara.In the circumstances they are both clearly entitled to the benefit of doubt."The High Court thus allowed the appeals of Pradeep Kumar Choudhary, Ram Nath Bhumla and Siriyans Kumar Jain and set aside their conviction and sentences imposed on them.The High Court partly allowed the appeals of Krishan Kumar Jakhar and Gurvinder Singh in that their conviction under Section 120B was set aside but their conviction under other sections and sentences imposed upon them committing those offences was upheld.So far as respondent Pradeep Kumar is concerned, even the trial court had not believed his presence near the gate of the factory at the time of commission of the offence or soon thereafter.The only other evidence against him is that of driver Rattan Singh and the Police Officers who had found him and his Maruti van inside the 'kothi' of Pradeep Kumar.It is true that Rattan Singh being a man from Delhi was not in any way connected with the deceased or his men and was thus an independent witness.But at the same time it remains unexplained why he was detained in the kothi of respondent Pradeep Kumar till night.There was absolutely no reason for Pradeep Kumar to do so.He had neither seen the incident nor recognised the assailants.Even though his evidence raises a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of Pradeep Kumar in the incident which led to the murder of the deceased and though Pradeep Kumar does not appear to be innocent, we do not think it proper to reverse his acquittal when undisputably the prosecution evidence as regards presence of Ratan Singh and his Maruti van in the kothi of Pradeep Kumar is inconsistent.We are therefore of the view that the appeal against Pradeep Kumar will have to be dismissed.We have extensively, quoted above the findings recorded by the High Court as regards the worth of the evidence of the three eye-witnesses.It becomes apparent therefrom that no convincing reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the conviction of Ram Nath Bhumla and Siriyans Kumar Jain.The High Court failed to appreciate that their presence along with Krishan Kumar Jakhar and Gurvinder Singh in the factory premises of the deceased at 3.30 a.m. in the morning could not have been for any purpose other than the one which was entertained by Krishan Kumar and Gurvinder Singh, as disclosed by what happened immediately after they entered the room in which the deceased and others were sleeping.Ram Nath and Siriyans Kumar Jain denied their presence at the scene of the offence when the murder took place.The High Court has not given due weight to all the aspects and the reasons given by the Trial Court in support of its findings.All the four of them had gone together to the place of the occurrence and had gone away also together.They had come armed with weapons and with a definite purpose. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,334,005 | Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the Objector.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to para 2 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the present appellant and other three co- accused including Saddam were armed with iron rod and inflicted injuries to the injured as well as to the deceased.The appellant is having parity with him and prays that the jail sentence of appellant/Yakub may be suspended.Order dated 11/10/2017 reads as under :-Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Court statement of injured Aasif Khan (PW-1), Azeem (PW-11), Kaseef Khan (PW-7) and Aakib Khan (PW-5) and submitted as per ocular evidence and medical evidence, their injuries are simple in nature.As per statement of Dr. R.C. Verma (PW-10) who has examined injured Shahid (deceased) and autopsy surgeon Dr. Kuldeep Shrivastava (PW_9), all the four injuries were caused by hard and sharp object and they are simple in nature, but due to excessive bleeding, the deceased died.Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in identical circumstances, application (IA Mno.4817/2017) for suspension of jail sentence of Vaseem S/o Hakim and Hakim S/o Akbar Khan has been allowed by order dated 18.09.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 951/2016 and the present appellant is having complete parity with them; and prays that this application for suspension of jail sentence be allowed on the ground of parity with Vaseem S/o Hakim Khan and Hakim S/o Akbar Khan and he be released on bail.In reply, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State of MP as well as learned counsel for the objector have opposed the prayer and drawn our attention to paragraphs No.36, 40 and 42 of the impugned judgment and the findings recorded by the learned trial court and submitted that the present appellant was present at the place of occurrence and actively participated in the alleged crime; and pray for its rejection.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, material evidence available on record and the role attributed to the present appellant, we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of jail sentence.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, IA No. 8919/2017, first application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant Saddam @ Aamir S/o Anwar Khan is allowed on the ground of parity with Vaseem S/o Hakim Khan and Hakim S/o Akbar Khan and it is directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to him shall remain suspended, subject to depositing the fine amount and upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before this Court/ Registry on 05th December, 2017 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard."Learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the Objector have opposed the prayer of the appellant/Yakub and prays for dismissal of the application for suspension of jail sentence.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and considering the others facts and circumstances of the case and also on the ground parity, we are of the opinion that appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application (IA No.8250/2016) for suspension of sentence is allowed on the ground of parity.It is directed that the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal, on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 05/12/2017 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's compliance.Certified copy on payment of necessary charges. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,973,360 | I, Coimbatore.The accused has been charged under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC.According to the prosecution on 28.2.2005 at about 6.00 pm the accused at the point of knife had robbed a cell-phone from P.W.1 while he was alighting from a bus.P.W.7 is the then Inspector of Police, B-2, R.S.Puram Police Station, who had registered the complaint in Cr.P.7 is the FIR.This revision has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC.No.No.232 of 2005 under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC.On the same day at about 8.30 pm P.W.7 visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.Under Ex.P.W.7 has also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.3. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the occurrence.According to P.W.2 while P.W.1 was alighting from 1C bus, the accused by name Puttan @ Mohammed Ali had snatched the cell-phone from P.W.1 and when P.W.1 raised distress call the accused had shown a knife threatening him to stab him and when people gathered at the scene of occurrence the accused immediately took a soda-bottle from his TVS-50 moped and had broken the same on the ground on the street which made the people goes hither and thither.P.W.2 would state that he knows the accused since he is a prisonmate of him.P.W.2 would categorically state that he cannot identify the cell-phone which was found in possession of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence.According to P.W.3 on 28.2.2005 at about 5.30 pm from 1C bus P.W.1 got down and was proceeding on the road and at that time the accused came in a TVS-50 black moped and snatched the cell-phone used by P.W.1 and immediately P.W.1 raised alarm and when he and others neared the accused, the accused slashed a knife and criminally intimidated by saying that if any one attempts to approach him, he will stab him and thereafter the accused took out a soda-bottle from TVS-50 and had broken the same on the road, which made the people who gathered there to ran away in panic from the scene of occurrence.P.W.3 has identified M.O.2 as the knife used by the accused at the time of occurrence.But P.W.3 would state that he is not in a position to identify the broken pieces of soda-bottle.5. P.W.4 is a roadside vendor of chicken.P.W.4 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 to the effect that the accused had snatched the cell-phone from P.W.1 while he was alighting from 1C bus on the occurrence day and that the accused had took out a knife and threatened him and the other witnesses and also broken a soda-bottle to scare the gathering.P.W.4 has identified M.O.2 as the knife used by the accused at the time of occurrence.P.W.6 would state that Ex.P.4 is his signature in the confession statement of the accused.P.W.7 would state that in pursuance of the confession statement, the accused had produced false mustache, beard, cap, gloves, cell-phone, torch, knife, screwdriver, iron rod and plastic knife, which were recovered under Ex.P.6-mahazar in the presence of P.W.6. P.W.6 would identify M.O.2 as the button knife recovered from the accused besides M.O.4 torch, M.O.5 iron rod, M.O.6 pair of socks, M.O.7 cap, M.O.8 screwdriver, M.O.9 false beard, M.O.10 false mustache, M.O.11 plastic knife and M.O.3 motor cycle.P.9 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused.P.W.7 took the accused with the seized articles to the police station and sent the accused for judicial remand and after completing the investigation, P.W.7 has filed the charge sheet under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC.The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.On appearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused.Since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. When the accused appeared before the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions judge has framed charges against the accused under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to 7 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.11 were marked.When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied his complicity with the crime.The accused has examined his mother as D.W.1 and marked Ex.After going through the evidence both oral and documentary learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the guilt against the accused under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 7 years RI.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused has preferred this appeal.Now the point for determination this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.13 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC.No.I, Coimbatore, is sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?10.The Point: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Thiru.P.M.Duraisamy and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr.R.Muniappa Raj and considered their rival submissions.The learned counsel for the appellant focus the attention of this Court on the evidence of P.W.1, that P.W.1, the complainant, has not identified the accused and that he would depose in the chief-examination that only at the police station he had identified the cell-phone and the knife, but when the police asked him to identify the accused, he had stated that he could not identify the accused.Under such circumstances the prosecution ought to have conducted the identification parade as soon as the accused was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that the accused has been identified by ocular witness viz. P.W.2, who is a prisonmate of the accused.In the chief-examination itself P.W.2 would depose that he cannot identify the cell-phone which is said to have been robbed from P.W.1 by the accused.But in the cross-examination P.W.2, to our surprise, would depose that he had seen P.W.1 at the police station and that P.W.1 is the owner of two wheeler workshop.Even though in the chief-examination P.W.1 would identify his cell-phone as M.O.1, in the cross-examination he would state that M.O.1 is not the said cell-phone and that he fell unconscious for about 30 minutes and that he could not recall what had happened during the said period of his unconscious condition.But in the chief-examination he has not given any details as to when he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness and who gave first aid to him etc.,.P.W.1 has not identified the accused before the Court.In Ex.P.1-complaint P.W.1 would state that the accused was identified to him by P.W.2-Anandan.Under such circumstances, the failure to conduct identification parade by the prosecution, in my opinion, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.Yet another point goes against the case of the prosecution is that the failure of P.W.1 to identify even the cell-phone in the cross-examination.P.W.3, another ocular witnesses relied on by the prosecution, in the cross-examination would depose that he used to go to the police station every month to pay mamool (bribe).In the cross-examination he would categorically admit that for the first time he saw the accused in the Court. P.W.4, another eye witness, in the cross-examination would depose that the accused had followed P.W.1 for about 10 feet and snatched the cell-phone.But according to P.W.1 and as per Ex.P.1-complaint, after P.W.1 got down from 1C bus and was proceeding on the road about 10 feet, from the opposite side the accused came in TVS.50 moped and stopped the vehicle near him and snatched the cell-phone.So the evidence of P.W.4 is diametrically opposite to the narration of incident in Ex.Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and certainly the doubt inure to the benefit of the accused.Point is answered accordingly.In fine, the criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment in S.C.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the additional Session Judge, FTC.No.I, Coimbatore, is set aside, and the accused is to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case.The Additional District Sessions Judge, FTC.I, Coimbatore.The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.The Inspector of Police, B~2, R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Section officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.[ Advance copy to be sent to the prison in which the accused has been confined. ][PRV/10180] | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,973,448 | The facts in brief so far as they are relevant in the present proceedings may be stated as follows :The petitioner was the accused in the complaint case instituted by the second respondent for an offence under S. 342 I.P.C. The gravamen of the allegations in the said complaint was that the complainant had gone to the office of the petitioner accused to serve him a copy of the Civil Court's injunction order.The accused after the respondent had entered his cabin directed his security guard to lock up the only door of the said cabin from outside and thus wrongfully confined the second respondent in such a manner as to prevent him from proceeding beyond the boundaries of his cabin.Upon the said complaint and on recording the verification statement of the complainant the trial Court issue process under S. 342 I.P.C. along with a copy of the complaint.The copy of the complaint received by the petitioner accused contained in the heading of the complaint words "Charge under S. 342, I.P.C."During the pendency of the said complaint case the petitioner accused submitted an application on 7-7-1981 before the trial Court that the original record of the trial Court viz. the original complaint was tampered with by the complainant and his Advocate Shri Mehta (respondent No. 3 herein).The tampering was done by adding the words "read with S. 114, I.P.C." in ink.According to the petitioner the second and third respondent have thus fabricated false evidence and prayed that action under S. 340 Cr.P.C. be taken for prosecution for offences of forgery etc. of which cognizance could be taken by the Court under S. 195, Cr.P.C. The trial Court, however, at that stage directed that the said miscellaneous application would be considered at the end of the trial.After the trial was over the petitioner accused was acquitted on 19-4-1982 for the offence of wrongful confinement.However, the trial Court did not pass any order on the miscellaneous application presented by the petitioner.Thereafter on 26-4-1982 the petitioner accused moved the Court for taking action against the second the third respondents for tampering with the records of the Court.The second and the third respondents had earlier filed their replies to the first miscellaneous application of the petitioner and after the conclusion of the trial the second and the third respondents were again noticed to appear and reply to the application.Accordingly the second and the third respondents filed their replies again.They denied that they had done any tampering of the original complaint case after it was filed.It was their case that at the time of filing itself they had realised that the accused could be charged under S. 342 read with S. 114, I.P.C. and accordingly they had corrected the title at that time.No tampering etc. has been done subsequently.It appears that the petitioner had secured a certified copy of the original complaint which shows the title under S. 342 I.P.C. only, whereas the subsequent alteration is seen on the original record.It is in the light of the circumstances that the trial Court perused the miscellaneous application of the petitioner and the replies filed by the respondents and held that apparently the alteration in the title of the complaint was done after the filing of the complaint.The conclusion of the trial Court was that no offence of fabrication of false evidence or forgery was committed by the respondents even by altering the title of the complaint and since no offence under S. 193 or S. 464 I.P.C. was disclosed, there was no question of filing any complaint against them.He, however, also recorded a finding that the act of respondent 3, Advocate, could be termed as misconduct and considered it necessary to make a complaint to the Bar Council against him for suitable action.He only challenged the finding of the trial Court that no offence was disclosed under S. 193 and S. 464, I.P.C. and hence there (was) no necessity of filing a regular complaint against him.The third respondent viz. the Counsel for the original complainant felt aggrieved by the order of reporting to the Bar Council for an action on the ground of misconduct.He also there carried Criminal Revision Application No. 20 of 1983 challenging the said part of the order.The learned Sessions Judge by his order dt. 8th October 1984 rejected Revision Application No. 50 of 1983 preferred by the petitioner and on the other hand allowed the Revision Application No. 126 of 1983 filed by the third respondent and set aside that part of the order of the trial Court reporting to the Bar Council for action against him for misconduct.The order in both the revision applications was a common order.Thus it is these two concurrent orders of both the Courts below which are impugned in this petition. | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,263,290 | J UD G E M E N T (Passed on 21.12.2016) Per: Justice Ved Prakash Sharma This Jail Appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 of Cr.P.C, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24/05/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in S.T. No.243/2013, whereby appellant Sarman has been convicted for charges under Section 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 10 years and 3 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 10/05/2011, at around 2.30pm, complainant Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1) was going with his sister Swetha Bhandari, on his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP51 B 9821 from Malwa Mill (Indore) to his house.Near Patnipura Cr.A. No.920/2013 2 crossing, the appellant, who was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 09 3616, had hit the motorcycle of Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1) while overtaking.As per prosecution, Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1), after overtaking the motorcycle of the appellant, protested about his rash driving and further asked him to be careful in future.Allegedly, upon this the appellant got enraged and after taking out a pistol from his bag fired at Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1), who, in order to save himself, had bent down, resulting in the bullet hitting Jagdish (P.W.9), a passer-by, on his back.Cr.A. No.920/2013 2Charred wound of 0.50 cm., in length on the left lumber region.Charred wound of 1.00 cm., length on the right lumber region.During the course of investigation, site map (Ex.P/2) was prepared.An empty cartridge, blood stained and controlled earth were seized from the spot, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/4).Shri Ajit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter the appellant fled away from the spot.F.I.R (Ex.P/1) regarding this incident was lodged by Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1) at around 3.00 pm at Police Station-Pardeshipura, pursuant to which a case under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the assailant.Jagdish (P.W.9) was sent for medico-legal examination to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, where he was examined on 10/05/11 by Doctor Sunil Narang (P.W.5), who vide report Ex-P/9, found following two injuries on his lumber region:The appellant was arrested on 28/05/2011 and on a disclosure said to have been made by him the spot Cr.A. No.920/2013 3 was again visited by the police.The appellant was put to identification parade, conducted by Nidhi Verma (P.W.-6), the then Nayab Tehsildhar, Indore.Complainant Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1), vide test identification memo Ex.P/3, identified the appellant, however, Jagdish could not identify him.Cr.A. No.920/2013 3On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Magistrate, who, in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, from where it was made-over to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.The appellant was charged for offences under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC for attempt to commit murder of Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1) and voluntarily causing hurt to Jagdish (P.W.9).The appellant abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses including Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1) and Jagdish (P.W.9).L.S. Siosdiya (P.W.3), and Santosh Singh Bhadoriya (P.W.7), had carried out investigation, while Doctor Sunil Narang (P.W.5) had conducted medico-legal examination of Jagdish (P.W.9).Nidhi Verma (P.W.6), the then Nayab Teshildar, Indore is said to have conducted test identification parade vide memo (Ex.P/3).Apart this, documents Ex.P/1 to P/10 were also marked in the evidence.The appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short 'The Code'), denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be Cr.A. No.920/2013 4 innocent, however, none was examined in defence.Learned trail Court on the basis of evidence, vide impugned order, found the appellant guilty under Section 307 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him as stated herein above.Cr.A. No.920/2013 4Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment submitting that the learned trial Court, on proper evaluation of evidence, has recorded conviction and that the same does not call for any interference.It is contended that the appellant fired bullet at Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1) and thus attempted to cause his death.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Jagdish (P.W.9), who sustained injury during the occurrence, has clearly testified about the injuries and the marks of injuries have also been shown by him before the Court at the time of examination.Dr. Sunil (P.W.5), who examined Jagdish (P.W.9) on 10.05.2011, has well corroborated his testimony in this regard and has stated that as per MLC report (Ex.P/9), two wounds were found on the lumber region, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution version in this regard suffers from any serious anomaly.Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1), during his examination before the Court, has identified the appellant.As per prosecution the appellant was also identified by this witness in the Test Identification Parade conducted by Nidhi Verma (P.W.6) who at the relevant time was posted as Nayab Tehsildar.Thus, the evidence brought on record clearly shows that on 10/05/2011, when Sudeep Bhandari (P.W.1) was going on his motorcycle with his sister Swetha Bhandari, some altercation took place between him and the appellant as the appellant had hit his motorcycle while overtaking the same. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,264,048 | 03.09.13 Item No. 58 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 58And In the matter of: Md. Sarif & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Ansuman Bera For the Petitioners Mr. Arif Hossain For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Pandua Police Station Case No. 318 of 2013 dated 04.08.2013 under Sections 447/341/323/324/326/379/307/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.There is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,264,496 | A common thread, which runs through the above-captioned four petitions, is that these petitions spring out of proceedings in FIR No. 31/2005 for the offences under Sections 406/409/418/420/120B of IPC, registered at police station Palam Airport, Delhi.Since the facts in the above captioned four petitioners are so intertwined, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by one common order.In the above captioned first petition [Crl. M.C. No.1089/2012], an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner has been dismissed by trial Court and learned Revisional Court vide impugned order of 14th March, 2012 has maintained trial court's order dismissing petitioner's aforesaid application.Challenge to the aforesaid impugned order is on the ground that by concealing and suppressing material facts, complainant/first-informant has managed to get FIR No. 31/1005 registered against petitioner and so, petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. could not be outrightly rejected, as at the stage of consideration of this application, it is only to be seen as to whether an enquiry should be made.At the hearing it was submitted by petitioner-S.K.Modi that courts below have gravely erred in brushing aside petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. by treating it to be petitioner's defence which is to be considered at the appropriate stage.To assail the impugned order, reliance was Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 3 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.State of Madras & ors.AIR 1954 SC 397; Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289 & Upkar Singh Vs.Ved Prakash & Ors.AIR 2004 SC 4320 and a decision of this Court in Test Case No. 19/2004 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs.Thus, quashing of impugned order is sought with a prayer that petitioner's application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be enquired into.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 3 of 10(2000) 9 SCC 356 & P T Rajan Vs.State by Inspector of Life Insurance Corporation 1997 Law Suit (Mad) 549 by learned senior counsel to support the impugned order and to contend that even upon taking petitioner's application / complaint as it is, it cannot be said that suppression amount to perjury.Thus, dismissal of above captioned first petition is sought.The finding returned in the impugned order of 14 th March, 2012 is that petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. constitutes his defence and allowing petitioner's application would tantamount to holding that whole case of complainant is false, which has been investigated into and a charge-sheet has been filed.The aforesaid finding in the impugned order rests upon the following reasoning:-''Having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the instant case as also the detailed submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, I am of Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 4 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.True that the complainant has nowhere referred in its complaint to the previous court proceedings between the parties and the orders passed therein, however, at the same time, the allegations contained in the complaint were found well founded during police investigation, which has culminated in filing of the Charge Sheet against the appellant herein and the other accused.Even otherwise also, the arguments on Charge are yet to be heard by the Ld. ACMM and Charges are yet to be decided.Any order directing enquiry against the complainant u/S 340 (1) Cr.P.C. would seriously prejudice the case of prosecution before the Trial Court and hence, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice so to do.''M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 4 of 10In the above captioned second petition [Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012], quashing of impugned order of 14th March, 2012 refusing to recall summoning order in FIR No. 31/2005 and order allowing complainant's application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. is sought on merits while relying upon decisions in Hamza Hazi Vs.State of Kerala & Anr.(2006) 7 SCC 416; P. Satyanarayana Vs.Land Reforms Tribunal AIR 1980 AP 149; MCD Vs.State of Delhi & Anr.In the above captioned third petition [Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012], quashing of FIR No. 31/2005 for the offences under Sections 406/409/418/420/120B of IPC, registered at police station Palam Airport, Delhi and order of 20th October, 2008 vide which cognizance of the aforesaid offences were taken against petitioners and their co-accused and order of 25th April, 2009 vide which petitioners -S.K. Modi, Shalini and Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 5 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1760/2012 Dimple Modi shown in Column No.4 of the charge-sheet filed in this FIR case, have been summoned as accused, is sought on merits while relying upon decisions in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr.State & Anr.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 5 of 10In the above captioned fourth petition [Crl.M.C. No. 1760/2012], petitioners- S.K. Modi & Ors.seek quashing of FIR No. 31/2005 for the offences under Sections 406/409/418/420/120B of IPC, registered at police station Palam Airport, Delhi and order of 1 st August, 2009 vide which petitioner's revision petition against order of 20th October, 2008 taking cognizance of the offences in the above said FIR case against petitioners has been decided on merits in the absence of petitioners.Quashing of aforesaid FIR case is sought on merits while relying upon Apex Court's decision in Criminal Appeal No 1680/2013, Surya Baksh Singh Vs.At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners - S.K. Modi & Anr.had confined the prayer made in the above captioned fourth petition to afford an opportunity of hearing in the revision petition and had not sought quashing of above said FIR on merits.At the hearing of the above captioned four petitions, extensive submissions were addressed by both the sides and reliance was placed upon numerous decisions to seek quashing of the FIR in question and the impugned orders on merits.In the above captioned first petition [Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012], the Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 6 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1760/2012 reasoning in the impugned order as noted above, persuades this Court to hold that dismissal of petitioner - S.K. Modi's application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. was uncalled for, as this application deserves to be considered by the trial Court at the charge stage if the FIR case in question proceeds on trial.It is so said because averments in application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is the stand taken on behalf of applicant/petitioner and cannot be labelled as defence of applicant/petitioner.In this view of the matter, above captioned first petition is allowed and petitioner- S.K. Modi's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is restored for being considered by the trial court at the charge stage.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 6 of 10Exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings has to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.Where the facts are hazy and require evidence to be produced, High Courts normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision particularly when it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence alleged in the FIR are lacking.The factual matrix emerging from the orders impugned is as under:-''Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the complainant M/S Malanpur Steel Ltd.(formerly known as M.S Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. ) instituted a complaint case u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offences punishable u/s. 406/409/418/420/120B IPC.The complaint was filed against ten accused persons and Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 7 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.Three companies of the petitioner had executed letters of guarantee in favour of the complainant and also placed 55,60,000/- shares, held by them in accused no.8 with the complainant alongwith duly executed transfer of deeds as security for the loan.It was represented to the complainant that the shares were fully paid up.Accused no.8 failed to repay the loan and when the complainant sold the pledged shares to two companies, the shares were illegally held by the accused nos. 6, 7 and 10 (accused no.6 being Chairman and accused no.7 being the Senior Manager of accused no.10, the Registrar and Transfer Agents of accused no.8), in conspiracy with the accused no.1 (appellant herein), 2 and 3 on behalf of accused no.8 on the ground that the transfer documents were not valid as the person whose signatures appear thereon was no more in the services of accused no.8 company.''M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 7 of 10Upon hearing both the sides and on bare perusal of the material on record, it transpires that proceedings in this FIR case are at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.Since petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein at the hearing on the point of charge, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above captioned second, third and fourth petitions [Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 8 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy (supra) as referred to hereinabove, these three petitions [Crl.M.C. Nos. 1090/2012; 1132/2012 & 1760/2012] are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking and reasoned order.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 9 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1760/2012 order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioners and if trial court chooses to proceed against petitioners, then trial court shall obtain the presence of petitioners.Needless to say, if trial court chooses to frame charges against petitioners, then petitioners shall be at liberty to avail of the remedy as available in law, if so advised.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 9 of 10The above captioned petitions and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice either side before the trial Court.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 15, 2014 r Crl.M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 10 of 10 Crl.M.C. No. 1090/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1132/2012 Crl.M.C. No. 1760/2012M.C. No. 1089/2012 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,726,773 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except of offence under section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, remaining offences are bailable.Though, the case is triable by Special Judge but maximum sentence for that offence is prescribed for five years, hence, the offence is not so grave.The applicant cannot be kept under custody for lesser grave offence.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application of the present applicant namely Rinku Parashar under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable.This order shall be effective till the end of trial, but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge (ra) | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,276,114 | The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 12.02.2013, the respondent married Rekha (the deceased) according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.At the time of marriage, parents of deceased Rekha namely Sushila (mother) and Ram Swaroop (father) gave a double bed, television, gold ring, almirah and some utensils.However, the respondent was not satisfied.The respondent and his two sisters namely Guddan and Kiran (both juveniles) used to harass Rekha from time to time.24), Dr.Ajay Kumar, Sunder Lal Jain Hospital (PW-5), and Dr.R.K. Singh, Specialist (Forensic Medicine), BJRM Hospital (PW-15).L.P.265/2017 Page 8 of 22Sushila (PW-16) testified that on 12.02.2013, marriage of her daughter was solemnised with the respondent in Guhani, District Hamir Pur, Madhya Pradesh, and she spent Rs.3 lacs in the marriage.She had given gold ear rings, silver hathposh, silver perposh, utensils amounting to Rs.12,000/-, double bed, godrej almirah, colour T.V. 22, etc. Bills relating to the some of the items were also given to her daughter at the time of marriage which are Ex.P1 to Ex.Before the marriage, her daughter did course of stitching and after the marriage her daughter resided with her in Delhi for about 15 months.Her daughter intended to continue her beautician training.In the month of February, 2014, she went to her matrimonial home at Ashok Vihar, Delhi and after one month on the occasion of Navratri she came to her house along with her sisters in law namely Guddan, Kiran, Chandni and Roshni.After some time she went away from her house to her matrimonial home and at that time, she was happy.After one month, she again came to her house and she found her upset and tense and on being asked she told her that her husband has been demanding Rs.30,000/-.She stayed in her house for one month.The respondent came to take the deceased and she advised the respondent not to harass her daughter and he took the daughter with him.PW-16 further testified that 14/15 days prior to the festival of Raksha Bandhan, the deceased talked to his brother Vijay asking him to take her back from the matrimonial home and second day on receiving the call from the deceased, she sent her children namely Arti and Ravi to Crl.L.P.265/2017 Page 9 of 22 bring deceased Rekha back to her house.They also found the deceased upset and that the deceased told them to send her brother Vijay to bring her back from her matrimonial home.PW-16 further stated that she talked to her daughter Rekha on telephone and told her that her brother will come to take her back from matrimonial home.L.P.265/2017 Page 9 of 22Sushila (PW-16) stated that one day prior to the death of her daughter, the deceased went to the house of Raj Kumari (PW-11) and at that time the deceased was very hungry as she had not taken meal for the last three days.The deceased told Raj Kumari that she was upset as her husband/respondent told her "Tere Maa Baap Ne Shadi mein Kuch Nahi Diya"/your mother-father have not given anything in marriage.This was conveyed to her by Raj Kumari (PW-11).PW-16 further testified that on Monday, the sister in law of the deceased Guddan made a telephonic call to her elder son in law Pappu (PW-8) informing him that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself.PW-8 conveyed her this information.She stated that her daughter committed suicide as the respondent used to harass her on pretext of demand of Rs.30,000/- from her.Since the witness did not support the case of the prosecution therefore she was cross- examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor wherein she has admitted all the suggestions given by him that the respondent and his sisters were demanding Rs.30,000/- and a cooler from the deceased during her stay at Guhani, District Hamir Pur, Madhya Pradesh.She also admitted that one week prior to the date of incident, the deceased told her telephonically that the respondent and his sisters were harassing her for Rs.30,000/-.L.P.265/2017 Page 10 of 22She stated that the proposal was cancelled by them.She further admitted that the deceased asked them to marry her with the respondent after three years and then volunteered to say that they used to talk on phone as her daughter was in a love affair with respondent and they were not ready to marry the deceased with the respondent.She also admitted that her statement was recorded by the Police in the Ashok Vihar Police Station after two days of the death of her daughter.She stated that her elder daughter Raj Kumari (PW-11) did not talk to her on telephone on the date of the incident or one or two days prior to the date of incident.Ram Swaroop (PW-14) testified that his daughter Rekha was married to respondent on 12.02.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and he gave all dowry articles like bed, sofa, almirah, colour TV, one gold ring and spent Rs.3 lacs in the marriage.He did not give any cash in the marriage.After marriage, his daughter lived in matrimonial home for three months.He stated that his daughter used to complain him about the bad behaviour of the respondent and his two sisters on telephone.He further testified that respondent demanded Rs.30,000/- for purchasing a bike/motorcycle and Rs.2000/- for purchasing cooler from daughter and this fact was told by the deceased to her mother (PW-16).He stated that his daughter managed to bring Rs.2000/- from his elder daughter Raj Kumari who is residing at Wazir Pur Industrial Area with her family and thereafter the cooler was purchased.He stated that Kiran and Guddan, sisters of the accused, used to torture his daughter for not doing household work Crl.L.P.265/2017 Page 11 of 22 properly and for bringing insufficient dowry.He stated that his daughter was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the respondent and his two sisters.The deceased had gone to the house of his elder daughter Smt.Raj Kumari (PW-11) two days prior to the incident and next day she died by hanging.He stated that neither the respondent nor his family members informed them about the death of his daughter despite having his mobile number with them.L.P.265/2017 Page 11 of 22In his cross-examination, PW-14 stated that he was working as a guard with a salary of Rs.7000/- per month and his wife was working as a maid and earning Rs.6000/- per month.His daughter Rekha/deceased used to do stitching work at home and also used to visit beauty parlour where she was working as a beautician.He stated that the respondent used to visit their house frequently.He further stated that his daughter and respondent were happy and there was no issue of dowry till six or seven months time and during this period his daughter and the respondent used to talk on telephone happily.He also stated that when his daughter Rekha was taken to her matrimonial home in Delhi by respondent and his family there was no demand of dowry by them.He admitted that the document (Ex.P-4) does not bear the name of the shopkeeper or the customer or the signature of the shopkeeper.He stated that his statement was recorded by the Police officials after a day or two from the date of the incident.He stated that his daughter was happy when she used to visit on all occasions.She never told them about her matrimonial life.29. Smt.Raj Kumari (PW-11), the elder sister of the deceased, testified that her father gave dowry articles in her marriage with the respondent as per his capacity.After the marriage, her sister went to her matrimonial home at village Gohani, Madhya Pradesh, where she remained for about 8/10 days and thereafter she came back at Wazir Pur Village, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and remained in matrimonial home for three months.She stated that whenever deceased came to her house, she never came alone and her sister in law used to accompany her.Her sister was never left alone for a single moment with her and she could not say anything about her plight.She further testified that one day prior to the date of incident, the deceased visited her house with her sister in law.The deceased was very hungry and she got samosas for her sister and she found her very sad by her facial appearance.She stated that the respondent and his two sisters Sapna and Kiran used to torture her sister by commenting that she used to give more attention towards her (PW-11) and not towards respondent and his family members.Her sister used to be tortured and harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry and for not doing household work.This examination in chief of PW-11 was recorded on 24.02.2015 and on that day her further examination in chief was deferred by the learned ASJ on the request of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.In her further examination in chief of PW-11 recorded by the learned ASJ on 24.02.2015, it has nowhere come that the deceased at any Crl.L.P.265/2017 Page 13 of 22 point of time conveyed to her elder sister i.e. PW-11 that the respondent was demanding Rs.30,000/- or Rs.2000/- for purchase of cooler or that she was being harassed by the respondent or his sisters.However, on the next date when her further testimony was recorded by the learned ASJ on 25.02.2015, she improved her statement and testified that one day prior to the date of incident, her sister Rekha came to her house and her face appeared to be in weeping condition and on being asked she told her that her husband demanded Rs.30,000/-.She again stated that whenever deceased came to her house her sister in law Kiran and Guddan accompanied her and due to their presence she could not tell her all the grievances.L.P.265/2017 Page 13 of 22PW-11 further stated that on Monday she attended the phone call of Roshni (again said does not remember the name) sister in law of her deceased sister Rekha communicating to her that Rekha had committed suicide by hanging herself.She immediately reached Wazir Pur Village where Rekha was residing with her in laws.She found a police official present there and informed her that the deceased had been taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.She testified that she along with Roshni, sister in law of her sister, reached Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where her father in law and sister in law namely Guddan were present there.She testified that her sister committed suicide as her husband and sisters in law Guddan and Kiran used to harass her on account of demand of dowry as they asked her to bring Rs.30,000/- and a desert cooler from time to time.She stated that when the respondent and his sisters Guddan and Kiran demanded cooler and money from her sister Rekha, she asked her sister to accompany her husband to purchase the cooler and accordingly, they Crl.In her cross-examination, she stated that her sister Rekha went to her matrimonial home at village Guhani, Madhya Pradesh, soon after their marriage where they remained for 10 days and thereafter her brothers brought Rekha back at the parental home at Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh, where she stayed for about 15-20 days.Subsequently, their parents brought the deceased to Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, where she lived about 15 months.She further stated that her sister wanted to do the course of beautician as per understanding with her in laws and for that reason she remained with her parents for 15 months.During this period, the deceased did not visit her place and she used to visit her parents house occasionally on festivals and at that time Rekha was happy.She further testified that Rekha used to talk to her on telephone when she was in her matrimonial home.She stated that Rekha had her own mobile phone but she could not tell the mobile number of the deceased.She stated that her sister told her that she was not given money by the respondent or his family members for her day-to-day expenses and they used to tell her to bring money from her parents.She stated that her statement was recorded after two or three days of the death of her sister in the Police Station.Pappu (PW-8) (husband of PW-11) testified that after sometime of marriage, the deceased used to remain upset as whenever she demanded money from respondent or her in laws for her expenses, she was not provided with anything.The respondent used to demand money from the deceased.He stated that the respondent demanded Rs.30,000/- from the deceased Rekha who asked her parents to fulfil the demand of the respondent.Ten days prior to Raksha Bandan, the deceased came to his house and informed them that the respondent and two sisters-in- law had asked her parents to bring money.The deceased then went to her matrimonial home and next day, she committed suicide.He stated that he received the information about the death of the deceased from his brother in law and when he was confronted with the statement Ex.It is not reflected in the testimony of PW-14 and PW-16 that at the time of marriage, the respondent or his family members demanded any dowry.Even the bills (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4) are only estimate and there was no name of shop, customer or signatures.Prosecution could not prove that PW-14 and PW-16 had spent Rs.3 lacs or gave dowry articles in the marriage.So deposition of PW-14 is hearsay.There were only general allegations of dowry against the respondent and his juvenile sisters.Rather PW-14 stated in his cross examination that respondent used to visit them frequently.He admitted that whenever he called respondent, he used to come.M.A. 7461/2017 (Exemption)Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.M.A. 7460/2017 (delay)Though there is no justification for condonation of delay, but since we have heard the leave to appeal on merits as well, delay of 190 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.The application is disposed of.The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.07.2016 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from all the charges framed against him.L.P.265/2017 Page 1 of 22The respondent made a demand of Rs.30,000/- and one cooler from the deceased.However, the parents of the deceased could not fulfil the said demands and the accused along with his sisters started harassing the deceased.On 28.07.2014, Rekha committed suicide in her matrimonial home.The Court of Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses including mother of the deceased Smt.Sushila (the complainant) (PW-16), father of the deceased Sh.Ram Swaroop (PW-14), elder sister of the deceased Smt.Raj Kumari (PW-11), brother in law of deceased Sh.Pappu (PW-8), IO Inspector Sanjeev Kumar (PW-L.P.265/2017 Page 2 of 22Statement of the respondent was recorded by the learned ASJ under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in his defence, the accused person examined one witness, Amit Kumar (DW-1).It is argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there were minor contradictions in the testimonies of the prime prosecution witnesses which do not go to the root of the matter and do not warrant acquittal of the respondent.Learned APP for State urges that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-16 that deceased "soon before her death" called PW-16 and told her to send her brother Vijay and requested to return.L.P.265/2017 Page 3 of 22We have heard the learned APP for the State and examined the record.Admittedly, the respondent married the deceased on 12.02.2013; The respondent along with his parents and sisters was living in a rented accommodation in house No.WP-231, Wazir Pur Village, Delhi; and Smt.Rekha committed suicide on 28.07.2014, i.e. within seven years from the date of their marriage.She never told about any demand by the respondent or his family and whenever her daughter used to talk to him she used to say "Mummy Se Baat Kara Do"/Let me talk to mother and nothing else.L.P.265/2017 Page 12 of 22This witness was also cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and in his cross-examination he stated that he deposed so as he could not understand the question put to him by the learned defence counsel.L.P.265/2017 Page 14 of 22 purchased the cooler and provided the same to the respondent.But she could not tell that who had paid the money for purchasing the cooler.L.P.265/2017 Page 14 of 22At one point of time the deceased came to Crl.L.P.265/2017 Page 15 of 22 his wife who gave Rs.2000/- for purchasing a cooler and the respondent used to ask Rekha to bring money from her parents.Her two sisters in law namely Kiran and Guddan also used to harass her for bringing insufficient dowry and not doing household work properly.L.P.265/2017 Page 15 of 22In his cross-examination he stated that he did not tell the police that he paid Rs.2000/- to Rekha for purchasing a cooler.He stated that before the police in his statement Ex.PW-8/DA under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that one day prior to the incident Rekha visited his house for demand of money but when he was confronted with the statement Ex.L.P.265/2017 Page 16 of 22 marriage.In his statement recorded by the I.O. during investigation PW-14 and PW-16 did not say that they had given articles in the marriage or spent Rs.3 lacs.So, both these witnesses have made material improvements which make their testimony and hence, are unworthy of reliance.L.P.265/2017 Page 16 of 22Even otherwise, PW-14 was earning Rs.7000/- per month as Guard and PW-16 was earning Rs.2000/3000/- per month as maid.They had six children.They were residing in rented accommodation.PW-16 stated that they could not fulfil the demand of Rs.2000/- for cooler as they were poor.So, it is highly improbable that they had spent Rs.3 lacs in the marriage.PW-16 deposed that in February 2014, the deceased went to her matrimonial home and in Navratras (i.e. April 2014), she came to house of PW-16 with her four sisters-in-law Guddan, Kiran, Chandni and Roshni.After some stay, she returned to matrimonial home.She was happy at that time.PW- 16 claimed that after one month, i.e. May 2014, she was upset and tense as the respondent was asking her for Rs.30,000/-.PW-16 expressed her inability to pay being poor.The deceased stayed for one month and when the respondent came to take her, she advised the respondent not to harass the deceased and she sent her daughter with the respondent.However, PW-14 in his deposition on 24.02.2015 did not state that his daughter conveyed demand of Rs.30,000/- for motorcycle and Rs.2000/- for cooler.It was conveyed by deceased to Crl.The deceased and respondent used to talk happily over the phone.There was no demand of dowry when his daughter was taken to matrimonial home in Delhi.She was happy and she used to come to house of PW-14 and PW-16 on festivals and all occasions.She admitted that she never told PW-14 about any demand of dowry from the respondent or his family.She also admitted that she never complained to him about any problem from her in laws or husband.L.P.265/2017 Page 17 of 2240. PW-11 in her testimony deposed that her matrimonial home was near to the matrimonial home of the deceased and she used to visit her house.During the said visit, the deceased was always accompanied with her sisters-in-law.One day prior to the incident, the deceased visited her along with her sisters in law and told her that accused demanded Rs.30,000/-.At the same time, PW-11 stated that the deceased was never left alone to tell her plight.If that was so, then, how could the deceased tell about the said demand to her that too in presence of her sisters-in-law.Therefore, the testimony of PW-11 to this effect is not reliable.PW-8 stated that the deceased used to come to their home every 15 or 20 days whereas PW-11 stated that she visited them only 2 or 3 times during her stay of 2-3 months in matrimonial home.L.P.265/2017 Page 18 of 22PW-11 stated that the deceased stayed at parental home for 15 months as there was understanding that deceased wanted to do beautician course and so it cannot be said that she remained with parents due to harassment.Even during this stay PW-14 stated that they were always happy and there was no demand for dowry.It has come in the deposition of PW-16 that after the marriage the deceased stayed in her parental home and village.It has also come in her deposition that in February 2014 the deceased went to her matrimonial home and came back after one month i.e. in March, 2014 and left for matrimonial home and she found her to be happy thereafter.The deceased again came to her parental house in April, 2014 and found her upset and on asking, the deceased stated that the respondent had demanded Rs.30,000/-.But it has come in the deposition of PW-14, who is the father of the deceased, that it was not conveyed to him.According to PW-16 the demand of Rs.30,000/- was allegedly made for the first time in April, 2014 but it is surprising how the mother of the deceased (PW-16) sent her back with the respondent.It has come in the testimony of PW-11 that one day prior to the incident, the deceased came to her house with her two sisters in law and her sister was never left alone even for a single moment and therefore, the question of conveying to PW-11 that the respondent had demanded Rs.30,000/- from her is highly improbable.Further it has come in the testimony of PW-14 that the deceased had visited his elder daughter two days prior to the incident and whereas PW-11 has stated that the deceased had visited her one day prior to the incident in question and therefore, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are Crl.L.P.265/2017 Page 19 of 22 contrary to each other and are not believable.This makes the alleged visit of the deceased to the house of the PW-11 prior to the incident in question doubtful.L.P.265/2017 Page 19 of 22Regarding the purchase of cooler, PW-16 deposed that PW-11 arranged the cooler and gave it to the respondent but PW-11 could not tell the date when it was done.On the other hand, PW-14 testified that the deceased managed Rs.2000/- from PW-11 and then purchased the cooler.PW-11 could not tell as to who paid the amount for purchase of the cooler.PW-8 deposed that deceased came to his wife (PW-11) who gave her Rs.2000/- to buy a cooler.Therefore, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the demand of Rs.2000/- for cooler is contradictory and unworthy to believe.In her statement initially recorded by the learned ASJ on 24.02.2015, Raj Kumari (PW-11) has not stated that the deceased conveyed to her that the respondent and his sisters were demanding Rs.30,000/- or Rs.2000/- for cooler.Generally, it is the defence who used to get the matter adjourned and deferred if witness is not supportive.Even Section 309 Cr.P.C. mandates that witness should be examined on the same days as far as possible.But in this case to influence the witness it is the Public Prosecutor who got the case adjourned as PW-11 was not supporting.On the next day i.e. 25.02.2015 in her further statement she has made all improvements and testified that her sister told her that the respondent had demanded Rs.30,000/- from her.When she had stated that both sisters in law of the deceased were not leaving the deceased alone even for a single moment with her, conveying this information was highly improbable and therefore, the Crl.L.P.265/2017 Page 20 of 22 testimony of PW-14 and PW-16 is rightly found to be hearsay by the learned Trial Court.L.P.265/2017 Page 20 of 2247. PW-11 has admitted that she attended the call of Guddan, sister of the respondent, who informed her about the death of the deceased by hanging which was conveyed to the parents of the deceased on the date of the incident, but the IO had recorded the statements of PW-14 and PW16 on 30.07.2014, i.e. two days after the incident and in those statements they have not stated anything against the respondent and his sisters.Thus, the leave to appeal is dismissed being without any merit. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,728,166 | The petitioner herein had approached the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) with a criminal complaint invoking the provision contained in Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) on 06.07.2015 seeking a direction to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, of Delhi Police, to investigate into certain acts of commission and omission allegedly constituting offences punishable under Sections 379 and 120-B of the Crl.M.C. 4559/2015 Page 1 of 8 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 37/51/63/65/69 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957, attributing the said acts of commission and omission to the company named as M/s Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd (the third respondent) and its managing Director Mr. Vikky Choudhary (the second respondent).M.C. 4559/2015 Page 1 of 8A report dated 18.08.2015 was submitted by Sub-Inspector Dharmender Kumar of District Investigation Unit (DIU) of the South-East District to which the said earlier complaints to the police appeared to have been made over for inquiry.M.C. 4559/2015 Page 3 of 8While the matter was pending before the TDSAT, the petitioner lodged two complaints with the DCP (South-East) first on 10.04.2015 and the second on 27.05.2015 each based on video recordings of certain transmissions made from the facilities of the third respondent, each intercepted at two different locations, one in Zakir Nagar, Jamia, New Delhi and the other in Zakhir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi on 26.03.2015 and 26.05.2015, each intercept revealing the logos both that of the petitioner company as also of the third respondent company being carried through Direct to Home (DTH) decoders presenting the intercepts as proof of the offences mentioned above being committed by the second and third respondents, requesting for suitable action in accordance with criminal law.There is material prima facie showing illegal interception and re-transmission of the TV signals of the petitioner.Upon consideration of the said report of DIU, the CMM proceeded to take a decision on the prayer of the petitioner for direction to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. By order dated 08.10.2015, he found the dispute raised to be civil in nature and the matter "sub judice" before the appropriate authority, and, therefore, considering it improper to issue such directions as were sought.Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying, inter alia, for the aforementioned order of the CMM to be set aside and for direction to the police to investigate into the matter.When the petition was filed, only the State (NCT of Delhi) was made a party respondent.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the very inception on 04.11.2015 regretted and Crl.M.C. 4559/2015 Page 2 of 8 sought opportunity to implead the second and third respondents as parties, it being fair and just to hear them.The request was accordingly allowed.The second and third respondents upon being served have filed their reply and also written submissions resisting the prayer in the petition, broadly terming the allegations of the petitioner in the complaints to the police and to the CMM, to be false and motivated.M.C. 4559/2015 Page 2 of 8Having heard submissions in the matter and having gone through the record, this court finds the approach of CMM in the impugned order to be wholly mis-directed, it requiring this court to step in and make the necessary amends.As has been brought out at the hearing, there is a history to the dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the second and third respondents on the other.This led to a petition No.466/C of 2013, coming up before the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal ('TDSAT' for short).The TDSAT by its directions issued in March, 2015 called for an audit through a governmental agency known as Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited ('BECIL' for short).M.C. 4559/2015 Page 5 of 8 in the SMS & CAS of Home Cable indicates the piracy of sports channels of Respondent No.2 on the Home Cable network which, though not conclusive, is indicative of the petitioner's consent.M.C. 4559/2015 Page 5 of 8The petition of the third respondent was disposed of with penalty of Rs.25 lacs being imposed against him.It appears, the said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal - letters patent appeal (LPA) No.715/2015 before a division bench of this Court.As was pointed out by the learned senior counsel during the course of arguments, having regard to the registration number of the Crl.M.C. 4559/2015 Page 6 of 8 LPA, it would have come to be presented and pressed for consideration by the division bench in the year 2016 and yet in the report of DIU dated 18.08.2015 there is a reference to "appeal being pending at that stage"M.C. 4559/2015 Page 6 of 8Be that as it may, a copy of the order dated 12.07.2017 whereby LPA No.715/2016 was disposed of has been presented at the hearing, which would show the third respondent having given up the challenge to the order of TDSAT and of the learned Single Judge and restricting the prayer for reduction of the penalty on the ground it was not justified, it being excessive, the prayer to that effect being allowed by the division bench, the penalty being reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- only.Against the above material on record pertaining to the order of TDSAT which includes the independent audit report of BECIL, it could not have been observed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that it is a dispute purely civil in nature.The case could not have been closed by mere observation that since matter was "sub judice" before appropriate authority, no action on the part of the Metropolitan Magistrate was called for in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The complaints of the petitioner having revealed cognizance offences being committed, they not being allegations made just in the air but having been supported by some material, the Magistrate ought to have issued requisite directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the investigation to be carried out.It must be added that the manner in which the DIU of Delhi Police Crl. M.C. 4559/2015 Page 7 of 8 handled the complaints of the petitioner also leaves much to be desired.It is hoped that pursuant to the directions which are being hereby passed, a more responsible investigative action would be undertaken.M.C. 4559/2015 Page 7 of 8The impugned order dated 08.10.2015 of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is set aside.The petition is disposed of in above terms.Pending application also stands disposed of. | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,972,878 | No costs.The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu Prohibition and Excise XII Department Fort St.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai.(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) Challenging the order of detention dated 5.7.2007 made in D.O.No.30/2007-C2, passed by the second respondent branding the petitioner as a 'Goonda' under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), the petitioner, who is now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition to set aside the order of detention and directing the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.The ground case based on which the impugned order of detention has been passed is that on 15.4.2007 at about 1800 hours, when one Raghupathi, the complainant was going to Bazar by bicycle, the detenu waylaid and pulled his shirt, took out a knife and snatched Rs.300/- from the shirt pocket of the complainant.When the complainant shouted for rescue, the public tried to catch him, but the detenu threw soda bottles and threatened them by showing pen knife, and taking advantage of the situation, the detenu escaped.Based on the complaint given by the complainant, a case in Crime No.221 of 2007 has been registered on the file of for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 392 and 506(2) I.P.C. and the detenu was arrested and sent for judicial remand.For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of detention suffers for non-application of mind and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.This petition is allowed.The order of detention dated 5.7.2007 is set aside.The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required connection with in any other crime. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,972,907 | The petitioner is presently undergoing life imprisonment in the Yerawada Central Prison.The petitioner was released on parole on, in all, five occasions.On the first occasion, the petitioner reported late by 11 days.The prison authorities imposed a punishment of - forfeiture of 165 days of earned remission and further removal from remission system for a period of two years and ten months.Subsequently, however, this punishment was reduced to forfeiture of remission of 60 days as the previous permission of the Inspector General was not obtained.On the third occasion, when the Petitioner was released on parole, he did not surrender at all and finally he was arrested by the police after the expiry of 449 days.JUDGMENT A.P. Shah, J.This is a petition by a life convict for his premature release from the prison.Before we proceed to examine the questions of law of somewhat importance raised in the present petition, it is necessary to state briefly the factual background of the case.The petitioner was tried along with three others for the offences under sections 302, 307, 327 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The Sessions Court, recording conviction under sections 302 and 307 read with S. 34, sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,292,235 | Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.235/2019 registered a t Police Station Batiyagarh, District- Damoh fo r the offence under Sections 363, 366-ka, 376, 323 of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.The allegation of prosecution is that, prosecutrix aged about 16 years was found to be missing from her residential house.Her mother Sharda Ahirwar was lodged the report.On that basis missing person report was recorded and Crime No.235/19 under Section 363 of IPC was registered against unknown person.It is also alleged that on 14.1.2021 prosecutrix was recovered and her statements under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.Statement of her parents were also recorded.On that basis offence under above mentioned sections have been added t o the already registered crime.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the crime.It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.1.2021 and the trial will take time fo r its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail Signature Not Verified SAN application.However, he fairly conceded that prosecutrix herself has stated in Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.02.27 17:21:10 IST 2 MCRC-10101-2021 the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she herself had gone with the applicant with her wish and will and she has solemnized marriage with him and she had also given birth to a child out of the marriage and the said child is aged about 6-7 months.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the concerned jail authorities are directed to follow the directions/guidelines issued by the Government with regard to 'COVID-19' before releasing the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE irfan Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.02.27 17:21:10 | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,292,403 | 2. Facts of the case are as under :-The respondent No.1/bank is a Government owned public sector bank engaged in the business of banking in India through branches established in different States of India.The petitioner No.1 decided to set up 3.0 MTPA ...2...integrated cement plant in Tehsil Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna along with a 45 megawatt captive thermal power plant.The petitioner No.1 also got limestone mining lease of an area 906 hectare for the period of 30 years from the State of M.P. The petitioner No.1 has also obtained all the approvals from the competent authorities for setting up the plant and placed the orders for supply of key equipment for the establishment of the plant.According to the petitioners, the respondents gave option of either availing the facility of Letter of Credit or disbursement Term Loan.The petitioners opted for credit facility ie., Foreign Letter of Credit, which is an arrangement whereby the bank acting at the request of customer (importer / buyer) undertake to pay in the goods/services to a third party (exporter / beneficiary) by a given date.According to the petitioners upon availing the Foreign Letter of Credit, funds were never disbursed to them and the same was directly paid to the exporter / beneficiary.Vide letter dated 20.12.2010, the respondent No.1/bank/bank has sanctioned the term loan of Rs.150 Crore to the petitioners subject to the certain conditions.In fact the petitioners have no ...3...authority to mortgage the mining lease granted by the State Government hence due to which they, could not avail the facility of term loan from the respondent No.1/bank.The respondent No.1/bank/Bank was also not ready to amend the pre-disbursement condition pertaining to mortgage of the mining land.Ultimately, the petitioner No.1 could not setup the cement plant due to some other compelling reasons .The petitioners have filed the reply and also filed a counter claim against the respondent No.1/bank.After four years now the respondent No.1/bank issued a show cause notice(SCN) to the petitioners proposing to declare them as ''wilful defaulter'' under Master Circular.By way of show cause notice, the petitioners were called upon to show cause and make a representation within 30 days of the receipt of the notice as to why they should not be included in the list of 'wilful defaulter'.Vide reply dated 29.7.2017, the petitioners have requested for supply of all the details and documents relied upon by the respondent No.1/bank and which formed the basis of allegations / charges containing in the said show cause notice.As per the terms and conditions of undertaking.Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank.The order of committee is final only after its confirmation by the review committee.This is nothing but an internal arrangement in the Bank to provide double check system before declaring any borrowing unit as 'wilful defaulter'.Since, the review committee has affirmed the order passed by the identification committee therefore, no independent reasons are required to be assigned in its order , which may be necessary only in the case of the reversal of the finding.Since, the petitioners have defaulted in meeting its repayment obligation to the respondent no1./bank even when it has a capacity to pay therefore, rightly invited findings in respect of wilful default.The company was having the equity share of Rs.103.43 Crores, and out of which withdrew the Rs.54.22 Crores equity share without honouring its commitments under the letters of credit opened by to respondent No.1/bank .(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE SS/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2019.03.11 16:31:33 +05'30' ...26...(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE SS/-...27...(Delivered on 11.3.2019) The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.6.2018 and 10.10.2018 by the respondents No.2 and 3, respectively by which they have been declared as 'wilful defaulter' under the provisions of Reserve Bank of India, Master Circular No.DBR No. CID.BC.22/20.16.003/2015-16 dated 1.07.2015 (hereinafter referred as 'Master Circular').Vide letter dated 29.11.2017, the petitioners were directed to appear before the 'wilful defaulter' Identification Committee (in short ' Identification ...4...(iv) Deliberation of the respondent No.2 etc.The petitioners approached this court by way of W.P.No.1065/2018 interalia sought a direction as to permit them to be represented through their Advocate or CA at the time of personal hearing before the Identification Committee.Thereafter, the petitioner attended the meeting on 18.1.2018 along with an Advocate, but the Identification Committee did not permit the Advocate to represent the petitioners during personal hearing.The petitioners made a various correspondent to the committee, seeking permission to represent through lawyer / chartered accountant who are not partner, director, officer and employer of the petitioner No.1.Identification Committee has denied the representation through chartered accountant, lawyer etc but personal hearing was provided to the petitioners on 18.6.2018 and thereafter, vide impugned communication dated 23.10.2018, the respondents have taken a decision to declare the petitioners as 'wilful defaulter'.Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Wilful Default Review ...5...The Writ Appeal No.831/2018 filed against the order dated 19.6.2018 is also pending before this court.The respondents have also filed an application for vacating the stay along with the return.Shri Bagadiya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that respondents have wrongly issued show cause notice to the petitioners, when they did not borrow any loan.The credit facility availed by the petitioners was in the form of non-fund based credit facilities.No money came to the account of the petitioners from the respondent no.1/Bank.Since the funds were never disbursed to the petitioners there could never be any instance or occasion of routing any or stiffening or diversion of fund by the petitioner.The Term Loan Facility would involve disbursement of the fund in the petitioner's Bank account.The respondentno.1/Bank directly made payment by way of letter of credit to the foreign exporters for the supplied ...8...The goods are not in possession of the petitioners as the same are held up before the custom authorities.Therefore, this is no relationship of lender and borrower between them.The so called withdrawal of the amount of Rs.54.22 Crore was not received by the petitioners from the respondent No.1/bank -Bank.The respondent no.1/ Bank had no lien over the said amount therefore, the petitioner no.1 has wrongly been declared as 'wilful defaulter'.Shri Bagadiya, learned senior counsel further emphasised on the definition of 'wilful default' given in the Master Circular according to which the wilful default would be deemed to have occurred in the event of default in making repayment or non-utilization of the finance or the stiffening of the fund.The petitioner is not falling in any of the category as the petitioner neither received any amount / loan from the respondents nor diverted for other purpose.The amount has been utilized for the purpose of purchase of the machines.It is further submitted that as per the master circular isolated transaction should not be a criteria for categorizing the petitioner as 'wilful defaulter'.The petitioners were not provided proper personal hearing by the Identification Committee.The petitioner made several representations for providing opportuning of hearing through advocate or chartered accountant but same was illegally being denied.Hence, the petitioners have committed wilful default under the criteria 2.1.3.C. The respondent no.1/Bank paid the amount to the Foreign Exporters who supplied the machine to the petitioners but they have failed to utilise that machine therefore, indirectly, they did not utilise the fund for specific purpose, without honouring its commitment under the letter of credit the petitioners have siphoned its fund.Hence, committed wilful default.The petitioners were provided all the documents relied in the show cause notice.In view of the above Shri Sethi, learned Senior counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of the petition.In response to it the respondent no.1 has advised the petitioners to improve the OTS offer.Vide letter dated 28.8.2018, the petitioner no.1 has offered amount of Rs.13.00 Crores to be paid on or before 31.3.2020 as One Time Offer.By letter dated 13.9.2018 the Bank insisted for deposit of 5% of OTS amount upfront .In view of above respondents be directed to consider the offer of the petitioners before taking any penal consequential action against petitioners .That I have given a due consideration to the arguments ...13...The mechanism is provided for identification of 'wilful defaulter' by the identification committee.The order passed by committee is liable to be reviewed by another committee headed by superior officer named as review committee.Therefore, the RBI has decided to provide double check system by two levels of authorities before declaring any unit as 'wilful defaulter'.If the identification ...25...By impugned communication dt.23.10.2018, the name of the petitioner has been forwarded to CIC.So far the offer of One Time Settlement is concerned, the Bank has already initiated the proceeding for recovery before DRT, Jabalpur.If the petitioners are really serious for settlement dispute with the respondents - Bank then they may submit an offer before the DRT in a pending proceeding for which no direction is required from this court.The petition is accordingly, dismissed.No order as to cost.H I G H C O U R T O F M. P. B E N C H A T I N D O R E W.P. No.27421/2018 26.2.2019 Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Jerry Lopez, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.C. Singhal, Advocate for respondents.Reserved for orders.(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE W.P. No.27421/2018 11.03.2019 Order passed separately, signed and dated.Order post for 11.03.2019 (VIVEK RUSIA) | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,293,417 | Dismissing the Petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., todischarge the Petitioners herein from their charges, the present revision hasbeen filed.The deceased in this case one Ashok Kumar(first deceased) and Sumithra(second deceased) are husband and wife.The first Petitioner/A1 isthe brother of the first deceased Ashok Kumar, the second Petitioner/A2 isthe wife of the first Petitioner and third Petitioner/A4 is the mother-in-lawof the first petitioner, and there was yet another accused by name, GeorgeVirumandi/A3, who is the father of A2, father-in-law of A1, pending trial,he died and charges levelled against him stands abated.Earlier, a criminalcase has been registered by the respondent-Police for an offence underSection 309 IPC., subsequent to the death of the deceased, the offence wasaltered into under Section 306 IPC(2 counts).3.According to the prosecution, both the deceased and the Petitioners1 and 2 are living together in a joint family, and Petitioners 1 and 2 wereharassing the second deceased demanding dowry, hence the second deceased had given a complaint against the Petitioners, based on the complaint, a criminalcase was registered in Crime No.23 of 2011, for the offence under Sections420, 406, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Preventionof Woman Harassment Act, on the file of All Women Police Station,Usilampatti.Even thereafter, both the Petitioners 1 and 2 have harassed thesecond deceased.On the date of occurrence, the first and second petitionerhave called the first deceased over phone and told him that the seconddeceased is living in adultery and advised him not to live with her.Thesecond deceased over-heard the above conversation through a speaker in thephone.When she questioned the first deceased and the first deceasedcompromised her.In the above circumstances, being insulted by the words ofthe first and second Petitioner, she poured kerosene and set fire on her.Thefirst deceased, who was standing nearby tried to save her, and he alsosuffered severe burn injuries.They were admitted in the Government Hospital,Usilampatti on 10.04.2012, then they were referred to Government GeneralHospital, Madurai, where learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Madurai hadrecorded their dying declarations.In the dying declaration, the seconddeceased has stated that the first Petitioner herein has taken 70 sovereignsof gold jewels belonging to the second deceased, and also sold the jointfamily property and he has taken the entire money and has not repaid thejoint family loan.Apart from that, they have harassed the second deceasedand threatened her over phone, being insulted by the Petitioners herein, shecommitted suicide.The first deceased also given dying declaration statingthat it is an accidental fire, while the second deceased was cooking in thekitchen, she got fire in the saree,when he is trying to save her, he alsogot suffered severe burn injuries.Subsequently both of them succumbed tothe injuries.Thereafter, the offence was altered into under Section 120(b)and 306(2 counts) IPC, after investigation, the respondent Police filed afinal report against all the accused.Pending trial, third accused died.The Petitioners herein, who are arrayed as A1, A2 and A4 have filed anapplication before the Court below to discharge them from the above charges.The trial Court dismissed the same.Challenging the above said order, thepresent revision has been filed.N.Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent/Police and perused the recordscarefully.5.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted thatfrom the materials available on record, absolutely no material available tobring an offence under Section 306 of IPC, from the dying declarations andstatement of the witnesses, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC is not madeout.Apart from that, so far as the death of the first deceased is concerned,it is admitted that when he was trying to save the second deceased, hesuffered severe injuries,thereafter he succumbed to injuries.At any rate,the Petitioners are not the cause for the death of the first deceased.Hencethe charges are not maintainable against them for two counts under Section306 IPC.The learned counsel for the Petitioners would further submit thateven assuming there are some materials available as against A1 and A2,absolutely there is no material as against A4, who is only mother-in-law ofA1 and is living separately, she has nothing to do with the crime and she hasbeen falsely implicated in this case.Even in the earlier complaint given bythe second deceased, the third Petitioner/A4 was not shown as an accused.6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submitthat after the occurrence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Madurairecorded the dying declaration of the second deceased/wife, wherein, she hasclearly stated that because of the instigation of petitioners 1 and 2, shehad committed suicide.Apart from that, so far as the first deceased isconcerned, his death was caused while he was trying to save the seconddeceased.Hence the Petitioners are liable to be proceeded with for theoffence under Section 306 IPC(2 counts).The Court below after considering thematerials available on record carefully come to the conclusion that there areprima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to proceed with anddismissed their application to discharge from the charges, there is noillegality in the order passed by the Court below.7.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side andperused the materials available on record.8.It is seen from the records, FIR has beenregistered based on the statement given by the second deceased, in thatStatement, the second deceased made allegation against the petitioners 1 and2 stating that on the date of occurrence, both the first and secondpetitioners have called the first deceased over phone and told him that thesecond deceased is living in adultery and she had over-heard the samethrough speaker phone.Being insulted by the same, she has decided to commit suicide and poured kerosene and set fire on her.While so, the first deceasedcame to save her and he has also suffered severe injuries.When the deceasedwere admitted in the Government Hospital, Madurai, the learned JudicialMagistrate No.VII, Madurai recorded the dying declaration of seconddeceased, wherein also she has implicated both the first and secondpetitioners, stating that only because of their harassment, she has decidedto commit suicide.During investigation, the respondent police also recordedthe statement of the father of the second deceased, wherein, also he hasimplicated both the first and second petitioners, stating that only becauseof their harassment, second deceased has committed suicide.From the above, it could be seen that it is only because of the instigation of the first andsecond Petitioner, she has committed suicide and materials are available onrecord to make out a prima facie case as against the first and secondPetitioners.Sofar as the third petitioner/A4 is concerned, I have carefullygone through the complaint, dying declaration, and the statement recordedunder Section 161(3)Cr.P.C and no material is available on record to make outa case against her, hence the third petitioner/A4 is entitled for discharge.9.The next contention of the learned counsel for the Petitionersregarding the death of the first deceased was that only when the firstdeceased trying to save the second deceased, he suffered severe injuries andthen he succumbed to the injuries.Hence the Petitioners cannot be foundguilty for his death and they cannot be charged for the offence under Section306 IPC.But this contention cannot be considered at this stage as theactual cause of his death can only find out during the course of the trial.Hence the contention of the Petitioners cannot be countenanced.10.From the perusal ofentire material available on record, it could be seen that there are primafacie materials available to proceed against the first and secondPetitioners, and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to bedismissed as against the first and second petitioners and accordingly, theCriminal Revision Case stands dismissed as against the first and secondPetitioner.Since no material is available as against the thirdpetitioner/A4, she is discharged from the charge levelled against her.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Usilampatti.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,294,505 | Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.653/15 registered at Police Station Motinagar, district Sagar against them and co-accused persons namely Avtar Singh, Vinodpal, Ramesh Kumar, Rahul Singh, Balak Sahu and Ram Gaur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407, 420, 467, 472, 474, 411, 120-b, 201 and 34 of the IPC.As per the prosecution, informant Devendra Kumar deals in food grains in the Sagar city in the name and style of Rahul Enterprises.On 17.10.2015, he dispatched 420 bags of Urad weighing 210 quintal cost Rs.22,41,750/- to Vishal Traders, Jalgoan through a truck bearing registration No. MP-09-HG-2210 arranged by the New Subhash Goods Transport company, Sagar.The truck was not reached at the destination.Upon the investigation, it has been found that co-accused Avtar Singh, Vinod and Ramesh having entered into a criminal conspiracy committed theft of original documents of the truck bearing the aforesaid registration number.Later, they put on the aforesaid registration plate on their truck No. MP-09-HG-8986 removing the original number plate and got the Urad loaded in their truck with false registration plate.Having misappropriated the Urad, they sold 10 quintal each of the applicants at throw away price.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have been in custody since 28.01.2016 and that the charge-sheet had been filed.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,295,866 | And In the matter of : Anil Biswas & Ors.The State of West Bengal Opposite party.Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das For the petitioners.Ms. Ratna Ghosh For the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kalyani Police Station Case No. 449 of 2013 dated 09.09.2013 under Sections 323,354A, 380,504,506,120B of the Indian Penal Code, have come to this Court for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have seen the case diary.In our opinion, there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) 2 ( Ranjit Kumar Bag, J.) | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,299,991 | Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2005 at about 4:30 pm complainant Avdesh Tiwari (PW1) reached at Dhaula Kuan, Delhi from Bhiwani, District Alwar in a Haryana Roadways Bus.Page 1 of 9 Crl.A.No.1073/2008 He was to go Nizamuddin Railway Station.He asked certain passersby for direction.Appellant Mohd. Ramjani told him that he was also to go to Nizamuddin and asked the complainant to accompany him.While they were going on foot towards the jungle, the appellant robbed the complainant of his purse containing `765/- on the point of knife.The appellant threatened the complainant not to tell anyone about the incident and proceeded towards the jungle.The complainant came back some distance and raised alarm.On this, Satish Kumar, Constable who was on patrol duty in civil dress approached the complainant who narrated the incident to him.Thereafter, constable Satish Kumar and the complainant went towards the direction in which the appellant had gone and he was apprehended.Satish Kumar, Constable searched the appellant and recovered a churi as also the purse of the complainant containing `765/-.It is further the case of the prosecution that Constable Satish Kumar thereafter informed the police station about the incident on telephone pursuant to which DD No.14A(Ex.PW3/A) was recorded at P.S. Chanakya Puri at 6:10 pm.Copy of DD report was entrusted to SI Brij Mohan, who immediately reached at the spot where Constable Satish Kumar produced the complainant as well as the appellant before him along with the case property i.e. churi and the purse containing `765/-.SI Brij Mohan prepared the sketch of the knife (churi) Ex.PW2/A. He converted the knife as well as the purse containing money into separate sealed packets and took those packets into possession vide seizure memos Page 2 of 9 Crl.A.No.1073/2008 Exhibits PW1/B and PW1/C. He also recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A, appended his endorsement on the same and sent it to the Police Station for registration of case through Constable Rajbir.PW1 Avdesh Tiwari, complainant has reiterated his version given in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. He has testified that on 24.06.2005 at 4:30 pm, he came to Dhaula Kuan in a Roadways Bus.He was supposed to catch a train for Orissa from Nizamuddin Railway Station.He asked someone to seek direction.In the meanwhile, appellant told him that he was also going to Nizamuddin and asked him to accompany him.Thereafter, they proceeded towards the jungle on foot and on the way, the appellant robbed him of his purse containing `765/- on the point of knife.He has further stated that he raised alarm on which Constable Satish Kumar (PW2) came there and he narrated the incident to him.Thereafter, complainant Satish chased the appellant and apprehended him.He has further stated that on search, Page 3 of 9 Crl.A.No.1073/2008 one chura and a purse containing `765/- was recovered from the possession of the appellant.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)Mohd. Ramjani, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25.09.2008 and the order on sentence of the even date whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 07 years with fine of `100/-, in default of fine to undergo SI for the period of 07 days.FIR No.149/2005 under Sections 392 and 25 of the Arms Act was registered on the basis of said rukka.Other formalities of investigation were completed and thereafter, the appellant was challaned and sent for trial.Page 1 of 9Page 2 of 9In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined three witnesses.He has proved his complaint Ex.PW1/A and seizure memo of chura as also the seizure memo of purse containing money Exhibits PW1/B and PW1/C.Page 3 of 9PW2 Constable Satish Kumar has also corroborated the version of the complainant by stating that while he was on patrol duty, he noticed PW1 Avdesh Tiwari raising alarm.On this, he asked the complainant as to what had happened and the complainant told him that he was robbed by someone on the point of knife.Thereafter, he along with the complainant ran in the direction towards which the appellant had gone and apprehended him.He also stated that on search, one 'chura' and a purse containing `765/- was recovered from the possession of the appellant and the purse and the money was identified by the complainant as his own.PW2 further stated that thereafter he along with complainant and the appellant went to Taj Palace Hotel and intimated the Police Station from a telephone in a security guard room.Pursuant to said information, Investigating Officer reached at the spot and he produced the appellant along with knife and the stolen purse containing money before the Investigating Officer, who thereafter conducted necessary formalities of the investigation.PW3 SI B.M. Bahuguna is the Investigating Officer who has stated about the investigation conducted by him.The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version.Defence of the appellant is that the purse and Page 4 of 9 Crl.A.No.1073/2008 money belonged to him and he has been falsely implicated by the police with the help of the complainant, who is an informer.No witness in defence has been examined.Page 4 of 9The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found the testimony of the complainant and Constable Satish Kumar reliable and convicted the appellant and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC.Learned amicus curiae submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police with the help of the complainant by planting his own purse containing `765/- upon him as the stolen property.Learned amicus curiae submitted that in view of the aforesaid defence, the question for determination is whether the purse containing `765/- projected as the stolen case property belongs to the complainant or the appellant? In this regard, the testimony of Constable Satish Kumar (PW2) who, as per the case of the prosecution, apprehended the appellant and recovered the case property from him assumes importance.PW2 Constable Satish Kumar has testified that after apprehending the appellant, he casually searched him and found the purse containing `765/- and one diary which was recovered from his back pocket.Although the purse and `765/- have been produced Page 5 of 9 Crl.A.No.1073/2008 as case property, the diary has not been produced before the court.Learned amicus curiae submitted that aforesaid diary which was allegedly recovered from the purse is an important piece of evidence because the entries in the diary particularly regarding the name and address of the owner could have given a clue about the ownership of the case property i.e. purse and money and help the court to come to the conclusion whether the case property belong to the complainant or to the appellant.Leaned counsel submitted that withholding of such an important piece of evidence goes against the prosecution and benefit of the same must go the appellant.Page 5 of 9Learned amicus curiae submitted that doubt against the prosecution case is further compounded by the fact that the prosecution evidence regarding the time at which the complainant and others reached at the police station is highly contradictory.As per the prosecution case as revealed by DD No.14/A(Ex.PW3/A) and the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Inspector B.M. Bahuguna (PW3), telephonic information regarding the incident was received at the Police Station Chanakya Puri at 6:10 pm, pursuant to which the Investigating Officer reached at the spot where he seized the case property and recorded the statement of the complainant PW1 Avdesh Tiwari at 7:15 pm.The rukka was sent to police station at 7:45 pm.This version is contradictory to the version of PW1 Avdesh Tiwari who has stated in his cross-examination that the incident had taken place at 4:30 pm and he reached at Police Station at 5/5:30 pm.It is argued Page 6 of 9 Crl.A.No.1073/2008 that this contradiction raises a grave doubt against the correctness of prosecution story.Learned amicus curiae further argued that otherwise also, the prosecution story regarding the receipt of DD at 6:10 pm is highly doubtful because as per the version of the complainant as well as Constable Satish Kumar, the incident took place at 4:30 pm and the appellant was apprehended within minutes of the same.Thereafter, he was searched casually, which led the recovery one 'chura' and he was taken to nearby security guard of Taj Place from where Constable Satish Kumar telephonically informed the police station about the incident.If the aforesaid version is true, then the telephonic information ought to have been received at the police station within 15 to 30 minutes of the incident i.e. about 5:00 pm, instead of 6:10 pm.This circumstance also casts a doubt against the prosecution version.Learned APP has thus urged for dismissal of the appeal.Page 7 of 9I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.Further, PW2 Constable Satish Kumar has stated that he was carrying a wireless set.If this is true, then under the natural course of circumstances, PW2 Satish Kumar was expected to convey the information to the police station on the wireless set instead of going to Taj Palace Hotel to use telephone as claimed by him.This circumstance casts a strong doubt against the prosecution story.Constable Satish Kumar has tried to explain this infirmity by stating Page 8 of 9 Crl.A.No.1073/2008 that his wireless set was non-functional as its battery was not in working order but the explanation appears to be an afterthought and a make believe story.Page 8 of 9He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JULY 05, 2011 pst Page 9 of 9 Crl.Page 9 of 9 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,973,103 | (a) P.W.1 Sundararaj was residing in Door No.151, Nethaji Main Road,Udayampalayam, Coimbatore and was working at Gajini Mills.On 14.1.1996Sunday he was proceeding towards his work at about 8.30 P.M. P.W.2Dhanalakshmi who was also residing with parents at Udayampalayam, Ashok Nagarwas waiting at the Bus Stop at Udayampalayam at about 8.30 P.M. to do hernight shift work at Kannabiran Mills. A-2 was sitting in a Tempo withRegistration No.TNS 3697 which was parked nearby, looked at P.W.2 and asked"can you come with me".P.W.2 found P.W.1 crossing in his cycle andcomplained about the same.P.W.2 condemned the conduct of the accused.P.W.1took P.W.2 in his cycle.When P.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding, the same Van wasstopped across the Road. A-2 got down from the van, pushed down P.W.2 fromthe cycle, dragged her and asked P.W.2 to get into the van.When the same wasrefused, he attacked P.W.2 on her head with a stick.The van was taken throughVallalur and a mud Road.Afterwards, the van was stopped.P.W.2 was takendown.The second accused intimidated her by showing a knife and took her tothe nearby bushes.Under threat, P.W.2was forced to remove her clothes.When she refused, A-2 removed the same,pushed her down and committed rape on her.At that time, all the otheraccused came there in two motorbikes.A-1 and A-2 informed them that theycould take care of her and so saying they left the place.P.W.2 was asked tobe seated in the motorbike driven by A-3, and A-4 and A-5 proceeded in theother motorbike.After a five minutes ride, all of them got down.Underthreat, all the three accused committed rape on P.W.2 one after another.Theythreatened her with dire consequence if she revealed about the same.A-3 toA-5 took P.W.2 and dropped her at Souripalayam and fled away.P.W.2 walked akilometer to reach her residence and informed her mother and sister who wereavailable there.(b) On 14.1.1996, when P.W.16 Azhagupandy, Sub Inspector of Police wasin charge of the Peelamedu Police Station, on receipt of an intimation throughphone, he proceeded to the Bus Stop near Shyam School, Udayapalayam and gotEx.On the strength of Ex.P1 complaint, he registereda case in Crime No.66/96 under S.363 of I.P.C. He despatched the expressF.I.R. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court.On receipt of the copyof the FIR, P.W.17 T. Elangovan, Inspector of Police attached to B6 PoliceStation took up the investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence,prepared an Observation Mahazar and rough sketch, enquired the witnesses andrecorded their statements.On 15.1.1996, P.W.2 accompanied by her mother cameto the Police Station and gave a statement, which was recorded by P. W.17Inspector.The Investigation Officer recovered the clothes worn by the victimgirl at the time of occurrence under Ex.P.W.2 victim was sentfor medical examination.P.W.12 Dr.Kalanidhi examined P.W.2 on 15.1.96 at2.35 P.M., found two injuries on her and gave Ex.P18 wound certificate.On23.1.96 at 4.30 P.M., P.W.12 gave treatment to A-3 and issued Ex.P19 woundcertificate.The case was altered toS.366A and 376(g) of I.P.C. The express F.I.R. was despatched to theconcerned Judicial Magistrate's Court.On 22.1.1996 at about 3.00 P.M., hearrested the first accused.When he volunteered to give a confessionalstatement, the same was recorded in the presence of two witnesses.Theadmissible portion is marked as Ex.Pursuant to the statement, at about6.00 P.M., A-1 produced the tempo van, which was recovered under a mahazar.The second accused was identified by the first accused at about 6.00 P.M., andhe was also arrested.The second accused volunteered to give a confessionalstatement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses.Pursuant tothe same, the second accused produced wooden log and pen knife which wererecovered under a mahazar.The Investigation Officer examined the witnessesand recorded their statements.On 23.1.1996 at about 7.00 A.M. both A-1 andA-2 showed to the Investigation Officer the place where they committed thecrime.The Investigation Officer made inspection of the same, prepared Ex.P31rough sketch and recovered five rupee coin and broken glass bangles in thepresence of the witnesses.They areacquitted of the charges levelled against them.The appellants/accused 3 to 5are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required inconnection with any other case.Index : YesInternet : Yesvvk/nsvToThe III Addl.The III Addl.The Superintendent, Central Prison, CoimbatoreThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasO.Srinath,Govt.The Dy.Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4The Inspector of Police, B6, Peelamedu Police StationCoimbatoreThese appeals are preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against thejudgment made in S.C.No.24 of 1999 dated 30.03.2001 on the file of the learnedIII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore convicting the appellantsunder Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo RI for 10 yearsand fine of Rs.5000/- in default of fine they shall undergo one year R.I.V.Sai Ram in CA.389/01^For Respondent : Mr.O.Srinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side):COMMON JUDGMENT This judgment shall govern all the three appeals.The appellants who were ranked as A-3 to A-5 in a case of gangrape and who stood charged and tried for the offences under S.376(2)(g), 363and 109 of I.P.C. have brought forth this appeal, challenging the judgment ofthe trial Court finding them guilty under S.376(2)(g) of I.P.C. andsentencing them to undergo 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and indefault of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year.The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated as follows:(c) On 15.1.96, P.W.13 Dr.R.Sellammal examined P.W.2, gave Ex.P20certificate and opined that the victim was raped.The third accused was arrested that night, and themotorcycle what was used at the time of occurrence was also seized from him inthe presence of the witnesses.The third accused was sent for treatment tothe Government Hospital that day, and he was remanded to custody.(d) A requisition was given to the Judicial Magistrate for sending thesecond accused for potency test.He gave aconfessional statement, and the same was recorded, pursuant to which he showedthe place of second part of the occurrence, and he has also produced theknife, which was used by him at the time of occurrence.The fifth accused whowas arrested that day, gave a confessional statement, and the same was alsorecorded.Pursuant to the same, he produced the Susiki Motorcycle which wasrecovered in the presence of the witnesses.An observation mahazar and roughsketch were prepared in respect of the place of second part of the occurrence.A-4 and A-5 were sent for judicial custody.Pursuant to an order of the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, P.W.15 Mr.T.R.Gangadharan, J.M.IV, Coimbatore, conductedan identification parade on 5.8.96, wherein P.Ws.1 and 2 identified theaccused.The proceedings with respect to the identification parade is markedas Ex.On a requisition given by the Investigation Officer, all thematerial objects were sent for chemical analysis, and the report under Ex.P21was received.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18witnesses and marked 33 documents and 12 material objects.After the evidenceof the prosecution was over, the appellants/accused 3 to 5 were questionedunder S.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances in the evidenceof the prosecution witnesses, and they denied them as false.On the side ofthe defence, two witnesses were examined.After hearing the rival submissionsand scrutiny of the available materials, the Court below found theappellants/accused guilty of the said offences, convicted and sentenced themas stated supra.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant in S.A.No.347 of 2001, the learned counsel inter-alia made following submissions:There was absolutely no evidence on the side of the prosecution toconnect A3 to A5, who are the appellants herein, with the crime of rapealleged to have been committed on the person of victim.When the victim wastaken to the first Doctor on the very day, she has not spoken anything aboutthe sexual assault.It is true that theJudicial Magistrate has conducted the parade as per the procedure known to lawand filed his report and his proceedings.But, the lower court has lost sightof the evidence given by P.W.2 that all the appellants were shown nearby herhouse even before the time of identification parade.Under the statedcircumstances, the lower court should not have given any credence to such anidentification parade, which was done not only after four weeks delay, butafter they were properly and duly identified.6. Added further the learned counsel that the occurrence has takenplace during night hours and even as per the evidence of P.W.2, it was utterdarkness and no light.Under such circumstances, there was no possibility ofher witnessing any culprit, and hence, her evidence will not be given anysignificance and no evidentiary value could be attached.Under the statedcircumstances, the lower court without proper appreciation of the evidence hasfound them guilty and hence, the appellants/accused 3 to 5 are entitled toacquittal.The learned counsel appearing for the other appellants have alsoadopted the above said argument.Countering to the above contentions of the appellants' side, thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would urge that the appeals arebereft of substance and merits.The prosecution has clearly proved the guiltyof all the accused.The victim is aged about 16 years.The occurrence hastaken place, when she was stopped at bus stand and she has clearly spokenabout the occurrence.A case was also registered and investigation was on.She was kidnapped by A1 and A2, later A3 to A5 have also joined with them.She has also identified the knife before the Courtand she has also identified all the three accused/appellants herein before theCourt.9. Added further the learned Government Advocate that in theidentification parade, which has been procedurally conducted as required bylaw by the Magistrate, she has clearly identified all the accused.Apart fromthat there was a delay of four weeks, which would in no way cause anyprejudice and the delay so caused cannot be given any importance or weight.All the accused have been properly identified by the victim.Hence, the lowercourt was perfectly correct in convicting the accused as stated above.After careful consideration of the rival submissions and carefulscrutiny of the materials available, the Court is of the considered view thatthe court below only on the elaborate discussion of the evidence availableagainst the accused 1 and 2 has found the accused 1 and 2 guilty under Section366 and 376 r/w 109 I.P.C. and rightly too.P.W.2 in the course ofher evidence has categorically stated that the place where the occurrence tookplace was utter darkness.Apart from that it is pertinent to note that it wasnot the victim, who took the Investigating Officer to the place of theoccurrence to identify the same.From her evidence, it would be clear thatthe accused 3 to 5 were not known to her already, and hence, it would behighly improbable that she could have seen the appellants in a darkness.Oncethe victim could not have seen the appellants at the time of occurrence, itwould not be possible for her to identify the appellants thereafter.It remainsto be stated that P.W.13, who examined the victim, has categorically deposedthat P.W.2 has stated to her that on 14.1.199 6 at about 9.30 p.m. she wasraped by one known person at Vellaloor and the same has been recorded.P.W.13has clearly deposed the fact that the same has been recorded in Ex.P.20,Accident Register marked through her.Had it been true that as stated by theprosecution, P.W.2 was raped by A2 to A5, she would have definitely informedthe same to the medical examiner that she was raped by the appellants herein/accused 3 to 5 also.It remains to be stated that even according to theprosecution case she was first raped by the second accused and when she wasexamined by the Doctor, she informed that she was raped by only one person.Taking into consideration of the statement given by the victim and recorded byP.W.13 as stated above and the prosecution case that A2 committed sexualassault on her on 14.1.1996, it would be quite evident that there is allpossibility that the occurrence has taken place only as per the first part ofthe prosecution case.Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for theappellants, the trial court has relied on and given much weight to theidentification parade.It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 had nothing to sayabout the second part of the occurrence, in which, according to theprosecution, the appellants were involved.P.W.2 has clearly spokenin her evidence during cross examination that the appellants were shown nearbyher house on the road side, and hence, she was able to witness all of them.It is pertinent to point out that the identification parade has followed thesaid event.Therefore, once the appellants were shown to her even before theidentification parade coupled with the above fact that she could not have seenthe appellants at the time of occurrence, there was all possibility of her toidentify them before the identification parade.Under the statedcircumstances, the Court is unable to give any weight to the identificationparade.Needless to say that the evidence adduced by the prosecutionthrough identification parade has got to be corroborated.In the instantcase, this Court is of the clear view that the victim could not have seen theappellants at the time of occurrence and identification parade what was reliedon by the prosecution cannot be given any credence or the same cannot beconstrued to be a corroborative piece of evidence to the prosecution case.Needless to say that what are availablebefore the lower court was only the identification parade proceedings.TheCourt is of the view that the identification parade of the appellants at thattime will be of no significance and of no avail to the prosecution for thesimple reason that P.W.2 could not have seen the appellants at the time ofoccurrence and the appellants were also shown to her even before theidentification parade.Insofar as the appellants are concerned, the Court isof the considered view that the prosecution has not proved that theappellants/accused 3 to 5 have committed sexual assault on the victim.Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by thelower court against the accused 3 to 5 have got to be set aside.Insofar asthe judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 and 2 by thelower court is concerned, the same shall not be disturbed.The criminalappeals are allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed upon theappellants/accused 3 to 5 by the trial Court are set aside.Sessions Judge, CoimbatoreSessions Judge, Coimbatorethrough the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,311,572 | The Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed in C.A. No.10 of 2011 by order dated 12.03.2018 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, The Nilgiris, confirming the conviction andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 modifying the sentence passed in C.C.No.143 of 2009 by order dated 28.07.2011 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam.The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner alleged to have trespassed into the house on 24.09.2009 around 2.00 am and committed theft of copper wire, pipe, water metre, EB metre worth about Rs.3,000/-.After conducting investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet against the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.After filing of charge sheet, the revision petitioner was tried before the Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam in C.C.No.143 of 2009 and on 28.07.2011 the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 457 (1) and 380 of IPC each and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence, in default to undergo six month rigorous imprisonment for the each offences under Sections 457 (1) and 380 of IPC.During trial, to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution six witnesses P.W's.1 to 6 were examined, eight documents Ex's.P.1 to 8 and five material objects M.O's.1 5o 5 were marked.No oral and documentary evidence has been placed on the side of the revision petitioner.After completing trial and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, The Nilgris, confirmed the conviction for the offences under Sections 457 (1) and 380 of IPC but modified the sentence to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment instead of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment each for the offences of 457 (1) and 380 of IPC.Against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, The Nilgris, in C.A.No.10 of 2011 dated 12.03.2013, the revision petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there was a delay in filing the FIR.It was not properly explained on the side of the prosecution.Further the mahazar witnesses havehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 not at all supported the case of the prosecution and the finger prints has not tallied with the revision petitioner and there is no proof to show that the properties were belong to E.B.department.Moreover, the respondent police has foisted a false case against the revision petitioner.He would further submit that the respondent police has fixed the accused and foisted a false case and they filed the charge sheet without conducting any investigation.For statistical purpose, the revision petitioner was dragged into this case.Therefore, Judgment passed by both the Courts below is liable to be set aside.R.Ravichandran, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the revision petitioner is a habitual offender and he has got other previous cases and convicted in three cases.On reading of the evidences and witnesses, it has been clearly proved by the prosecution that the revision petitioner has committed offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.This Court does not find any perversity in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, The Nilgris.There is no merit in the revision and there is no sound reason to interfere with the Judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below.Since the Appellate Court has showed its leniency and modified the sentence, this Court does not find any mitigating circumstances to modify the sentence.Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.1.The Learned Sessions Judge, The Nilgiris2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.3.The Inspector of Police, G-1 Police Station The Nilgiris District.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 P.VELMURUGAN, J., Jer Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2013 | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,359,818 | The status report Bail Appl.Due to this encroachment, water drainage pipe of her residence was damaged and to make it functional, a temporary bent was fixed.Due to this bent, the drainage pipe often used to get blocked.In this regard, whenever her husband requested Amit to get their drainage pipe repaired but he refused and started mis- behaving with her husband.She further alleged, on 6-11- 2019, her husband went out for his work at Financial Commissioner, Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines at around 12 p.m. She was alone at home when Amit Aggarwal's wife came to her house and asked her to open the gate to which She asked her for what purpose she has come.She replied that she and her husband wanted to get their water tank repaired, kept at the terrace above her house.She called her husband through our landline phone and made Amit's wife to speak to her husband.During their conversation, her husband objected as she was alone at home and requested them to get our drainage pipe also repaired and get their water tank repaired thereafter and she went back.Thereafter, Amit along with his two associates namely Sheru and one another, and a plumber came to her house and started shouting at her to open the main gate installed in the stair case outside her house.Initially, she did not open the door as She was afraid that Amit would harm her.After few minutes, Amit again told her in a polite manner "AUNTY, DARWAZA KHOLO MUJHE BAS TANKI (WATER TANK) SAAF KARWANI HAI PLUMBER SE".Upon his assurance, she opened the door and Amit immediately pushed her and touched her chest and pushed her aside and ran above to the terrace Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 2 of 19 with his associates and plumber.Thereafter, she called her husband & apprised him about the incident.Her husband came & went to the terrace & requested the plumber to stop the work.Amit got infuriated on this and took the iron pipe (rod) and hit her husband on his left hand.Thereafter, Amit shouted "BUDHE! AAJ TO MAIN TERA KAAM TAMAAM KAR DUNGA .... CHUHE TUJHE CHHAT SE UTHAKAR NEECHE PHENK DUNGA".Further, Amit asked his associates for help and asked the plumber to give him Axe (AARI) & then Amit put that "AARI" on her husband's neck.Somehow, her husband got himself free & ran.Amit caught hold off her Husband & threw him on the floor &her husband fell on his back & hurt his spines badly.Her husband got up again & went down to the room & called the PCR at 2.16 PM& thereafter, called PCR 3-4 times.Thereafter, Amit's wife & mother came to the terrace & started abusing her & her husband.No.519/2020 Page 3 of 19operate in the investigation."The patient was admitted with above mentioned complaints.All relevant investigations were done.Above elbow slab given to left hand and dorsolumbar spine brace.No.519/2020 Page 15 of 19 06.11.2019 that they would give their written statement at the police station.Though the contention raised on behalf of the complainant was to the effect that the Aari and the pipe, the alleged weapon of offence had to be recovered and the names of the co-accused persons had to be ascertained from the applicant, the same can be done by the applicant joining the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency for which no custodial interrogation is required in view of the factum that the applicant has already during the course of investigation made a statement which had been produced before the Court to the effect that he was not aware of the whereabouts of the pipe returned by him to the plumber and was not aware of the whereabouts of the Aari and thus no useful purpose would be served by the arrest of the applicant.Reliance that has been placed on behalf of the complainant on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin (supra) to contend to the effect that in view of the weapon of offence having not been recovered, the investigation could not be hampered and it was essential for conducting of the proper investigation that custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required, it is essential to observe that in the instant case, the FIR has been registered on 10.01.2020 qua an incident of 06.11.2019 despite information having been given to the police on 06.11.2019 and despite the factum that the witnesses were available inclusive of the injured Deepak Kohli who along with his associates, his son Umesh did not choose to give any statement to the police on the date when he was medically examined soon after the incident when as per the MLC No.746748 dated 06.11.2019 of the Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 1 of 19 has been submitted on behalf of the State dated 20.02.2020 under the signatures of the SHO, PS Maurya Enclave, which reads to the effect:Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 1 of 19Complainant alleged in her complaint that accused Amit Aggarwal is her neighbor and stays in the same building at Ground floor.Amit has carried out illegal construction and has encroached upon the common area at the ground floor near stair case.After sometime, PCR came to their residence and took her husband to BSA Hospital, Sector- 6, Rohini, Delhi for treatment.As per the contents of the complaint & nature of injuries sustained by Deepak Kohli (Husband of complainant) a case vide FIR No. 11/2020 U /s 325/354/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Maurya Enclave and investigation was handed over to ASI Manoj Raghav.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 2 of 19During investigation, statement U / s 164 CrPC of the complainant was recorded in which she supported her allegations mentioned in FIR.Thereafter, accused Amit Aggarwal filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble District & Sessions Court, Rohini where both the parties submitted that they both wanted to settle the dispute mutually & the matter was sent to mediation centre, Rohini courts and accused Amit Aggarwal was directed to join the investigation.But the matter could not be resolved.On 09.02.2020, accused Amit Aggarwal was served a Notice u/s 41(A) CrPC to join the investigation, who joined the investigation on 10.02.2020 but did not co-Bail Appl.He did not reveal the facts regarding whereabouts of the weapon of offence........."Inter alia it has been stated through the status report that the applicant has not co-operated in the investigation and recovery of the weapon of the offence is yet to be made and that custodial interrogation of the applicant is also required in as much as the co- accused Sheru and one more person have not joined the investigation and were evading arrest.On behalf of the applicant it is strenuously urged that the FIR bearing No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave lodged on the complaint of the respondent no.2 herein was an aftermath to a cross FIR bearing No.10/2020, under Sections 323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which had been lodged on the complaint of Swati Aggarwal, wife of the present petitioner in which there were allegations of molestation and misbehavior towards her, as allegedly committed by Deepak Kohli, the spouse of the complainant of the FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave, in which the present application has been filed as well as against his two sons.It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that there had been misbehavior and molestation of Swati Aggarwal by Deepak Kohli, spouse of the complainant of the FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave and that the sons of Deepak Kohli being lawyers had been threatening the applicant and had been harassing him.As submissions that were made on behalf of the applicant were to the effect that the wife of the applicant had been misbehaved with by the respondent no.2 herein, it was considered essential to peruse the Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 4 of 19 statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, 1973 of Swati Aggarwal, complainant of the FIR bearing No.10/2020, PS Maurya Enclave, the copy of which statement has been submitted by the State on the record dated 01.02.2020 as recorded by the learned MM-02, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 4 of 19Through the said statement, it was stated by Swati Aggarwal that her father-in-law suffered a brain stroke about half a year before and had been hospitalized and she used to come to the hospital and Deepak Kohli, (spouse of the complainant of the FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave qua which the present application has been filed) used to reside on the 2nd floor of her house and used to follow her and used to make bad gestures and used to make dogs follow her despite knowledge that she was afraid of dogs and that 2/3 times he came to the bus stop and made an attempt for a conversation and that day itself, she had told Deepak Kohli that she would meet his wife in the evening to complain to her, to which, Deepak Kohli (spouse of the complainant of the FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave) stated that he would get Swati Aggarwal defamed, as a consequence of which, she was threatened and about one and a half month before, her father- in-law had expired and thus she had ignored the misbehavior of Deepak Kohli, which misbehavior continued to increase and he used to pass comments on her and once when she was 9 months in the family way, Deepak Kohli had broken an AC pipe and hit on the face of her mother-in-law.The said complainant Swati Aggarwal further stated through the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, 1973 that on 06.11.2019, when she had gone to the terrace as her husband Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 5 of 19 got the water tank repaired on the terrace and at that time, Deepak Kohli had come there and had assaulted the plumber and then took the pipe from the plumber's hand and assaulted her husband and on seeing this, she shouted and seeing her, Deepak Kohli told that she was the cause of the entire problem and that he would make her dance in the lane, would take off her pants and threatened her with dire consequences for her and her daughters and also threatened that her husband would also be sent to jail and that his sons were lawyers and that she could do nothing to him.As per the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, 1973 of Swati Aggarwal, her spouse i.e. the present petitioner had tried to save her and in the meantime Deepak Kohli (spouse of the complainant of the FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave) got pushed and fell down and as a consequence thereof Swati Aggarwal's husband telephoned the police at No.100 and the police came and took all of them to the hospital for getting the MLCs prepared and that there Deepak Kohli and his two sons had also assaulted her husband but he was safe.She also stated that Deepak Kohli also used to threaten her that he would get her husband killed and would defame her and she was afraid of going out and was unable to look after her two children.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 5 of 19It was also submitted on behalf of the complainant that the diagnosis conducted on 06.11.2019 at 6:42 pm at the Maharaja Agrasen Hospital brought forth clearly that as per the 'Principle -Diagnosis', it had been diagnosed to the effect 'Collapsed Fracture L1 Vertebrae with Fracture Body of 3rd & 4th Metacarpal Left Hand' .Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 7 of 19It was also submitted on behalf of the complainant that Deepak Kohli, the respondent no.2's spouse was admitted with a complaint of back pain, pain in the left hand, swelling in left hand and that even the data from Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital i.e. MLC No.746748 dated 06.11.2019 of 15 hrs, 18 minutes itself makes it apparent that Deepak Kohli had a swelling on the left hand with difficult movement of the limbs and tenderness on the back region and an abrasion on the right hand and as per the Discharge Summary of the Maharaja Agrasen Hospital dated 09.11.2019, Deepak Kohli had a swelling on the left hand, fracture on the 3rd & 4th metacarpal of left hand, collapsed fracture L1 vertebrae on left spine which brought forth the gravity of the offence and that coupled with the factum that two other co-accused in the instant case have yet to be apprehended, in the facts and circumstances of the case where the weapon of offence had not been recovered, the presence of the accused was necessary for the same as also for the identification of the two other co-accused Sheru and one more person.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 8 of 19The medical report refers to the gunshot injury on the body of the Appellant.FIR was also found promptly registered.The question as to whether the case will fall under Section 326 Indian Penal Code could be determined only after the investigation is completed.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail, opined that after having considered the medical report, the ingredients of Section under Section 326 Indian Penal Code have not been satisfied.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 9 of 19On behalf of the applicant, it has been submitted that he has two children and a wife to look after and that the younger child has been admitted to the hospital and thus it was submitted that he be released on bail.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 10 of 19Reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant on the Hospital Course in the Discharge Summary of the Maharaja Agrasen Hospital dated 09.11.2019, which reads to the effect:Patient put on conservative management.Now patient is being discharged in satisfactory condition advise given & explained to patient."The status report dated 13.03.2020 submitted by the State indicates that in relation to the FIR No.10/2020, PS Maurya Enclave lodged on the complaint of Swati Aggarwal, wife of the present applicant that there had been allegations of user of abusive language by Deepak Kohli, the spouse of the complainant Usha Kohli, complainant of FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave and by his sons and having abused the applicant and of having beaten her husband and during investigation the statements of witnesses were recorded and that the said Deepak Kohli, spouse of the complainant of FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave had been arrested and released on bail as the allegations were bailable in nature and that the role of the sons of Deepak Kohli was yet to be ascertained.During the course of submissions that were made on behalf of the State, it was submitted that the applicant had not been cooperating in the investigation and had not disclosed as to where the weapon of offence i.e. Aari and the pipe had been placed and that the applicant's assistance was also required for disclosing the names of the other persons involved in the alleged commission of the offence as alleged Bail Appl.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 13 of 19The statement of the complainant Usha Kohli under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, 1973 is indicated to have been recorded on 04.02.2020 wherein she has stated that on 06.11.2019 Swati had come to the 2 nd floor of her house and that Swati Aggarwal (i.e. the complainant of FIR No.10/2020, PS Maurya Enclave) lives on the ground floor and she asked the complainant Usha Kohli that they wanted to get the tank cleaned and she, Usha Kohli told her that she could do so when her i.e. the complainant Usha Kohli's husband returned and she also made Swati Aggarwal talk to her husband and asked her to come later and that it was about 12:30 pm at that time and thereafter at about 1:45 pm, Mr. Amit Aggarwal, husband of Swati Aggarwal, the present applicant came with a plumber and two other persons, one of whom, was claimed to be Sheru and he, Amit Aggarwal asked her repeatedly to open the door and she told them to come after her husband came and that on his repeated request, she opened the door and at that time, the applicant hit her on her chest and pushed her aside and she fell down and all those four persons went up and thus she telephoned her husband who came in 5-7 minutes and he went up when she had gone down to put off the gas in the kitchen and heard a noise and then she went up and saw that her husband had fallen down and he was bleeding from his neck and at that time, the present applicant took a rod in her presence and hit on the left hand of her husband, as a consequence of which, it was fractured and then when she went up, at that time, the applicant had an Aari/ axe in his hand and called her Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 14 of 19 budiya (an old woman) and told her to go back and told her that he would finish the old man i.e. her husband saying that he was like a mouse and he would throw him down and at that time, the other persons were standing there and at that time, the police was called by her husband and the police came and all those four persons and her husband were taken by the police to the hospital and since then, her husband has been bed ridden.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 14 of 19The FIR in the instant case i.e. FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave and the cross FIR No.10/2020, PS Maurya Enclave lodged on the complaint of wife of the present applicant however bring forth that the incident was clearly reported on 06.11.2019 itself but that none of the persons injured in the incident had given any statement qua the incident on 06.11.2019 to the IO i.e. no statements were given by Amit Aggarwal, the present applicant nor by Deepak Kohli, the spouse of the complainant Usha Kohli nor by Umesh, son of Usha Kohli and it was only after the opinion on the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Deepak Kohli was opined as being grievous, that FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave was got registered with the FIR No.10/2020, PS Maurya Enclave having been registered on the same date.The FIR No.10/2020, PS Maurya Enclave indicates that Amit Aggarwal, the present applicant and Deepak Kohli, the spouse of FIR No.11/2020, PS Maurya Enclave both stated on Bail Appl.Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 15 of 19Bail Appl.No.519/2020 Page 18 of 19 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,362,411 | Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.10/State.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality and propriety of order dated 23-5-2014 passed by 1st A.S.J., Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 183/2013 by which order dated 11-7-2013 passed by JMFC, Bhind in Complaint Case No. Unregistered/2012 was affirmed.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant had lodged a F.I.R. No. 47/2009 on 21-7-2009 alleging that at about 8-8:30 in the morning, due to old enmity, the respondents no. 1 to 9 surrounded the complainant and Shyam Singh.The respondents no. 1 to 9 were armed with deadly weapons.They started assaulting the complainant and Shyam Singh.The complainant and Shyam Singh tried to run away and when they reached near the fields of Purandar, then his father Amar Singh and his brother Kripa Shanker also came there to intervene.At that time, Narendra and Lakhan fired at them as a result of which his father succumbed to the injuries.The police started investigating the matter 2 M.Cr.C.No.9806/2014 (Roop Singh v. Naresh Singh & Ors.) and after concluding the investigating came to the conclusion that in fact it was the applicant Roop Singh himself who had shot his father twice with an intention to falsely implicate the respondents no.1 to 9 and ultimately filed the charge sheet against the applicant Roop Singh and other persons.The applicant and other co-accused persons filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court which was registered as M.Cr.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.It appears from the facts of the case, that initially, the applicant lodged a F.I.R. against the respondents no. 1 to 9 alleging that Naresh and Lakhan had caused gun shot injury to his father Amar Singh as a result of which he expired.It is also clear from the record, that the applicant and others had challenged the charge sheet which was filed against them and the said application was dismissed by this Court with an observation that the investigation conducted by the police was fair and impartial.All the arguments to challenge the correctness of the charge sheet, advanced by the Counsel for the applicants were in fact were already raised in M.Cr.C. No. 3917/2010 which was dismissed on merits by a detailed order.In the said case, report was made against 9-10 persons but police filed chargesheet only against three persons.The allegations in the complaint were different from that of allegations made in police case and the accused persons were also more. | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
1,973,651 | The facts and the circumstances under which these two petitions have been filed are briefly as follows:--The petitioner is a Limited Company carrying on business of the manufacture of fountain pen in having its registered office at No. 37-L. Mount Road, Madras-32 of which T.V. Advani is the Managing Director, who filed affidavits in support of the petitions.In the Office of the petitioner.21 Clerks and others are employed Adjacent to the office is the petitioner's factory in which 31 workmen are employed.On the 18th September.1967, twenty-seven persons mentioned in the affidavit assembled inside the factory and refused to carry out their duties at the instigation of the Union representing the said twenty-seven persons and commenced what is called "stay-in-strike".There is only one shift in the petitioner's factory which is from 8 A. M. to 5-30 P. M. on week days and 8 A.M. to 1 P M. on Saturdays.Just before the closing hours of the factory on the 18th September, 1967, the striking workmen were requested by the petitioner's representatives to leave the factory premises as they had no authority to remain in the factory after working hours and this request was made as the petitioner wanted to lock up the factory premises after working hours, in which valuable stock-in-trade, machinery etc. had been kept.As the said twenty-seven persons refused to vacate the factory premises, the petitioner posted its watchman to safeguard the property of the Company.It is stated that eighteen of the workmen were willing to continue to work; but they were prevented by the striking workmen from carrying out their duties by obstructing them by surrounding the machinery.The striking twenty-seven persons on 19th September.1967 obstructed a lorry laden with packing cases consigned to the petitioner from entering the factory and the lorry had to return, with the packing cases.On the 21st September 1967, seven female employees were prevented from leaving the factory and were "gheraoed" for nearly 2$ hours.On the 22nd September, 1967, some of the striking workmen surrounded the petitioner's Accountant Mr. R.D. Chellappa and abused him in an attempt to intimidate him,The employees entered the office and were occupying their seats; but were refusing to work during office hours.The strike was wholly confined to the regular working hours.It is alleged that the striking workmen have been threatening their co-workers and preventing them from carrying out their duties by obstructing them and by surrounding the machinery.I am inclined to accept that the incidents mentioned above had occurred in the factory as the Inspector of Police to whom letters were addressed had not controverted the allegations made in the petitioner's affidavit.ORDER Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.The facts and the reliefs prayed for in both these petitions being substantially the same, they are dealt with together The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. against the respondents, the Commissioner of Police, Madras, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Southern Range, Madras, praying for a direction to the respondents to do their duty and evict the labourers (27 persons) from the factory premises of the petitioner at the close of working hours.The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate directions to the respondents, praying for the same relief as in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.It is stated that the Writ Petition has been filed by way of abundant caution in case it was felt that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition could not afford an adequate remedy.The petitioner filed affidavits in support of both the petitions.The second respondent filed counter-affidavits.The persons who were sought to be removed from the factory premises were impleaded as parties to both the petitions on their applications and they filed their affidavits.As no effective action was taken by the police, the petitioner filed a suit O.S No. 3801) of 1967 before the 1st Assistant City Civil Judge.Madras, for an injunction (a) restraining the striking workmen from obstructing the petitioner's lawful discharge of duties and preventing its loyal workers from carrying on their duties; (b) restraining the said persons from interfering with the petitioner's business, and (c) for a direction to the said twenty-seven persons to leave the petitioner's factory premises after the working hours.Pending suit, on the application filed by the petitioner, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the striking workmen from collecting themselves in the premises, after the working hours.On 22-9-1967, at about 5-15 p.m. the bailiff of the City Civil Court went to the petitioner's factory premises and in the presence of the Police Constables sought to serve the order of interim injunction on the striking workmen.As they refused to receive the order the bailiff affixed a copy of notice on the notice board of the factory.The striking workmen, even after the order of interim injunction was brought to their notice, refused to leave the factory premises after the working hours.Thereupon, the Managing Director of the Petitioner-Company contacted the first respondent and requested him to give assistance to the petitioner in evicting the striking workmen from the factory premises.The first respondent referred the petitioner to the second respondent and the second respondent had declined to assist the petitioner.The complaint sent to Inspector of Police on the 27th September, 1967 discloses in detail, several incidents that occurred in the factory premises.The petitioner had requested the Inspector of Police to take appropriate action against the striking workmen who intruded on his property by scaling compound walls.Indian Penal Code).In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated in respect of the striking workmen remaining in the factory premises after working hours, it was purely a labour problem governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. In respect of the service of order of interim injunction, the second respondent stated that the striking twenty-seven workmen refused to receive the order of Court from the bailiff and a copy of the order was affixed on the notice board of the factory.It is also stated that the second respondent posted two police constables to do bandobust along with the armed reservemen at the factory premises to prevent any breach of peace which was likely to occur.He gave directions to the Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, to keep close watch over the movements and activities of the striking workmen.The second respondent further stated that he was visiting the factory periodically and found that the workmen had not resorted to any violence or acts of intimidation.According to the second respondent, the striking workmen had not committed any cognizable offence to warrant the interference by them.They had not committed the offence of criminal trespass and there is no duty cast upon the respondents to evict the striking workmen from the factory premises after the working hours it is also contended that as the matter has been taken to a Civil Court and as it is sub judice the police cannot take any action.On behalf of the striking workmen affidavit was filed by one S. Sethuram, the Secretary of the Chelpark Employees' Union and one of the striking workmen.They refused to receive the order of injunction sought to be served on them.They an direct the striking workmen squating within the factory premises after working hours to disperse and remove them from the premises of the factory.It is a matter for the police in this case to decide what they should do and what course they should adopt in order to give an effective Relief to the petitioner.It is no doubt true that the capital and labour should contribute equally for its development and progress and the rights and interest of both the employer and employees should be protected.Otherwise, there will be chaos and confusion in the country affecting the normal avocations of people.The powers and duties of the police are directed, not to the interest of the police, but to the protection and welfare of the public.As I have found in this case that the striking workmen remaining after working hours in the factory premises committed the offence of criminal trespass and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, the respondents are directed, to disperse and remove such of those persons who remain in the said premises after working hours, if necessary with the assistance of their subordinates, and take such appropriate action as they may think fit in the circumstances of the case.On the view I am thinking in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.With these observations. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,365,995 | On the other hand, Mr. Maity, leaned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the appellant who claimed to be a "Good Samaritan" was, in fact, "wolf in sheep's clothing".He wanted to sexually exploit the victim and, therefore, had thrown acid on her face to jeopardise any future prospect of marriage.Thereafter, taking advantage of the penurious state of the victim, he kept her in his control.P.W.1, deposed that on 30.11.2010 at about 9.30 A.M., the appellant had thrown acid on her face at Maslandapur Railway Station.The appellant's daughter Papia Mallick was her classmate and the appellant used to visit their house.She completed her graduation in the year 2011 and her marriage was arranged with one Chandranath Haldar of Dum Dum.In order to prevent her to marry Chandranath, the appellant threw acid on her face.She was admitted at Kalpataru Hospital, Barasat and thereafter at S. S. K. M. Hospital, Kolkata and Calcutta Medical College and Hospital.Subsequently, she was admitted in a Nursing Home at Ikbalpur, Kolkata and had been treated at Parkside Nursing Home, Gariahat, Kolkata.At the time of throwing acid, the appellant threatened her that if she disclosed the incident he would kill her.She did not inform the police.The appellant used to visit her house in the absence of her parents although she asked him not to do so.On 22.11.2011, she had gone to visit Dr. Arindam Sarkar at Deshapriya Park, Rashbehari, Kolkata for her treatment.She was accompanied by her mother and sister.Near the doctor's chamber the appellant was standing with his vehicle along with 2/3 persons.The appellant forcibly pushed them inside the vehicle and took them to Digha where they were confined in a room.On the next day, her mother rang up her father by using the phone of a hotel staff that they were confined in a hotel at Digha.Her mother told her father not to inform the police otherwise the appellant would kill them.On 24.11.2011 at about 10.30 A.M. the appellant took them a vehicle and reached Kolaghat.The appellant assaulted and threw her mother and her sister out of the vehicle at Amdanga Kachari More.Thereafter, she was taken to a flat situated at Sodepur.The appellant threatened to kill her and confined her in the flat for 9 days.She was forcibly raped.The appellant also told her that he would throw acid on her face.On 2nd January, 2012 her mother rescued her from the flat with the help of police at around 2/2.30 A.M.In cross-examination she stated that the appellant threw acid while she was standing at the bus stop at Maslandapur.She did not disclose the name of the accused at the medical institutions where she was treated.She was confronted with regard to the contradictions between her deposition in court and the first information report.P.W.2, Dipak Mondal, is the father of the victim.He deposed that on 30.11.2010, the appellant had thrown acid on his daughter at Maslandapur Railway Station.His daughter was treated at various medical institutions.The accused threatened to destroy his family if she lodged complaint.On 22.12.2011, the appellant forcibly took his daughters and wife to Digha when they had gone for treatment of P.W.1 at Deshapriya Park, Kolkata.On 23.12.2011 his wife informed him that they have been forcibly taken to Digha and requested him not to inform the police.On the next day, his wife told him that she and her younger daughter were forcibly thrown out of the car at Amdanga Kachari More.Thereafter, the appellant threatened him not to inform the police otherwise he would kill his daughter.On 25.12.2011 he informed the village people regarding the incident.On the advice of villagers, he contacted the Superintendent of Police, North 24-Paraganas, Barasat and narrated the incident to him.S. P. sent them to another police officer to recover his daughter from the flat at Sodepur.On 02.01.2012 at about 2/2.30 A.M victim was recovered.On the next day, Jamaluddin's brother, Tajuddin Mallick and Nizamuddin Mallick came to Amdanga Police Station and talked with the police officer who recovered his daughter.Police officer brought out a blank sheet and compelled the complaint to write as per his dictation.After arrest, the appellant and his men set fire on his agriculture produce and pan barad.P.W.3, Smt. Manjushree Mondal, is the mother of the victim.She deposed that on 22.12.2011 when she along with her youngest daughter Tripti had accompanied Dipti (P.W.1) to the chamber of Dr. Arindam Chakraborty at Deshapriya Park, Kolkata for treatment, she saw Jamaluddin and 2/3 men were standing in front of the chamber in a black vehicle.They forced them to board the vehicle and took them to Digha.On the next day, she informed her husband over telephone and requested him not to disclose the same to anybody.They were confined in a room in the hotel.On the next day, they returned in the vehicle of the appellant and at Kachari More, Amdanga she and her younger daughter were forcibly pushed out from the vehicle.He threatened over telephone not to disclose the incident to anyone.Subsequently, she informed their neighbours.As per advice of local people, they met Superintendent of Police, North 24-Paraganas, Barasat who sent them to one police officer, Joy Biswas and thereafter to another police officer viz., Anupam Chakraborty.On the night of 02.01.2012 at 2.30 A.M., Anupam Chakraborty and other police officers recovered her daughter from a flat at Sodepur.She had been detained for 8/9 days and repeatedly raped by the appellant.Subsequently, Tajuddin and Nizamuddin, two brothers of the appellant came to Amdanga police station and gave a blank paper to P.W.2 and asked him to write as per his dictation and P.W.1 to sign the same.She further deposed that Jamaluddin's daughter Papia Mallick is the class-mate of the victim, The appellant had made arrangements for her engagement as a cook in ICDS Project.Two/three months later, he raped her by showing a pistol.She had narrated the incident to the police and Magistrate.In cross-examination, she, however, admitted that Jamaluddin provided her mother with work in ICDS Project.P.W.s 1 to 8 and 12 are local people who, however, were declared hostile and had cross-examined in respect of their previous statement from which they had resiled.P.W.15, Shyamal Kumar Mondal deposed that he took the victim to Gobardanga Primary Health Centre on 30th November, 2010 for treatment after she had suffered acid burn injuries.He further deposed that the victim had told him that the appellant had thrown acid on her body.P.W.16, Haradhan Mondal deposed that upon hearing that Dipti had suffered injuries he along with Shyamal Mondal went to the place of occurrence and took her to Gobardanga Primary Health Centre.On being asked by Shyamal, the victim said that Jamaluddin had thrown acid at her face.P.W.17, Dr. Arindam Sarkar deposed that he is an associate professor of plastic surgery at SSKM Hospital.On 6th December, 2010 he examined victim-Dipti Mondal.He proved his prescription dated 6th December, 2010 (Exhibit-4/20).He proved the medical reports.He proved the bed head ticket.In cross-examination, he stated that the patient did not make any statement to him as to who threw acid on her body.P.W.18, Santanu Ganguli was the Manager of Narayanan Speciality Hospital, Barasat.Patient suffered from acid burns.He proved the patient's Admission Form (Exhibit-9).In cross-examination, he stated that there is no history of assault in the Discharge Risk Bond Clinical Summary (Exhibit-10).P.W.19, Sandip Karmakar took photographs of the victim on 09.05.2012 and proved the said photographs.P.W.11, Soumen Mukherjee deposed that he was an A.S.I. of police who was a member of Special Operation Group, Barasat.He along with S.I., Anupam Chakraborty, the then Officer-in-charge of S.O.G., Barasat, Constable- Tuhin Subhra Raha, Constable-Bikash Mondal and Constable- Goutam Roy arrested a male and a female from Rita Apartment and handed them over to S.I., Amalendu Mondal.He identified the appellant in court.He stated that Dipak Mondal made a phone call at S.O.G. office disclosing that his daughter, Dipti Mondal had been kidnapped by someone.P.W.13, Asit Bez received written complaint from Dipti Mondal at the police station.He filled up the formal FIR./307/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years more for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.All the sentences to run concurrently.Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that the victim is a young girl aged about 22 years who hailed from a needy family.Four years prior to the incident the appellant, a married man and the father of the victim's friend, sought to take advantage of their poverty and prior to establish a relationship with her.Her parents disliked such advances and requested the appellant not to come to the house.On 30.11.2010 acid was thrown on the face of the victim and she was severely injured.On the pretext of helping with her treatment, the appellant again entered into her life.Unable to fund the expensive treatment, father of the victim was compelled to agree to his assistance.On 22.12.2011, when the victim along with her mother and sister had gone to the chamber of Dr. Arindam Sarkar at Deshpriya Park, Rash Behari, Kolkata for her treatment, the appellant met them took them for a trip to Digha.On 24.12.2011 on their way back the appellant forcibly threw out the mother and sister of the victim from the vehicle on Krishnannagar Road at Kachari More under Amdanga Police Station.Thereafter, the appellant took the victim to an empty flat of his friend owned by Subhas Dutta and detained her.On the false promise of marriage, the appellant cohabited with her.Initially, the victim kept quiet but when she realised that the appellant did not intend to marry her she informed the incident to her parents who rescued her with the help of police.On the next day, that is 02.01.2012 the victim lodged complaint resulting in registration of Amdanga Police Station Case No. 3 dated 03.01.2012 under Sections 365/366/ 363/506/323/376 of the Indian Penal Code.In conclusion charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the case was transferred from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, North 24-Parganas to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24-Paganas, Barasat for trial and disposal of the case.Charges were framed under Sections 307/363/ 365/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charges.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.It was the specific defence that the appellant that he had been falsely implicated in the instant case as he had demanded a share from the compensation paid to the victim due to her acid burn injuries as he had borne her medical expenses.He, however, did not examine any witness to probabilise such case.In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by judgment and order dated 27.09.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.He had taken the victim and others to Digha and on the way back the appellant abducted her to an apartment where she was ravished on the false promise of marriage.Victim informed her parents who with police assistance recovered her from the said apartment.Hence, the evidence on record clearly establishes the guilty of the appellant and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.In cross-examination, he stated that Dipti had come to the police station with the written complaint.P.W.10, Dr. Asraf Ali held medical examination of the victim.After her recovery the victim told him that the appellant took her away with some persons on 27th December, 2011 to a place where she was confined and had intercourse with her against her will 3-4 times.He examined the victim.However, no conclusive evidence of intercourse on the victim.He proved the medical report.P.W.20, Amalendu Mondal deposed that he examined the complainant and arrested the appellant.He had also examined other witnesses.He drew sketch map of the P.O. with index near Kachari More under Amdanga P.S. He forwarded the victim and her mother for recording statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He held medical examination of the victim.He submitted charge-sheet.In cross-examination, he stated that he did not examine Dr. Arindam Sarkar.He did not collect the number of the Scorpio vehicle.The victim did not tell him that the accused had threatened to kill her at the time of throwing acid.Dipak Mondal did not tell him that the accused threw acid on the face of the victim.P.W.21, Monirul Islam Sarkar seized the medical papers relating to the treatment of the victim and exhibited the same in the instant case.He submitted supplementary charge-sheet.From the evidence on record it appears that the daughter of the appellant, Papia Mallick and the victim were classmates.As a result, the appellant had been on visiting terms with the family of the victim.The appellant also appears to be more economically sound than the family of the victim.On 30th December, 2010 the victim suffered acid burn injuries while she was standing at Maslandapur Railway Station.She was taken to Gobardanga Primary Health Centre and thereafter to Kalpataru Hospital, Barasat.From Kalpataru Hospital she was shifted to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata.It is the version of the victim that the appellant who had made advances towards her and had thrown acid on her face on 30.12.2010 in order to spoil her matrimonial prospects so that he could enjoy her.Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has criticised such evidence of the victim on the ground that she never came out with such story before the medical personnel at the aforesaid medical institutions.There is no reference to the name of the appellant as an assailant in the medical reports exhibited in the instant case.FIR is also silent with regard to the role of the appellant in causing injury on the victim.On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the State drew my attention to the fact that P.W.s 2 & 3 claimed that the FIR had been lodged under the dictates of the brothers of the appellant.In her subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the victim named the appellant as the person who threw acid on her.P.W.s 15 & 16 also stated that the victim had divulged the name of the appellant while she was being taken to Gobardanga Primary Health Centre for treatment.Although some evidence has come on record from the mouths of P.W. 2 & 3 that FIR was registered under the dictates of the brothers of the appellant at the police station, I note that P.W.1 has not supported such story.She unequivocally admitted that she had herself recorded the written complaint at the police station and her version is corroborated by ASI of Police (P.W.13) who received the written complaint at the police station and stated that the victim had come with a drafted complaint.Hence, I am unable to accept the prosecution story that the written complaint was prepared at the police station under the dictates of the family members of the appellant, as alleged.Perusal of the aforesaid written complaint which is treated as FIR (Exihibit.1) shows that the victim did not divulge the name of the appellant as one who threw acid on her face.She is also silent with regard to the fact that the appellant had subsequently confided in her about such incident.Perusal of the medical reports also show that the appellant had not been named as the person who threw acid at the victim.On the other hand, there is ample evidence on record that after the incident the appellant used to visit the house of the victim and also extended financial assistance relating to her treatment.In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I am unwilling to accept the prosecution story that it was the appellant who had thrown acid at the victim in order to mar her matrimonial prospects in future so that he could sexually exploit her.I am also unwilling to accept the prosecution case to the extent that the appellant had forcibly abducted the victim with her mother (P.W.3) and sister (P.W.4) and had taken them to Digha and had thrown out the said witnesses from the vehicle on their way back at Kachari More, P.S.-Aamdanga, as alleged.Had it been so the said witnesses would have immediately reported the matter to the police.Learned Counsel for the State argued that in the face of threats held out by the appellant the prosecution witness could not muster up courage to lodge complaint immediately.It is most improbable that P.W.s 3 and 4 would keep quiet when they were allegedly thrown out of the vehicle and the victim was taken away by the appellants to an unknown place.On the other hand, it appears to be more credible that the parties had consensually gone to a trip to Digha and thereafter on the way back after dropping P.W.s. 3 and 4 at Kachari More the appellant had taken away the victim to a flat at Sodepur.It is from this juncture that the conduct of the appellant requires deeper scrutiny in order to determine his culpability.The appellant had extended his helping hand to the victim and her family at an hour of need and had befriended them.When the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are examined from the said premise, it is clear why neither the family members nor the victim initially protested when she was taken away by the appellant to the flat at Sodepur.The fact that the victim had to be recovered from the apartment at Sodepur by police intervention leaves no doubt in my mind that she was not a consenting party and had been wrongfully detained and ravished against her will in the said premises.Defence of the appellant that the case had been falsely foisted upon him as he had demanded a share of the compensation money awarded to the victim on account of her acid burn injuries is rendered improbable in the face of the recovery of the victim from the apartment where she was kept confined by the appellant.The aforesaid circumstances lend credence to the version of the victim the appellant had forcibly ravished her.Learned Counsel for the appellant sought to improbabilize such version on the ground that there was no injury on her private parts and no conclusive opinion of rape could be expressed by P.W.17 who medically examined the victim.The victim had been seduced and wrongfully confined in a room against her will.She was repeatedly ravished by the appellant on a number of days.The victim was in the clutches of the appellants and it was beyond her capacity to resist the appellant as any resistance may have endangered her own life.Helpless surrender of a victim to her sexual predator cannot be construed as consent and absence of injuries in her private parts in the factual matrix of the case does not militate against her version of lack of consent.On the other hand, the fact that she had been wrongfully confined in the apartment by the appellant and had been recovered through police intervention strongly corroborates the prosecution case that the victim was wrongfully detained and sexually exploited in the said apartment against her will.When the Court is called upon to decide whether cohabitation between two persons was consensual or not, assessment of attending circumstances touching the free will of the victim are relevant to come to a finding whether the victim consented to such intercourse or not.Conduct of the appellant in keeping the victim in confinement against her will is therefore a strong circumstance which improbabilizes any consensual cohabitation and supports the prosecution version of forcible rape.Mere close and intimate relationship between the victim and the appellant as may be evident from their social association including extending of financial aid also does not militate against the truthfulness of the prosecution case.It is not uncommon that sexual aggressors are ordinarily persons who are known to the victim including family members.National Crime Records Bureau reports consistently indicate that more than 90% of sex survivors are victims of sexual exploitation by known persons including relations.The instant case is a classic example where the appellant being a moneyed person extended financial support and aid to the family of the victim in order to create an impression of trust in him and thereby seduced the victim to accompany him to the apartment where she was wrongfully confined and sexually assaulted.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, while I am inclined to acquit the appellant of the charges under Section 326/363 of the Indian Penal Code as the victim was not a minor and the evidence that he threw acid on her appears to be an afterthought, I am inclined to believe the prosecution case of abduction and rape of the victim and hold that the appellant is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 365/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code.I am, however, in agreement with the learned Counsel for the appellant that trial Court was wholly unwarranted in convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code which had not been enacted at the time of occurrence.Accordingly, I record an order of conviction against the appellant under sections, 365, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the appellant had not thrown acid on the body of the victim.No doubt, he had ensnared the victim through a false show of compassion and support in order to sexually exploit her.But keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent, I am inclined to modify the sentences imposed upon him and I direct that the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for five years more for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.All the sentences to run concurrently. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,371,103 | C.R.M. No. 6809 of 2017 p.d.In re:- Titu Sk.@ Titu .... Petitioner.Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 12.7.2017 in connection with Ranitala Police Station Case No.307/14 dated 14.10.2014 under section 363/366/370A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 / 5 Immoral Trafficking Act.Ms. Sutanuka Chowdhury ... For the petitioner.Md. Anowar Hossain ... For the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is in custody for 83 days.Investigation is over and charge sheet has been submitted.The claim of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that some other co-accused standing on the same footing with the present petitioner, are on bail granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on March 17, 2017 in connection with CRM No.1907 of 2017, has not been disputed from the side of the State.We have gone through the case diary and find no valid reason to take a different stand.Having regard to above, we allow the petitioner's prayer for bail on parity.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be 2 local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalbagh, Murshidabad.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,376,952 | And In the matter of : Pintu Biswas.The State of West Bengal Opposite party.Mr. Kanailal Dutta For the petitioner.Mr. Dipankar Paramanick For the State.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 364 of 2013 dated 26.06.2013 under Sections 4448, 354,504,506 of the Indian Penal Code, has come to this Court for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have seen the case diary and the statements of the complainant.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. 2 (Nishita Mhatre, J.) ( Kanchan Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,973,814 | (2) Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petition arc as under: that the petitioner is an Indian citizen.He had all along been living and working in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. He was the Chairman of Esal Group of Companies.RC 1/85 Cir (11)/CBI under Sections 420,468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly defrauding the Indian Banks in United Kingdom.Another accused known as Charles Sobhraj was also at that time in Tihar Jail.The said accused i.e. Charles Sobhraj was transferred to Jail No.3 on April 28,1985 in Tihar Jail.The petitioner did not escape.However, he was charged to have been involved in the jail break case Along with Charles sobhraj and others.It was alleged against the petitioner that it was he who helped and financed the escape of Charles Sobhraj and others.The petitioner wanted to get him liquidated.It was in this connection that the petitioner sought the help of Charles Sobhraj who was not found lacking and agreed to do the needful.Both of them were in Tihar jail at the relevant time.The petitioner is alleged to have conspired and actively helped in the escape of Charles Sobhraj and others from the lawful custody and thereby committed offences under Sections, referred to above.(25) The petitioner joined the said conspiracy as he has got his own axe to grind.The petitioner was facing trial in a bank fraud case Along with one Amarjeet Singh.One Swami Satsangi was an important witness in the said case.The petitioner wanted the liquidation of the said witness.He issued in connection therewith a slip whereon he jotted down 'Please pay to the bearer of this letter Dollars 20,000, many thanks Raj'.The same slip was handed over to one Gordon Green all .Gordon Green all was to execute the said plan with the help of one Keith William in Australia.He was to receive the said 20,000 dollars by way of part payment by producing the same slip before Mr.Buthoria who was one of the Directors in Esal Commodities Ltd. in London (a firm owned by the petitioner).Gordon Green all is said to be an international gun runner.JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present petition has taken exception to the orders dated January 18,1994 passed by Shri L. D. Mual, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he framed charges against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Sections 224/223/129/328; 328 read with Sections 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; and the order dated January 20,1994 where through the learned additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 224 read with Sections 109 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.In this connection, F.I.R. No. 139 was lodged with police station Janakpuri against 23 accused persons, including the petitioner.Later on a charge sheet was filed after the completion of investigation against 23 persons, including the petitioner on June 3,1986 in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.In fact, the petitioner never stayed even for a single day in the said Ward with Charles Sobhraj.Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said orders the petitioner has approached this Court for the quashment of the charges.(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has contended with great zeal and fervour that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner for framing of the charges under sections 224/223/129/328; 328 and 224 read with Sections 109 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code The learned Additional Sessions Judge thus fell into a grave error while coming to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case against the petitioner and charged him under the said Sections.Thus there is no passing of money between the petitioner and Charles Sobhraj.Hence how the petitioner can be said to have financed the conspiracy with regard to the escape of the said Charles Sobhraj from the custody.Assuming arguendo, that the petitioner passed on certain amounts to Charles Sobhraj in order to assist and help him, can he be held responsible for the misuse of the said amount? Charles Sobhraj has sufficient funds at his command and disposal.He was not in need of any money.There is sufficient evidence to show that it was the petitioner who sent for Diljit Singh Bhalla alias Happy from the U.K. He opened an N.R.I, account No. 3045 in December 1985 with 50 US$.According to the learned Pp the petitioner evinced a keen interest in the conspiracy to escape by Charles Sobhraj as the petitioner was an accused in a bank fraud case Along with one Amarjit Singh.One Swami Satsangi was a witness against the petitioner.Rajinder Singh Sethia agreed to pay 50,000 dollars for the said job.The petitioner gave a sum of Rs. 1 lac to Charles Sobhraj through Ms.Sneh Sanger on three different occasions.On instructions from Charles Sobhraj,' Sethia gave a sum of Rs. 24,000.00 to Ms.Sneh Sanger and the same was used in the escape of Charles Sobhraj.A receipt to this effect was recovered from Snch Sengar's room No.70, P.G. Women's Hostel of Delhi University.(29) It is manifest from the facts canvassed above, that the only charge levelled against the petitioner is that he had financed the conspiracy hatched by Charles Sobhraj in order to avert and ward off his extradition to Thailand.(30) The only evidence placed on record by the prosecution is that a Nri account No.34045 was opened in the name of the accused Mr.Diljit Singh Bhalla with Grindlays Bank Ltd., 10-E, Connaught Place, New Delhi.There is further evidence on record to prima facie show and prove that Rs. 3 lacs were with drawan by Mr.(31) The learned public prosecutor Mr.Jolly on the basis of the said document has contended that it goes to show prima facie that the said amounts were used by Charles Sobhraj in order to finance the alleged conspiracy.(32) I am sorry, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel.Admittedly the said account was opened by a co-accused known as Diljit Singh Bhalla.The amounts, adverted to above, were also with drawan by Diljit Singh Bhalla.There is absolutely not even an iota of evidence on record to show and prima facie prove as to how the said amounts were handed over to Charles Sobhraj for the purpose of financing the said conspiracy.There is absolutely no evidence on record as to in what way the said amounts were used by Charles Sobhraj.Everything it appears has been left by the prosecution in the realm of imagination.Admittedly Shri Rajinder Sethia did not escape Along with Charles Sobhraj and others from jail.Had the petitioner been a co-accused conspirator, he would have also definitely made use of the said conspiracy by escaping from the jail.(33) The petitioner is alleged to have financed the conspiracy as he sought the assistance of Charles Sobhraj in liquidating Swami Satsangi, a prosecution witness against the petitioner.The petitioner is alleged to have given a slip to Gordon Green all in connection therewith by writing thereon 'Please pay to the bearer of this letter dollar 20,000, many thanks Raj'.Neither the said slip nor a photo copy thereof was placed on record in order to show and prima facie prove that in fact Charles Sobhraj agreed to liquidate Swami Satsangi, the alleged prosecution witness.Thus there is absolutely no evidence on record to show and prove that in fact there was any motive on the part of the petitioner to have joined the said conspiracy.(34) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Thus there was absolutely no justification for framing the charge against the petitioner in order to proceed with the trial.(39) The petitioner is thus entitled to succeed.Orders dated January 18,1994 and January 20,1994 whereby the charges were framed against the petitioner arc hereby set aside. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,388,560 | P. No.100/2012 Page 1 of 15In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.04.2000 an information was received at PS Saraswati Vihar from ASI Khazan Singh of PCR regarding an accident in front of Wazir Pur Depot, which was reduced in writing vide DD No.30-A recorded at 10.25 pm.The DD entry was assigned to SI Surjeet Singh who left for the spot alongwith Ct. Vijay Kumar.Finding no eye witness there and on getting the information vide DD No.33-A that injured had been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and was declared to be dead, he left Ct.Vijay Kumar to guard the spot and reached Hindu Rao Hospital where he collected the MLC of the victim named 'Unknown', resident of 'Unknown'.He again returned to the spot and sent the rukka for registration of the case.He also sent a request to summon the photographer to take the photographs of the spot.During investigation, he met one Goldy Narula (PW-4) who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the accident and recorded his statement as well as prepared the site plan at his instance.He sent the dead body for postmortem.He also got both the vehicles involved in the accident, mechanically inspected and after completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet.During trial, twelve witnesses were examined.The information recorded at PCR is not available on record as it is only DD No.30-A from PCR to PS Saraswati Vihar that has been placed on record.The petitioner could have summoned the record from the PCR in his defence if he wanted to create a doubt about the presence of PW-4 Goldy Narula at the spot, witnessing the accident and as informant to PCR.To prove the fact that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, statement of PW-6 Virender Singh, owner of the offending vehicle i.e. truck No.HR-38-D-7335 assumes significance.In his reply Ex.HR-38-D- 7335 unless it was being driven him.The photographs taken at the spot Crl.This application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to address oral arguments.Prayer allowed.Application stands disposed of.1. Heard.In this revision petition, challenge is to the order dated 18.01.2012 passed in Crl.A. No.50/2011 whereby the learned Addl.In his statement, the petitioner/accused stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case and no such accident took place as alleged.He also stated that he was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and had nothing to do with the said offence.He preferred not to lead any Crl.P. No.100/2012 Page 2 of 15 evidence in his defence.Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 2 of 15Learned Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses and finding the testimony of PW-4 Goldy Narula to be reliable and trustworthy, convicted him for committing the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC.Petitioner was sentenced under Section 279 IPC to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and further under Section 304-A IPC to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/-.Substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.50/2011 before the Court of Session assailing the finding of guilt and the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court.The learned Addl.Session Judge, concurring with the finding recorded by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal observing that appellant had not challenged the cause of death.The learned Addl.Session Judge observed that he refused to join the TIP proceedings claiming that he was shown to the witnesses but failed to cross examine PW-4 Goldy Narula on this aspect.The contradictions pointed out in the testimony of prosecution witnesses were considered to be minor and insignificant thereby not affecting the trustworthiness of the prosecutions witnesses.Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 3 of 15In this criminal revision petition, the impugned order has been challenged mainly on the following grounds :-(iii) During mechanical inspection, the scooter of the deceased was found to be unfit for road test whereas the truck involved in the accident was fit for road test which fact was not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court.(iv) The contradictions and improvements made by the prosecution witnesses go to the root of the matter, hence the same should have been taken note of and given due weightage by learned Trial court.PW-4 Goldy Narula has been examined by the prosecution as an eye witness.A doubt has been tried to be created by the petitioner regarding the presence of PW-4 Goldy Narula at the spot and witnessing the accident claiming that there is nothing to corroborate his testimony that it was he who informed the PCR or accompanied the victim to hospital or how he could inform the family of the victim unless the victim was known/related to him.Here it is suffice to note that during cross examination of PW-4 Goldy Narula, the only suggestion that had been given to PW-4 Goldy Narula was that the incident did not take place in his presence and that later on he was introduced by the IO and planted as a witness.The injured was taken to the hospital by the PCR which fact can be inferred from the MLC No.4288/2000 of the deceased where the name of the injured has been recorded as 'Unknown', son of 'Unknown', resident of 'Unknown' and brought by HC Phool Chand, 1552/PCR C- 13 at about 11.00 pm with alleged history of RTA.The patient was Crl.P. No.100/2012 Page 7 of 15 declared 'brought dead at 11.00 pm'.Had it been a case of deceased being known to PW-4 Goldy Narula, he would not have been referred on the MLC No.4288/200 as 'Unknown'.Further, since the victim was taken to the hospital by PCR, the doctor was not required to mention the name of all the persons accompanying the victim to the hospital.Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 7 of 15The contention of the petitioner that PW-4 Goldy Narula was planted by the IO as an eye witness needs to be rejected on the ground that in that case the IO would have sent rukka on the basis of statement made by Goldy Narula.PW-4 Goldy Narula has stated that he informed the PCR.The mere fact that PCR has reached the spot on receiving the information in itself corroborates his statement to that effect.Even otherwise, while informing the PCR about the accident, he was just discharging his duty as a responsible citizen and even if he preferred not to disclose his name or other particulars, it does not become a ground to disbelieve his statement.Further while refusing to take part in TIP proceedings, the petitioner never claimed to have been shown to the eye witness before producing him in muffled face in the Court.While refusing to take part in TIP proceedings, the petitioner did not state about the possibility of his being identified on the basis of his photograph appearing on the driving licence.Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 8 of 15The petitioner has been duly identified by PW-4 Goldy Narula during trial as driver of the offending truck and how the occurrence has taken place.PW-4 Goldy Narula was not cross examined attributing ill motive for identifying the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle.It is not the case of the petitioner that PW-4 Goldy Narula was in any way known to him or having any enmity of ill-will towards him which could be a reason for him to wrongly identify him as the driver of the offending vehicle.PW6/A to the notice under Section 133 MV Act, he informed the police about the identity of the driver of the said truck as Anil Kumar, S/o Sh.Dhyan Singh, R/o Village Chal, P.O. Guni, Tehsil Nadeed, District Hamir Pur (H.P.) who, on the fateful day, also came to his house and informed him about the incident.Apart from that, in the arrest memo Ex.PW3/A, name of Virender Singh, owner of the truck is mentioned as the person to whom the information of arrest of petitioner/accused was given.PW-6 Virender Singh also stood surety for the petitioner when he was released on police bail.Again no suggestion has been given to PW-6 Virender Singh that petitioner was not employed as driver by him for truck No.HR-38-D- 7335 or that the petitioner never visited him to inform about the accident.Otherwise also, the owner of the truck i.e. PW-6 Virender Singh could not have named a stranger as driver of his loaded truck No.P. No.100/2012 Page 9 of 15 i.e. Ex.P1 to P10 reveal not only the registration number of the truck but the scooter of the victim is also shown in the photographs which was stated to be hit by the truck driven by the petitioner.Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 9 of 15The mechanical inspection report of the truck Ex.PW1/A reveals that the engine, steering, clutch, accelerator and brake were found in working order and truck was fit for road test.However, the mechanical inspection report of the scooter Ex.PW1/B reveals that there was damage on the left side portion of the scooter and other parts.The engine and brake of the scooter were found to be in working order but the scooter was found unfit for road test.During his examination under Section 281 CrPC, the petitioner has given his version as under :-'I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case and no such accident took place from me as alleged and I was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligence manner.All the witness have deposed falsely against me.I have nothing to do with the said offence.I do not want to lead the defence evidence'The petitioner has taken contradictory stands about the fact whether he was driving the offending truck or not and if so whether the circumstances in which the accident has taken place, are attributable to him or not.HR-38-D-7335 has been cross examined only to the following effect :-HR-38-D-7335 was not being driven by accused Anil Kumar on 10.11.2004 and I Crl.P. No.100/2012 Page 10 of 15 had given the name of accused Anil Kumar just to release my truck on superdari from police station.Thus, the petitioner himself has admitted the factum of driving the offending truck No.HR-38-D-7335 which hit scooter No.DL-1-S-H-8705 driven by the deceased.As per the MLC No.4288/2000 of the victim, he was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital at 11.00 pm with alleged history of RTA and was declared 'brought dead'.The postmortem report of the deceased shows the cause of death as due to hemorrhage and shock consequent to multiple injuries which were caused by blunt force impact against hard surface/object and that all the injuries were antemortem and Crl.P. No.100/2012 Page 11 of 15 recent in duration.Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 11 of 15Testimony of PW-4 Goldy Narula to the effect that while he was going on his scooter No.DL-4J-4680 on Ring Road, one truck bearing No.HR-38-D-7335 passed at a very high speed and struck against the scooter going ahead of him and that the scooterist was dragged for a long distance by the truck proved that it was truck No.HR-38-D-7335 driven by the petitioner that hit the scooter of the deceased.The truck driven by the petitioner, which had no mechanical defect and was roadworthy, would not have dashed against the scooter of the deceased and caused his death unless the vehicle had been driven rashly and/or negligently.The factum of the petitioner driving the truck No.The petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 27.02.2012 passed in Crl.Since the revision petition has been dismissed, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court on 15.07.2013 to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.In case the petitioner fails to surrender on the due date, the concerned Court will take necessary steps to procure his presence and commit him to Jail to undergo the remaining sentence.Registry is directed to send back the LCR immediately alongwith copy of this order.PRATIBHA RANI, J July 5, 2013 'st' Crl.Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 15 of 15Rev.P. No.100/2012 Page 15 of 15 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,393,275 | We would request the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to initiate appropriate training programmes for the Magistrates in relation to offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.No costs. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,754,715 | A/1 the name of present petitioner is also mentioned at Sr. No.5 in the capacity of the then Collector Ujjain.Per Sanjay Yadav, J :-Petitioner vide present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashment of FIR No.282/2019 dated 24.11.2019 registered against the petitioner including 15 other 2 WP-27734-2019 persons by Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended vide Amendment Act No.16 of 2018) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Relevant facts borne out from the FIR are that the Lokayukt Organization received a complaint from one Shri Piyush Jain on 12.03.2015 and Shri Bharat Bamne on 06.07.2015, both residents of Indore, alleging large scale corruption by the officials of the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department and various Collectors posted at Ujjain in connivance with the Directors of a private aviation company viz., Yash Air Limited in respect of maintenance, use and development of airstrip at Datana, Ujjain.The preliminary enquiry report is the genesis for registration of impugned FIR.Respondent No.1-SPE(Lokayukt) has filed detailed return;whereby, besides raising the objection as to maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the allegations and averments are elaborately answered.In the case at hand, it is urged that, the report since disclosed a cognizable offence, it is within the competence of the officer-in-charge to register an FIR and the correctness of it cannot be adjudged on the basis of some documents obtained by the petitioner through RTI.It is contended that looking into the magnitude of allegations and the officers who are made co-accused, the plea was made on behalf of respondent No.1 for its transfer from Indore Bench to the Principal Seat at Jabalpur.Accordingly, it has been transferred and is before the Principal Seat.Besides these submissions, it is also stated in Paragraph 24 of the return which is reproduced for ready reference:That, it is humbly submitted that, Petitioner is holding very important and high post in the government of State of Madhya Pradesh, and having influence on all the departments.The return filed by Respondent No.2 7 WP-27734-2019 i.e. Aviation Department is supported by an affidavit of an Additional Collector, Ujjain, whereas, the return filed by respondent No.3 i.e. General Administration Department is supported by an affidavit of Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Indore, Division Indore.Respondent No.2, in its return, has mainly relied on the documents adverted to by the petitioner obtained through RTI.Whereas, Respondent No.3 has relied on the Communication No. Mh&2@36@2019@6@,d dated 06.01.2020 (wrongly mentioned as 06.01.2019) by a Deputy Secretary (Karmik) addressed to the Director General, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) organization calling upon him to take steps to withdraw the FIR.As regard to legal opinion qua Section 17A of 1988 Act, we will dwell upon the same later.For the present, what is required to be seen is whether on the face of the allegations in the impugned FIR, cognizable offence is made out justifying its registration.For proper appreciation, the contents of FIR are reproduced for ready reference:During the said period, the petitioner was holding the charge of Collector, Ujjain.Therefore, it is required that some material should be available against the present petitioner at the time of registration of FIR.It appears from the record that a person named Piyush Jain filed a complaint before the Lokayukt on 09.03.2015/12.03.2015, which was registered as complaint No.4511/C/14 in the complaint register.Thereafter on 24.11.2019 crime No.282/2019 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC was registered by Lokayukt Establishment against 16 persons including the present petitioner.The column No.12 contains the detaila of FIR.It appears that the aforesaid FIR has been registered upon the basis of preliminary inquiry report submitted by Basant Shrivastava Inspector, Special Police, Establishment Ujjain.The complaint submitted by Piyush Jain was against 8 non- applicants/accused.The complaint filed by Bharat Bamne was against 7 non-applicants/accused.It appears from both the complaints that the name of present petitioner was not included in both the complaints.Only one person holding the post of Collector is included in both the complaints, therefore, it appears that initially both complaints were not filed against the petitioner.The Superintendent of Police also mentioned the aforesaid fact by saying " 2007 2013 -9- a ......" at Sr.No.5 the Superintendent of Police also mentioned the name of present petitioner.During that period the applicant was not posted as Collector Ujjain.Therefore, prima facie, it can be said that the material against the present petitioner was not available with the Investigation Agency at the time of registration of crime.It is different thing that if during investigation the investigation agency found any involvement of the present petitioner, the agency may include the name of present petitioner as an accused, but at the time of registration of crime mentioning the name of present petitioner as an accused was not justified.But, it appears from the document that the work was sanctioned by the order of Chief Minister dated 17.05.2012 (Annexure R/2/11, Page No.63).As per the -10- aforesaid direction the meeting was organized on 10.04.2003 (Annexure R/2/11, Page No.64).As per the decision taken by the Committee the proposal for maintenance and the enhancement of facilities was sent and the estimate was made for Rs.266.40 Lacs, which was sent for administrative sanction (Annexure R/2/11, Page No.65 and 66).Therefore, because the sanction was already granted by the State Government as per prescribed procedure, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any expenditure.The petitioner mentioned the details of the payment in his reply.The respondent No.2 also admitted that the entire amount has been paid and there is not due against the Aviation Company.It is also submitted that the maintenance and the enhancement of work was done as per the Government order and not by the order of accused persons.It is also alleged that the amount was deposited after registration of FIR, but in reply it is submitted by the petitioner that the earnest money was already with the Government and the aforesaid earnest money was adjusted vide letter No.1779, dated 17.05.1979 (Annexure A/19).The aforesaid facts are the defence of the accused.He was not posted during the alleged period as Collector, Ujjain.Therefore, FIR No.282/2019 registered on -12- 24.11.2019 is partially quashed in reference to the name of present petitioner Shri Kavindra Kiyawat. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,547,705 | -05-10 C.R.M. No. 7385 of 2010 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13th May, 2010 in connection with Chanditala P.S. Case No. 30 of 2010 dated 21-02-2010 under Sections 147/148/149/186/333/353/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of I.E. Act.And In re : Vivekanand Jha @ Abhishek. ... Petitioner.Mrs. Soma Chowdhury (Bandhu). ... for the petitioner.Mrs. Pronati Goswami.... for the State.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the present petitioner is in no way involved with the alleged crime and he is already in detention for more than 80 days.A character certificate has also been produced by learned counsel.Mrs. Goswami, appearing as learned counsel for the State, quite rightly does not oppose the prayer for bail in absence of any concrete material implicating the present petitioner.As such, the present petitioner, accordingly, be out on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of 5000/-each, of whom one must be local.Such bail bonds are to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, District: Hooghly, to whom a copy of this order be sent at once.The case diary be returned.(S. P. Talukdar, J.) (Prabhat Kumar Dey, J.) | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,550,553 | 1 08/01/2015 (45) (Ct. 34) ARDR CRM 15319 of 2014 In Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31st October, 2014 in connection with Kaliganj P.S. Case no. 575 of 2014 dated 27/9/2014 under Sections 323/447/325/354B/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Mursalim Sk. & Ors....Petitioners.Mr. Sumanta Das, ...for the Petitioners.ALLOWED Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State.We have also perused the Case Diary.The Sections pertaining to this case, inter alia, are 354B, 376, 511, 34, 323, 447/325 of the Indian Penal Code.The application for anticipatory bail stands allowed.(Tapen Sen, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,975,516 | A1 and A4 are brothers and sons of Sinnarasu.A2, A3 and A6 are brothers and sons of Periasamy.(b) As per the case of prosecution, the occurrence took place on 19.6.1992 at 9.30 p.m. in New Colony, Sedarapet.P.Ws.1 to 3, 6, 12 and 15 and Lingasamy, who is the father of P.W.4 went to the grocery shop of A1 seeking explanation about A1 dashing P.W.4 in cycle when she was returning along with her husband Kannan and P.W.12, Unnamalai, because of which she fell down on the road.A2 to A6 were also present at that time.A2 instigated A1 and A3 to A6 to beat them.The overt act by A1 to A6 are as follows:-(1) A1 assaulted P.W.1 with stick on his head and left shoulder.P.W.1 fell down.A1 attacked P.W.5 on his head with stick.(2) A2 hit P.W.1 with stone and kicked him on his hip.(3) A4 attacked P.W.2 with stick on her head.A4 attacked P.W.3 with stone on her both hands and thigh.A4 also attacked P.W.4 with stone on her right little finger on her leg.A4 attacked P.W.6 on her head.(4) A5 kicked P.W.2 on her stomach.A5 also attacked P.W.5 with stone.(6) When P.W.1's son, the deceased Shanmugam intervened and tried to rescue P.W.1, A1 beat the deceased Shanmugam and he fell down.The injured through the casuarina thope came to the road and to Jipmer hospital in the bus.P.W.1 was taking treatment in the hospital.P.W.1 came to know that P.W.11 Madurambal belonging to the colony gave water to his deceased son, who was injured and kept in her house and then on 20.6.1992 at 5.00 a.m., his younger brother P.W.10 Sarangapani, Jothi and Nagappan took his son in tyre cart brought to the road from where he was taken in the bus near the hospital and from which place his younger brother P.W.10 Sarangapani took him on his shoulder and admitted him in Jipmer hospital where he was declared dead and therefore there have been delay in making the said complaint.All the six accused circled round, P.Ws.1 to 3 and one Lingasamy and started beating with stick.At that time P.W.1's son Shanmugam came to the spot.Annadurai/A1 beat Shanmugam with a stick and on his falling to the ground all the six accused got over him and kicked him and thrashed and stamped him by their foot.P.W.2 Govindammal has stated in her evidence that Annadurai/A1 beat P.W.1 Krishnan on her head and left shoulder, that Panneer/A3 beat P.W.1 with a stone on his hip and kicked on the hip, that S.Kannan/A4 beat P.W.2 with a stick on her head and Pandian/A5 kicked on P.W.2 on her stomach and that all the other accused circled round out and started beating with sticks.She also stated that Shanmugam was beaten by all the accused on his head and he fell down.Annadurai/A1 struck Shanmugam with a stick on his head, the blow on Shanmugam was inflicted when he stoop down to lift his father who was lying down with injuries.On getting the blow Shanmugam fell down whereupon all the accused got over Shanmugam and thrashed him all over the body by their legs.14. P.W.4, Vinodhini in her evidence has stated that S.Kannan/A4 beat her with a stone on her right little finger of the leg.She saw A1 to A4 and A6 attacking her relatives.Annadurai and his group attacked her uncle Shanmugam.15. P.W.5 Arumugam in his evidence has stated that Annadurai/A1 beat him on his head by a stick because of which he sustained bleeding injury.He also stated that Pandian/A5 struck him with a stone on his back and that he saw Annadurai and four persons thrashing Shanmugam, who had fallen down, by their foot.16. P.W.6 Ananthi has stated in her evidence that P.W.1 Krishnan was beat by Annadurai/A1 with a stick on his head and on his falling to the ground P.W.1 was again beaten by Annadurai/A1 on his left shoulder.Lingasamy, Anjalai(P.W.3), Govindammal(P.W.2), Arumugam(P.W.5) were beaten by A2 to A5 on their heads and body portions with sticks.She has also stated that Shanmugam was beaten first by Annadurai/A1 with stick and then by all other accused.The accused also thrashed and trampled the body of the Shanmugham when he fell down and when she intervened, S.Kannan/A4 struck her on the head with a stick.She sustained bleeding injury.Doctor K.N. Reddy, attached to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, who was not examined, issued wound certificates Exs.P-18, P-21, P-20 and P-19 to P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 respectively.JUDGMENT S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 to 5 in S.C.No.51 of 1993 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Court, Pondicherry.The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-All the accused surrounded the deceased Shanmugam and stampede the deceased.(c) All the injured left the scene of occurrence and went to the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry.The deceased Shanmugam was not taken to hospital and was lying near the fence throughout the night.On 22.6.1992, P.W.11 Madurambal found the deceased inside the fence of her house and informed to P.W.10 Sarangapani.Thereafter, the deceased Shanmugam, was taken to the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, where he was declared dead at 9.00 a.m. and intimation was sent to the Katterikuppam Police Station.(d) On receipt of information, P.W.16, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Katterikuppam Police Station went to the Jipmer Hospital and on receiving the complaint Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 he registered the same in Crime No.53 of 1992 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 325, 323 read with 149 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.P-6 and sent the same to all higher officials.He made arrangement to take photographs through P.W.15 Police Photographer.P.W.17 recovered the sticks (M.Os.1 to 4) from the scene of occurrence.He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and Ex.P-10 is the inquest report.P.W.17 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.P.W.17 arrested A1 and A3 to A5 at 11.00 a.m. on 22.6.1992 at Karasur.He sent all the documents and material objects to the Court and after completion of investigation filed the final report.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them by the respondent, they denied the offence and stated that false case has been foisted against them.The learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) argued that the Sessions Court considering and accepting the evidence let in on the side of prosecution and more particularly through P.Ws.1 to 6, who are also injured witnesses and the fact that such evidence tallies with F.I.R. and medical evidence, rightly found A1 is guilty under Sections 304 Part-II and 323 I.P.C. and A3 to A5 under Section 323 I.P.C.As per the case of prosecution, the occurrence took place on 19.6.1992 at 9.30 p.m. in New Colony, Sedarapet.It was reported by P.W.1, the father of the deceased Shanmugam, on 20.6.1992 at 9.00 a.m. as per the complaint made under Ex.P-1 to P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police in Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry where he was taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the occurrence.In the complaint Ex.P-1 it is stated that instigated by A2 not to leave P.Ws.1 to 3, 6, 12 and 15 and Lingasamy, who is the father of P.W.4, A1 and A3 to A6 each took casuarina sticks from nearby tea stall and attacked as follows:-(1) Annadurai/A1 beat P.W.1 with casuarina stick on his head.P.W.1 fell down.Then A1 attacked on his left shoulder.(2) Panneer/A3 kicked P.W.1 on his hip and also beat him with a stone.P.W.1 was sitting unable to move in view of the attack made to him.(3) Kannan/A4 attacked P.W.2 Govindammal on her head with stick.(4) Pandian/A5 kicked P.W.2 Govindammal on her stomach.(5) A1 and A3 to A5 beat P.W.3, Anjalai, P.W.5 Arumugham and P.W.6 Ananthi with sticks and stones.(6) On hearing the incident, P.W.1's son Shanmugam came and intervened and he was attacked by A1 to A6 with sticks and stones on his chest and back indiscriminately.11. P.W.1 Krishnan, has stated in his evidence that Annadurai/A1 struck a blow on his head with a casuarina stick which he had in his hand.Annadurai/A1 also struck him with the same stick on his left shoulder and he fell down.Then Panneer/A3 hit him with a stone and kicked him on the hip.P.W.1 has also stated that S.Kannan/A4 struck a blow on the head of Govindammal(P.W.2) with another casuarina stick.Then all the accused got over him and ploughed him with their leg.P.W.3 Anjalai has stated in her evidence that Annadurai/A1 struck a blow on the head of P.W.1 Krishnan with a casuarina stick.Panneer/A3 kicked P.W.1 on his hip.S.Kannan/A4 struck P.W.3 with a stone on both the hands and on her thigh.In Ex.P-18, it is stated that Dr. K.N. Reddy examined P.W.1 Krishnan and he found the following injuries:-Lacerated injury 7 x 1 c.m. top of head midline.2. Contusion with 6 x 6 c.m. Tenderness present.Abrasion 3 x 1 c.m.Tenderness right wrist with haematoma 2 x 2 c.m. Palmar aspect of right Palm.Page 0834 Type of injuries : GRIEVOUS I mp - Fracture of left clavicle.In Ex.P-19, it is stated that Dr. K.N. Reddy examined P.W.5 Arumugam and he found the following injuries:-1) Lacerated injury left forehead, 6 x 1 cm.2) Abrasions over the left knee 3 x 4 cm.Type of injuries : Simple In Ex.P-20, it is stated that Dr. K.N. Reddy examined P.W.3 Anjalai and he found the following injuries:-1. Contusion with tenderness right forearm 5 x 5 c.m.Abrasions left elbow 2 x 2 c.ms.3. Contusion with tenderness left lower thigh, 5 x 3 c.ms.Type of injuries: GRIEVOUS In Ex.P-21, it is stated that Dr. K.N. Reddy examined P.W.2 Govindammal and he found the following injuries:Lacerated injury left parietal area 4 x 1 cms ...Type of injury : SIMPLE P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 informed the doctor that they have been assaulted by 5 known persons at the time of occurrence on 19.6.1992 at 9.00 p.m. near Sadharapet.18. P.W.8, Doctor G.M. Ramana, attached to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, examined P.W.6 Ananthi and he found the following injuries:-(NC)(torn) x 1 cm laceration to the left of midline anteriorly over scalp.2. 3 x 2 c.m. abrasion over left forearm.Assault injury He issued Ex.P-3 wound certificate.P.W.6 informed the doctor P.W.8 that she has been assaulted by 5 known persons at the time of occurrence on 19.6.1992 at 9.00 p.m. near Sadharapet.19. P.W.7, Dr. S.M. Sharif, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Shanmugham and he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-Injuries (Antemortem):There is a diffuse contusion present in the scalp over the left temporooccipital region over an area of 15 cm x 6 cm Page 0835 Internal Examination Head (Scalp, skull, brain, meninges and blood vessels) (Brain:M:1400 gms/ F:1275 gms) : Scalp:Pericranial hematoma present over the left temporo-occipital region in the form of fluid and clotted blood 1/2 cm thick.A fissure fracture extending from the posterior border of left temporal bone on to the right occipital bone, situated transversely 18 cm long, involving the entire thickness of skull bone.A laceration present over the middle of left temporal region roughly in its middle 4 cm x 2 cm x 1/4 cm in size.Subdural hemorrhage in the form of clotted and fluid blood 1/4 cm thick, present over left temporal-parietal and occipital region.Subarachnoid hemorrhage present over the temporo-parietal and occipital region of left cerebral hemi-sphere, mostly on its upper surface.He has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to Asphyxia as a result of Regurgitation of food material in to air passages (Larynx, trachea and Bronchi) associated with Head injury.He has also stated in his evidence that the death can be caused as a cumulative of asphyxia and head injury.Therefore it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 6, the injured and P.W.7 Doctor and the wound certificates Exs.P-19, P-21 and P-3 relating to P.Ws.5, 2 and 6 that due to assault made by A1 and A3 to A5, the injuries noted in Exs.P-19, P-21 and P-3 have been caused as stated by P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 6 and that the trial Court considering these aspects rightly found A1 and A3 to A5 guilty in respect of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.It is also clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that at the time of occurrence A1 caused grievous injuries to them as noted in the wound certificates Exs.Further A1 also assaulted the deceased with casuarina sticks and caused grievous injuries as noted in the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-2, viz., fissure fracture in the skull and laceration on the left temporal region.The post-mortem doctor P.W.7 has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to Asphyxia as a result of Regurgitation of food material in to air passages(Larynx, trachea and Bronchi) associated with Head injury and therefore, the assault made by A1 to the deceased at the time of occurrence with stick cannot be the cause for the death of the deceased.Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court that A1 is guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC is incorrect and instead A1 is guilty only under Section 325 IPC.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed as follows:-(4) Since, during the pendency of the appeal, A3 died, the appeal in respect of A3 is dismissed as abated. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,975,547 | (a) P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased Maniyarasan.P.Ws.2 to 6 were all neighbours residing in the same village. A-1 and A-2 are brothers.All the parties were residents of Chettipulam Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police.Fourteen days prior to the occurrence, there was a wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased when the dog of the deceased caught the neck of the hen of the accused.There was a complaint to the police, and the parties were called and pacified.Thereafter, there was another quarrel in taking water from the public pipe.(b) While the matter stood thus, on 28.11.2006 at about 5.30 P.M., P.W.1 went to take bath in the irrigating channel situated outside the village.While she was taking bath, the deceased father after finishing his work, came over there to take bath.P.Ws.2 to 6 were working in the nearby field.At that time, A-1 and A-2 armed with wooden-logs, came to the place.A-2 attacked the deceased on the arms and legs, while A-1 attacked him on his forehead.When P.W.1 raised a distressing cry, P.Ws.2 to 6 rushed to the spot.When they were rushing, they also found the accused committing the crime.Then the severely injured victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi.P.W.12 was the Doctor who medically examined him and declared him dead.He also gave an intimation to the respondent police station marked as Ex.The printed FIR is marked as Ex.(c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, reached the Station, and at that time, an intimation, Ex.P8, that Maniyarasan died at the hospital was received.Then the case was altered to Sec.302 IPC, and the altered FIR is Ex.Both Exs.P15 and P16 were sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, through a Constable.Following the same, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the Government Hospital, conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P17, the inquest report.Thereafter, he proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.Then A-1 produced M.O.1, wooden-log, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.Equally, M.O.2, wooden-log, produced by A-2, was recovered under Ex.P7, mahazar.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Thiruvarur, made in S.C.No.15/2008 whereby the appellants stood charged namely A-1 under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC and A-2 under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC, and on trial, A-1 was found guilty under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and A-2 under Sec.302 IPC, and both were awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:In the meanwhile, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the complaint, on the strength of which, P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.381/2006 under Sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC.(d) On a requisition, P.W.13, the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Maniyarasan and has issued Ex.P9, the postmortem certificate, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury about 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy.(e) Pending investigation, both the accused persons were arrested on 30.11.2006, when they came forward to give confessional statements voluntarily.The same were recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 is marked as Ex.P19, and that of A-2 is Ex.Then both the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate where they were judicially remanded.Thereafter, a requisition was given for the purpose of sending all the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and also M.Os.1 and 2, the weapons of crime, to the Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis which brought forth the chemical analyst's report, Ex.P13, and also the serologist's report, Ex.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 18 witnesses and also relied on 20 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found the accused/appellants guilty and awarded the above punishment.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution came with the story that there was a wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased 14 days before, when the dog of the deceased caught the neck of the hen of the accused, but this was not found in Ex.P1, the report; that another motive was also attributed that there was a wordy altercation at the time of taking water from the public pipe; that the same was also not found in Ex.P1, and thus the motive that was attributed, was not only trivial, but also cannot lead to the inference that the accused had got any motive to act or to commit such a heinous crime of murder.5.Added further the learned Counsel that according to P.W.1, on 28.11.2006 in the evening hours, she went to take bath in the irrigating channel situated away from the village; that it is an admitted position that there are number of tanks situated within the village; and that while so, there was no need for her to go to a distant place to take bath and that too, lonely.At this juncture, the learned Counsel would also point out that the evidence of P.W.1 as if she was present at the time of occurrence cannot but be false; that after coming to know that her father was actually killed, she would have gone to the spot, and after finding the dead body, she has gone to the police station and that was the reason; that though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 5.30 P.M., she has given the complaint at about 7.30 P.M., and the case was registered originally under Sec.307 IPC at about 8.30 P.M.; and that the FIR has reached the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, at about 10.30 P.M.6.The learned Counsel pointing to the evidence of P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, would submit that both Ex.P15, the printed FIR, under Sec.302 IPC, and also the altered FIR, Ex.P16, under Sec.302 IPC were sent to the Judicial Magistrate's Court at the same time; that according to P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, immediately the case was registered under Sec.307 IPC and the FIR, Ex.P15, was sent to the Court; that contrarily, P.W.18 has stated that after he came to the police station, the death intimation was received, and the case was altered to Sec.302 IPC, and both the FIRs were sent together; that even the police constable who took the FIRs to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, was not examined; that it would be clearly indicative of the fact that both the FIRs were registered at the same time; and that it would also go to show that only after the death of the deceased, the complaint was given, and the case was registered.7.Added further the learned Counsel that P.W.1 has categorically stated that all other witnesses P.Ws.2 to 6 were present at the time of occurrence; that the witnesses have categorically admitted that they were all working in the field, and after hearing the distressing cry, they came to the place; that even in Ex.P1, the names of P.Ws.4 to 6 did not find place, and thus the presence of P.Ws.4 to 6 was ruled out; that as far as P.Ws.2 and 3 are concerned, they have categorically admitted that after hearing the distressing cry, they were rushing from the field, and hence it would be quite evident that they could not have seen the occurrence at all; that in such circumstances, P.W.1 was the solitary evidence available for the prosecution; that for the reasons stated above, the evidence of P.W.1 was thoroughly doubtful that she could not have seen the occurrence at all, and hence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case; and that even though the Investigator claimed that both the wooden-logs, M.Os.1 and 2, were recovered from A-1 and A-2 respectively pursuant to the confessional statements, they were not sent for chemical analysis for the reasons best known to the Investigator.8.Added further the learned Counsel that the evidence of P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case, and P.W.18, the Investigator, who conducted investigation, was thoroughly discrepant which would go to the root of the matter; that what is all available in the instant case, is only the medical reports namely the death intimation and the postmortem certificate, projected through P.W.12, the Doctor, and also P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem and gave opinion that he died out of the injuries sustained on the head, respectively; that except this, the prosecution had no evidence to offer; that under the circumstances, the motive, the direct evidence and also the recovery of the material objects all actually failed; that under the circumstances, the trial Judge should have rejected the case of the prosecution outright, but has found both the appellants guilty, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.9.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.10.It is not in controversy that one Maniyarasan, the father of P.W.1, following an incident that had taken place at about 5.30 P.M. on 28.11.2006, was taken to the Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi and was declared dead by P.W.12, the Doctor, as could be seen from the death intimation, Ex.Following the requisition given by the Investigating Officer, P.W.18, the dead body was subjected to postmortem.P.W.13, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion as a witness before the Court and also through the contents of the postmortem certificate that he died out of head injury sustained by him.The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution, before the trial Court was never disputed by the appellants nor before this Court, and hence no impediment is felt by the Court in recording that he died out of homicidal violence.11.In order to substantiate that both the accused/appellants have attacked the deceased sharing their common intention, and caused the death of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence, the prosecution marched six witnesses, and P.Ws.2 to 6 were actually the neighbours who according to them, were working in the nearby field.At the outset, it has got to be stated that it is highly doubtful whether P.Ws.4 to 6 could have been in the place of occurrence at all since their names are not found in the FIR.It is pertinent to point out that according to P.W.1, she went to take bath and also for washing clothes in the irrigating channel which is situated outside the village.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel that while there are 2 or 3 tanks available inside the village, there was no need for her to go outside cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in both the tanks, there were actually number of persons taking bath, and that too, in the evening hours.In such circumstances, it is quite natural for a lady in a village to go to a place where the other persons were not found witnessing, and therefore, she would have chosen to go to that place.But, it is not a far off one, but an irrigating channel situated outside the village.That apart, the irrigating channel would be having the flow of water, and under the circumstances, that contention has got to be rejected.12.According to P.W.1, when she was taking bath, her father came there after finishing his work, and A-1 and A-2 came there armed with wooden-logs, and it was A-2 who first attacked him on the arms and legs, and thereafter, A-1 attacked him on the forehead, and at that time, she raised a distressing cry, and the other witnesses came to the place.At this juncture, the learned Counsel pointing to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would urge that they could not have seen the occurrence at all.This contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that both P.Ws.2 and 3 have spoken in one voice that at the time of occurrence, they were working in the field, and on hearing the distressing cry of P.W.1, they rushed to the spot and at that time, they found both the accused/appellants moving from the place of occurrence.It can be well stated that their evidence could be taken only to the extent that they have seen both the appellants/accused running from the place of occurrence with the wooden-logs.Thus the prosecution had the benefit of this witness to that extent.The evidence of P.W.1, despite the cross-examination in full, remained unshaken.Thus it would lead to the facts that both of them came there armed with wooden-logs, and A-2 attacked him on the arms and legs, while A-1 attacked him on the forehead.This ocular testimony stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence projected by the prosecution through P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy.13.Yet another circumstance against the appellants/ accused was the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2, wooden-logs, from A-1 and A-2 respectively pursuant to the confessional statements recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses.The prosecution has marched P.W.11 in order to prove the arrest, confession and recovery.Now the recovery of the wooden-logs namely the weapons of crime, pursuant to the confessional statements voluntarily made by the appellants, would be a strong piece of evidence pointing to the nexus of the accused with the crime.At this juncture, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the wooden-logs were not sent for the purpose of analysis cannot be a reason to reject the testimony.The other contention put forth that Ex.P1, the report, has come into existence after the death of the victim because of which both the FIRs have gone to the Judicial Magistrate's Court together cannot be accepted.It is true and also admitted that both these FIRs namely Exs.P15 and P16, one registered under Sec.307 IPC and the other under Sec.302 IPC, were sent to the Court at the same time after the arrival of the Investigating Officer to the police station.But, at the same time, it is pertinent to point out that in a given case like this, if the case was registered after the death of the victim, there was no reason for registering a case under Sec.307 IPC and within a short span of an hour, for amending the FIR to Sec.302 IPC.If really the death has already ensued, the police officer would have directly registered the case under Sec.302 IPC and there was no need to go for another process of registering a case initially under Sec.307 of IPC and then altering it to Sec.302 IPC.This would in no way either make the case of the prosecution stronger or further advance the case of the prosecution, and hence this contention cannot be accepted.15.In the case on hand, the occurrence has taken place at about 5.30 P.M., and P.W.1 had gone to the police station and gave Ex.P1, the report, pursuant to which the case came to be registered at 7.30 P.M. Thereafter, an intimation, Ex.P8, was received from the Medical Person, P.W.12, as to the death of the victim.When both A-1 and A-2 carried the wooden-logs and went to the place of occurrence, it cannot be stated that both of them had the intention to cause his death.If really A-2 had the intention to cause death, he would have attacked him on the vital part, but it was he who first attacked him, and that too, only on the arms and legs, and simple injuries have been correspondingly caused.Under the circumstances, as regards A-2, he has got to be found guilty under Sec.324 of IPC, and awarding a punishment of 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment, in the considered opinion of the Court, would meet the ends of justice.18.Accordingly, the conviction of A-1 under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC is modified, and he is convicted under Sec.302 IPC.The sentence awarded by the trial Court, will hold good.19.As regards A-2, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on him under Sec.302 IPC, are set aside, and instead, he is convicted under Sec.324 of IPC and is directed to suffer two years Rigorous Imprisonment.The sentence already undergone by him, shall be given set off.20.In the result, this criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.2.The Inspector of Police Muthupettai Police Station Thiruvarur District (Crime No.381/2006)3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,558,798 | Petitioner is running a shop of daily needs and the father of the complainant is also running a shop of daily needs near the shop of the petitioner.If he keeps in jail, his family will be suffered a lot.Both parties are neighbor.This is first bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioner is in custody since 19.08.20 in connection with Crime No.347/2020 registered at P.S.-Lavkush Nagar, District- Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 506 of IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act.As per prosecution, prosecutrix aged about 14 years was going to her house on the way present petitioner/accused caught hold her when she cried then petitioner/accused threatened her and ran away from there.Thereafter she told her family member about the said incident.On the complaint of complainant, FIR has been lodged.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an innocent person.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing this bail application. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,558,845 | Police very cleverly converted the real culprit into witness of the case and present applicant has been falsely implicated.As per the version of owner of tractor, applicant borrowed the tractor for agriculture purpose and allegedly used in transportation of illegal minerals but in reality, it was owner of the tractor-Ramnaresh and his son-Ramu who were causing transportation and storage of minerals without royalty.On his behalf, his father gave an affidavit regarding above-mentioned fact of role of owner.As per Section 4(1)(A) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity"Act 1957") case has not been investigated properly by the police and present applicant has been framed.Applicant is in confinement since 29.06.2020 and in his absence his family is finding hard to make both the ends meet.Looking to the challenging period of Covid-19 Pandemic and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and he is the victim of the mens-rea of owner of the tractor in collusion with Police Authority, his case may be considered for bail.Applicant 3 undertakes to cooperate in trial.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 29.06.2020 by Police Station Panihar, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.68/2020 registered for offence under Sections 379 and 414 of IPC and 2/21 of Mines and Mineral Rules.Allegations are of illegal transportation of sand without any royalty receipt or any legal permission.It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering confinement since 29.06.2020 on false pretext whereas charge-sheet has already been filed.It is further submitted that tractor was being driven by son (Ramu) of the owner (Ramnaresh) of the vehicle and both father and son implicated the applicant representing him to be the driver of vehicle.Under these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that on the basis of memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, he has been implicated.The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police, Bhopal, Inspector General of Police, Gwalior as well as Chambal Zone and Superintendent of Police, Gwalior for information and sensitization of Investigating Officers for appropriate investigation in respect of other persons also who may cause illegal transportation/raise/store etc. includig owner of vehicle and to issue necessary instructions in this regard if required, so that letter and spirit of Section 4/21 of the Act 1957 be ensured in accordance with law.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, for the office of this Court. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,560,505 | It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM Cr.07/10/2014 Shri Dharmendra Soni, counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents.Learned counsel for applicant prays some time to move an application to convert the present criminal revision into a leave application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed, application be moved within a week.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.It appears that the applicant did not comply the previous orders of this court and no amendment has been made in memo of bail application, however, as prayed by counsel for the applicant seven working days time is granted to make amendment in the application.If such modification is not made within given period, the present application filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.It appears that none has appeared for the applicant on 05/05/2014 and on 18/07/2014, it appears that learned counsel for applicant does not want to prosecute the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant Sameem @ Arju Khan, is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Heard on I.A. No. 18001/2014 an application for amendment in the memo of bail application.Application is allowed.Proposed amendment be incorporated within seven working days also the other defaults pointed out by the office shall be cured within that stipulated period.If the compliance is not made within given period, application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.None appeared for the applicant on 25/09/2014 and none appeared for the applicant on today.It appears that learned counsel for applicant does not want to prosecute this application.Consequently, the present application for restoration of previous application is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Though the counsel for the applicant is not present a week's time is granted to remove the default and if the default is not removed within a week application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 14588/2014 07/10/2014 Shri S.S. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Budhha @ Shiv Prasad , is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.Heard on the question of maintainability of the present petition.If the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed then no application for recalling of the order is maintainable.Consequently, the present application for recalling the order dated 14/02/2014 is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays some time to remove the default.It appears that on 02/05/2014 it was directed that the default be removed within a week and if it is not removed within a week then the present petition shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution, without referring to the Court.The applicant is directed to add the complainant as respondent no. 2 by moving an application.C. No. 6332/2014 07/10/2014 Shri S.P. Mishra Advocate for the applicant.C. No. 7323/2014 07/10/2014 Shri M.S. Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Sanklap Kochar, counsel for the objector.07/10/2014 Shri Rahul Sharma, counsel for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Shri Sanklap Kochar, counsel for the objector.Vide order dated 12/09/2014 it was directed that FSL report relating to articles seized from the applicant be also produced and therefore, learned Panel Lawyer is directed to call for the FSL report and be placed before this court on the next date of hearing.C. No. 10544/2014 07/10/2014 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Ashish Singh, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.07/10/2014 Shri D.N. Shukla, counsel for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Learned Panel Lawyer prays for some time to get the FSL report of the articles seized from the applicant.Copy of this order be provided to the learned Panel Lawyer for compliance.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7894/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7896/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.P. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7900/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7904/2014 09/06/2014 Shri P.K. Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has copy of the charge-sheet with the help of such papers case may be considered.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 17.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 323/2014 registered at Police Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual OffendersLearned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances counsel for applicant prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7909/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Learned counsel for applicant submits that looking to the nature of the case, it may be considered with the help of copy of the impugned order.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 5.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 98/2014 registered at Police Station Orchha, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The presence of the applicant is no more required in the investigation.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances he prays for bail.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7913/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Pradeep Narvariya, Advocate for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7916/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7919/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7925/2014 09/06/2014 Shri M.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7928/2014 09/06/2014 Shri R.B. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for applicant submits that looking to the nature of the case, it may be considered with the help of copy of the impugned order.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 15.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 343/2014 registered at Police Station Sarni, District Betul for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him.The case is triable by the Court of JMFC and therefore, it is not so grave.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The presence of the applicant is no more required in the investigation.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances he prays for bail.Learned Government Advocate informs that 60 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sandeep @ Manoj may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7733/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Jafar Khan, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 1.4.2014 relating to Crime No.39/2014 registered at Police Station Kesli, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 450 & 376(Gh) of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Prosecutrix is shown to be 40 years old married woman.No external and internal injuries are found on the person of the prosecutrix.FIR was lodged with the delay of 2 days.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.He is in custody without any substantial reasons.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Bihari may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sagar to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7728/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Sandesh Dixit, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 13.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 138/2014 registered at Police Station Gwarighat, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The case is triable by the Court of JMFC but it is no so grave and sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The presence of the applicant is not required for investigation.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances he prays for bail.Learned Government Advocate informs that 63 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Lalji Choudhary may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7717/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Arvind Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 12.05.2014 relating to Crime No.362/2014 registered at Police Station Govindpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307, 506, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Initially, it is alleged against the applicant that he quarreled with the victim Shekhar Bhadoriya and assaulted him by a rod and the co-accused assaulted the intervenor Somnath with the help of sharp cutting weapon on his chest and abdomen.One fatal injury was found which was caused by the co-accused.The applicant was not aware that the co-accused would assault the intervenor in such a manner, and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with he help of Section 34 of IPC whereas remaining offences are bailable.He is in custody without any substantial reasons.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant viz. Utkarsh Bhargav, may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Bhopal to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7715/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Pawan Gurgar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sunil Kumar Rahangdale, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.09.06.2014 Shri H.S. Rajput, counsel for the applicants.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for applicants submits that looking to the nature of case it may be decided with the help of copy of impugned order.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.1/2014 registered at Police Station, Mahila Police Station Civil Line, Sagar District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC & 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality and they do not have any criminal past.The applicant no.1 is an old person of 64 years of age.Brother of the complainant had uploaded obscene photographs of sister of the applicant no. 2 and therefore, quarrel started.Before Parivar Paramarsh the complainant was summoned and she was directed to reside with the applicant no. 2 thereafter, the complainant lodged a false FIR against the applicants to harass them.The offence is triable by JMFC but it is not so grave.The co-accused Smt. Manjula Jain wife of applicant no. 1 and Ku.Bharti Jain @ Lali daughter of applicant no. 1 were released on bail vide order dated 22/05/2014 in M.Cr.Under such circumstances applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature on the ground of parity.Learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants namely Devendra Kumar Jain & Deepam Jain be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.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.(N.K.GUPTA) V.JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7897/2014 09/06/2014 Ku.Gayatri Ladhiya, Advocate for the applicants.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Learned Government Advocate informs that application of the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 16/04/2014 and therefore, it is for the applicant to mention particulars of the previous application in this case.Learned counsel for applicant is directed to mention the particulars of the previous application in the memo of present application within a week.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.09.06.2014 Shri N. Ashar, counsel for the applicants.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.188/2014 registered at Police Station, Cantt., District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are old persons of 65, 60 and 62 years of age and they do not have any criminal past.The deceased was daughter-in-law of the applicants who died after 12 years of her marriage.No presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act is applicable in the present case.The allegations made against the applicants do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore, no offence under Sections 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with he help of Section 34 of IPC.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under these circumstances, they pray for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, the application under Section 438 Cr.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants namely Khemchand Patel, Smt. Asharani and Smt. Chandra Prabha be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `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 applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.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.(N.K.GUPTA) V.JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7946/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.Learned Panel Lawyer prays for sometime to get the disputed sale deed in the case diary.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7984/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 8099/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 5661/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.D. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6144/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Pushpendra Dubey Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Om Prakash Vishwakarma, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn with a liberty that it may be filed after three months.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6190/2014 09/06/2014 Shri P.K. Saxena, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Case diary is not available.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6223/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Prosecutrix is shown to be 17 to 19 years of age in the Ossification Test and therefore she is above 18 years of age.As per allegations she remained with the applicant for 3 days without any resistance.No external and internal injuries are found on the person of the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that either the prosecutrix was a consenting parity or the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.He is in custody without any substantial reasons.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6375/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashok Chakraverty, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Dinesh Prajapati, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6479/2014 09/06/2014 Shri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6626/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Prahlad Choudhary, Advocate for the applicants.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens, who have no criminal past alleged against them.The case is triable by the Court of JMFC but sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The applicants cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances counsel for applicants prays for bail.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6652/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6766/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Rajkumar Choudhary, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7029/2014 09/06/2014 Shri H.S. Dubey, Advocate for the applicants.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7126/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.N. Saraf, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7238/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 5.4.2014 relating to Crime No.47/2014 registered at Police Station Bhangarh District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 136 of Electricity Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances counsel for applicant prays for bail.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7259/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Y.K. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Counsel for applicant prays for time to argue the matter.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.5913/2014 19/5/2014 Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate for the applicant.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.4370/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P.C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Case diary is available.As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned It be listed under same head in the next week.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.3421/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head after a week with the direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5728/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Devesh Khatri, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Adv.for the respondent- State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Mueen @ Muveen Sodagar is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.6394/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Adv.Heard on admission.The applicant has moved an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.1, 2 and 3 vide order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur.The facts of the case in short are that the prosecutrix alleged against one Qasim Khan her brother-in-law that he committed rape on her.Thereafter a typed report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police that respondents No.1, 2 and 3 gave their consent so that the main accused may have relation with the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, no case is made out so that the order dated 29.3.2014 may be set aside and the application under Section 439(2) filed by the applicant Gosiya Khan may be allowed.Consequently, application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Gosiya Khan is hereby dismissed at motion stage.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5339/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Adv.for the respondent- State.It be listed under same head after a week with the direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5406/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri S. Datt for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.294, 323, 506- II/34 and 302 of IPC is perused.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.He is a student of BBA Course and if he is not released his studies would be spoiled.There is allegation against 8 accused persons.They assaulted the victim by stick and rod.The deceased Vivesh Singh @ Seetu died due to head injury.It is no where alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the victim on his head by any weapon and therefore, no offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.Remaining offences are not so grave.The applicant is in custody since 27.3.2014 without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Akhilesh Singh may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5270/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Learned counsel for the State informs that the case diary is not available.On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has the copy of charge sheet, and therefore the matter may be considered on the basis of such papers.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Prosecutrix is shown to be 17 to 19 years of age in the Ossification Test.At present she is examined before the Trial Court and she had shown about her consent and she lived with the applicant for four months.Under such circumstances no offences is made out.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Bani Singh @ Jaiprakash may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5210/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 20.2.2014 relating to Crime No.105/2013 registered at Police Station Chargawan District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 341, 307 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality.He has no criminal past alleged against him.In the present case, the incident took place in a spur of movement and there was no pre planing.Sharp cutting weapon has been used for once but no fatal or grave injury was caused and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant.Under such circumstances, he prays for bail Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C.No.4816/2014 19.5.2014 Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S. Datt for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 31.12.2013 relating to crime No.408/2013 registered at Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa for offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.There is no named FIR against the applicant.It is alleged against the applicant that he was identified in the test identification parade but it was arranged with delay.There is seizure of some cash but it could not be identified as the robbed property.The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken.If the applicant is not enlarged on bail, his future will be spoiled in the company of harden criminals inside the jail.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned G.A. for the State opposes the application.He submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may escape.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Abhishek may be accepted with some tough conditions.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,561,458 | (Delivered on this 2nd day of May, 2019) Per Ms.Vandana Kasrekar, J.This criminal appeal is arising out of order of conviction dated 9/02/1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S.T. No.169/98, whereby the learned trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 7 years.After one year of their marriage, the present appellant started harassing his wife and was frequently asking her to bring money from her parents.Due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected to cruelty as a result of which on 12/08/1998 she committed suicide by strangulating herself.The report to this effect was lodged by Omprakash(PW1) at Police Station - Narayangarh.Shri P.S. Vishth, S.H.O, Narayangarh(PW5) has recorded statement of witnesses.Dr. D.K. Bhatnagar(PW2) has conducted the Postmortem of deceased Savitri Bai, who has opined that the deceased died of asphyxia due to hanging.After completing necessary investigation, charge-sheet was 2 (Cri.A. No.259/1999) submitted by Police Station - Narayangarh against accused Mukesh for offence under Section 304-B of IPC, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the matter to the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur.2 (Cri.A. No.259/1999)The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial.To determine the nature of death, first of all it is essential to scrutinize the medical evidence.Prosecution has examined Dr. D.K. Bhatnagar(PW2) in evidence.He has conducted the postmortem of deceased - Savitri Bai.Ex-P/6 is the postmortem report.This witness in his statement has deposed that there was a ligature mark around the neck of deceased.He also stated that there were no other external injury on the person of the deceased and further stated that the deceased died by asphyxia due to hanging.Taking in view the medical evidence, it is crystal clear that death of deceased was caused due to asphyxia.The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses namely Omprakash(PW1), Dr. D.K. Bhatnagar(PW2), Rameshwar(PW3), Rukman Bai(PW4), P.S. Vishth(PW5) and Radheshyam(PW6) to establish its case.9. Rameswar(PW3), who is brother of the deceased in his court statement has deposed that whenever his sister Savitri Bai comes to his house she disclosed to him about demand of money from her in- laws.Few days before her death also, the appellant told her to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents.When she disclosed this fact to her brother that is the present witness, then he told her that he will arrange 3 (Cri.A. No.259/1999) the same within few days.3 (Cri.A. No.259/1999)She has deposed that her daughter never told her about any demand of money from her by the appellant/accused.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to material prosecution witnesses and material evidence available on record and submitted that no evidence showing that accused had any pre-determined motive to commit the alleged offence and, hence, this court should examine the case and grant the benefit by altering the sentence.He referred to the evidence while supporting his submission and contended that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that either relation between the appellant and complainant party was not cordial or / and that they were fighting intermittently on issues or that some violence or overt act was shown by the appellant towards deceased Savitri Bai or that there was any pre-determined motive in the appellant's mind to commit the alleged offence.He pointed out that at present, the appellant has underwent about 20 months of actual period of jail sentence and on the basis of principles laid down by the Apex Court in Catina of decisions benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC can be given to the appellant while awarding the sentence.With the aforesaid, he submitted that since this aspect was not examined by the court below much less in its proper prospective and hence, this Court should examine the same and, accordingly, grant its benefit by altering the sentence.Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent opposed 4 (Cri.A. No.259/1999) the aforementioned submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that no case is made out to interfere in the quantum of punishment much less by taking recourse to Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.4 (Cri.A. No.259/1999)This I say so in the facts of this case for more than one reason.Firstly, even according to the prosecution, there was no premeditation in the commission of crime.Secondly, there is not even a suggestion or I may say conclusive evidence that the accused had any predetermined motive to commit the offence or he had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.Thirdly, no conclusive evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever ensued in so many years between the parties and that too for a cause known to others which could lead to abettment or killing of Savitribai or whether any unsuccessful attempt was ever made by the accused to kill her in past.For the above mentioned reasons, the evidence which has come on record and as per statement of the prosecution witnesses particularly the statement of material/star witness - Rukmanbai(PW4), mother of the deceased Savitri Bai so also admissions made by her in 5 (Cri.A. No.259/1999) her chief-examination, I am of the view that, at the most the case would fall under Section 306 of IPC.5 (Cri.A. No.259/1999)In the case in hand, the allegation against appellant - Mukesh is of demand of money from the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant, as a result of which, she committed suicide by hanging herself.In the result, I allow the appeal. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,975,668 | JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner.Even on the last two hearings, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.On 14th August, 1998 Dharmender Kumar Rastogi came to Delhi from Sher Garh and alighted from the bus at ISBT, Kashmiri Gate Delhi.When he came outside the bus stand with his suit case and started looking for a three wheeler scooter, accused Jagannath along with the present petitioner and one more accused Ishrail @ Rahimuddin were standing near the three wheeler scooter.The petitioner and Ishrail approached Dharmender Kumar Rastogi and asked him as to where he wanted to go.He told that he was to go to Dhaula Kuan.On this both of them disclosed that they were also going to Dhaula Kuan and they were passengers like him and they all can reach Dhaula Kuan by jointly paying Rs.30/-.Dharmender Kumar Rastogi sat in the centre of the scooter's seat and Suresh Yadav sat on right side while Ishrail took seat on his left side.When the scooter reached near Red Fort, accused Jagannath who was the driving the scooter got down from scooter saying that he was to have something from the tea shop.He went towards tea shop and then came back with a biscuit packet.On 21.7.2004, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000/- were issued to ensure presence of the petitioner for 29th October, 2004 On 29th October, 2004 no one appeared for the petitioner.The petition can be disposed of on perusal of the record of the case.The petitioner was involved in case under Sections 328/379 r/w Section 34 IPC along with other accused persons arising out of FIR No.647/1998 PS Trilok Puri, Delhi.After the scooter started moving, the biscuit packet was opened and all the three accused started eating biscuits.Meanwhile, Dharmender Kumar Rastogi was also given two biscuits which he ate and after eating the same he felt intoxicated and fell down unconscious on the scooter's seat.Fortunately, one Constable Devender Singh who was on duty on National Highway 24 near flyover Khichri Pur, Delhi within the area of PS Trilok Puri, saw Dharmender Kumar falling down on the scooter's seat and saw two other persons who were sitting with him started getting out of the scooter.It aroused suspicion in the mind of the Constable Devender Singh and he stopped accused persons who were getting down holding one suit case each and had started moving.Constable Devender Singh asked Suresh Yadav and Ishrail to sit on the same scooter and took them to police picket situated nearby where other police officials were also there.Both the accused were handed over to HC Mamoor and CT Devender Singh went to SDN Hospital in the same TSR along with unconscious Devender Singh and got him medically examined.ASI Om Prakash reached the hospital and recorded the statement of CT Devender Singh.The doctor gave one phial and one sample seal to CT Devender Singh for CFSL examination.The TSR driver Jagannath who was one of the prime accused stole the moment and slipped away from the spot along with his three wheeler scooter.He was subsequently arrested on 17th August, 1998 from his house situated in Gali No.1, Sade Teen Pusta, Usman Pur, Delhi.Charges were framed and trial started against all the three accused persons.However, accused Suresh Yadav during the trial absconded and he did not take the trial and the case was proceeded against rest of the two accused who were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 379 r/w S 34 IPC for stealing the articles of Dharmender Kumar, complainant.The stolen articles were recovered from the accused persons and then were handed over to Dharmender Kumar.The present accused was later on arrested as PO and he pleaded guilty of the charges.Copy of the order be sent to the concerned MM/ CMM for taking necessary action in the matter. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,567,896 | On or about 7:15 a.m., two young persons entered the house through main gate.Kids were playing thereat and from them, above two young lads enquired about Ram Bihari Chaubey.On being told that he was in the cottage, above two persons straightaway went to the cottege and opened several rounds of fire upon Ram Bihari Chaubey.Hearing the sound of firing, Informant-applicant came out of his house and saw these two persons running towards gate of the house and 2-3 persons were already standing there and all of them ran away on two motorcycles.In other two cases one was registered in 2002 in District Ghazipur and another in 2005 in Sant Ravidas Nagar.One case under Section 307 IPC was registered in 2003 in Lucknow.In all these cases accused was on bail;(v) One case under Section 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act was registered in 2003 in District Ghaziabad.(vi) Hence virtually there was no fresh case registered against accused in the preceding 7-8 years involving any serious crime.List of criminal cases registered against accused, which has been placed before this Court shows area of operation of accused opposite party 2 is District Ghazipur, Varanasi, Lucknow and Sant Ravidas Nagar.List of cases mentioned in the history sheet of accused opposite party 2 is as under :i. Case Crime No.Nil/96 under Section 41/411 IPC P.S. Tugalpur, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.172/06 under Section 25 Arms Act, P.s.Tugalpur, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.238/02 under Sections 3/4 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur.v. Case Crime No.598/02 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.376/2000 under Section 406 Cr.P.C., P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.57/03 under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.256/03 under Sections 3(1) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.9/04 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Cantt., District Lucknow.x. Case Crime No.257/04 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.238/04 under Sections 302, 307 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi.Case Crime No.14 C.R.No.102/04 under Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.587/04 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.Case Crime No.835/04 under Sections 3(1) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Opposite party 2 shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail.This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Informant-applicant praying for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 i.e. Ajay Singh @ Ajay Mardah vide order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Sri Alok Saxena, Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Bail Application No.2954 of 2017 in Case Crime No.378 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120 B, IPC, Police Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi.The facts in brief, as evident from record are that First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") being Case Crime No.378 of 2015 dated 4.12.2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120 B, IPC was registered at Police Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi on the information by Abhai Nath Chaubey (hereinafter referred to as "Informant-applicant").FIR alleges that on 04.12.2015 Ram Bihari Chaubey, father of Informant - applicant was reading newspaper sitting in the cottage (madhai), situate near the gate of his house.Informant-applicant reached inside the cottage, found his father in badly injured state, bleeding, lying on chair.With the help of his servant Sandeep, cousins Pramod and Pawan, Informant-applicant brought his father to Singh Medical, Varanasi, for treatment, wherefrom he was referred to B.H.U. but doctors declared him dead when reached B.H.U.This FIR was registered against unknown persons.Police made investigation and arrested accused -opposite party no.2 as also another one Ashutosh Singh alias Sunny Singh, said to be co-accused in the crime.Co-accused Ashutosh Singh alias Sunny Singh was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 passed in Criminal Misc.The bail application of accused-opposite party-2 was opposed by Informant-applicant before Sessions Court.The ground taken by State are that material on record was not considered by Sessions Judge whiling allowing bail, gravity of offence was not looked into, criminal history was not properly appreciated and also the fact that another co-accused Nagendra Singh was declined bail by Sessions Court vide order dated 22.12.2017 was ignored.Sri Narendra Kumar Jha, Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Varanasi, by a detailed order dated 25.07.2018, has found no ground for cancellation of bail and application preferred by State has been rejected.When this application was pending, Informant-applicant filed Criminal Misc.The above writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2018 requesting Court concerned to decide bail cancellation application within four months.Present application has been filed seeking cancellation of bail on the facts and ground as under:(i) Murder of Ram Bihari Chaubey is a political murder, inasmuch as, he was a social worker and contested Assembly Election of Uttar Pradesh on the ticket of Bahujan Samajwadi Party from Sakaldeeha Constituency against Sushil Singh, who won 2012 election defeating Ram Bihari Chaubey from the same Constituency.(ii) Sushil Singh is a nephew of notorious Mafia Brijesh Singh.He was annoyed since Informant-applicant's father contested election against him.(iii) Brijesh Singh has a long criminal history, having more than 41 cases registered against him including heinous crimes and mostly under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act. His area of operation is not confined to Uttar Pradesh but extends to Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Jharkhand etc. He was also having cases under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. Details of all these cases have been given in affidavit accompanying bail cancellation application.(iv) Opposite party 2 is a contract killer.He was hired by Sushil Singh for the aforesaid crime.He was actual shooter as per statement of co-accused recorded by Police during investigation.Police found his involvement on the basis of various evidence and also as per electronic surveillance and location of opposite party 2 based on his phone numbers.(v) Smt. Renuka Chaubey, wife of Informant-applicant, who had seen opposite party 2, testified against him.Opposite Party-2 has also a long criminal history having almost 21 cases registered against him, details whereof is given in Annexure 4 to affidavit accompanying bail cancellation application.The cases involve heinous crimes under Section 302 IPC, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, U.P. Control of Goondas Act, etc.(vi) Opposite party 2 is a notorious criminal and under patronage of political person like Sushil Singh.He is likely to prejudice trial and witnesses may not dare for testimony due to fear.(vii) Opposite party 2 also threatened Informant-applicant and his family members for not pursuing the case at all.(viii) Brother of Informant-applicant has also filed Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.18872 of 2017, Amarnath Chaubey vs. Union of India and 3 Ors.A three-Judges Bench of Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411 had an occasion to consider an order dated 11.04.1978 passed by Delhi High Court rejecting Delhi Administration's application for cancellation of bail of respondent Sanjay Gandhi.(2017) 5 SCC 406, application for bail was rejected by Sessions Judge as also High Court.Even second bail application was rejected by Sessions Judge as also High Court.This time accused went to Supreme Court also but Special Leave Petition was also rejected.Then a third application was filed before Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, which was allowed and accused were enlarged on bail.Informant brought the mater to High Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail.He succeeded and High Court cancelled bail.Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months.The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case.This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court.Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail.This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court.However, it is true that factors relevant for grant of bail are different and approach required to be adopted while considering application for cancellation of bail is different.Now, in the backdrop of aforesaid exposition of law, I proceed to consider facts of this case.A perusal of order dated 23.10.2017 granting bail, passed by Sessions Judge shows that he has relied on following circumstances and factors to enlarge accused-opposite party on bail:(i) Accused is not named in FIR;(ii) His name surfaced in the crime after about seven months from the date of occurrence and that too not during investigation of Police but on the basis of some private kind of investigation by complainant;(iii) Though accused has criminal history but that cannot be a sole ground to consider his claim for parity with accused Anshu alias Sanny Singh, who was already granted bail by order dated 20.9.2017 in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.35726 of 2017;(iv) Cases registered against accused included seven cases under Section 302 IPC whereagainst he was already acquitted in five.Case Crime No.186/97 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and 3(2)10 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.289/04 under Sections 302, 307 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi.Case Crime No.374/05 under Sections 110 Cr.P.C., P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.N.C.R.No.133/05 under Section 506 IPC, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.98/06 under Sections 110 Cr.P.C., P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.243/04 under Sections 364, 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Ghazipur.Case Crime No.230/05 under Sections 302, 307, 120B IPC, P.S. Gopiganj, District Sant Ravidas Nagar.Case Crime No./15 under Sections 110 Cr.P.C., P.S. Gopiganj, District Sant Ravidas Nagar.Order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Varanasi, whereby opposite party 2, Ajay Singh alias Ajay Mardah, has been enlarged on bail, is hereby set aside. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,570,221 | The said I.A. is allowed.C.C. as per rules.Heard on admission.The appeal contains arguable points and it is accordingly admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.1804/2020, the first application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant.The appellant was convicted under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.Shri Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the name of appellant was not there in the FIR, which was originally instituted.The allegations based on Section 376 of IPC were not proved against him.The appellant has been falsely implicated and convicted under Section of 366 of IPC.In a statement made before S.D.M., the prosecutrix/victim mentioned that she went on her own volition.Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI Date: 29/05/2020 14:48:51 2 CRA-899-2020 Accordingly, the said I.A. is allowed.Execution of jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is ordered that the appellant Karan Yadav be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the Trial Court, Tikamgarh on 12.10.2020 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal. | ['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. |
197,570,934 | If the girl is more than 16 years, and the girl makes a statement that she went with her consent and the statement and consent is without any force, coercion or undue influence, the statement could be accepted and Court will be within its power to quash the proceedings under Section 363 or 376 IPC.Here again no straight jacket formula can be applied.The Court has to be cautious, for the girl has right to get the marriage nullified under Section 3 of the PCM Act. Attending circumstances including the maturity and understanding of the girl, social background of girl, age of the girl and boy etc. have to be taken into consideration."M.C. No.4023/2015 Page 2 of 5By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.420/2015 registered at Police Station Mundka, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 out Crl.M.C. No.4023/2015 Page 1 of 5 of misunderstanding.Though, the said respondent voluntarily accompanied the petitioner on 12.08.2015 to Mundka and when she requested to drop, the petitioner dropped her at Mundka Metro Station and thereafter she returned home on her own.M.C. No.4023/2015 Page 1 of 5By virtue of this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings emanating from the same on the ground that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were neighbours and known to each other.Both are students.Thereafter, due to the intervention of the family friends of both sides and respectable members of the society, in the larger interest of both the parties and to maintain the cordial relations, the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have amicably settled their dispute.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident, despite, the case should not have been lodged by the Police against the petitioner in view of judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in case Courts On Its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) Vs.State 2012 VI AD, Delhi 465, whereby held as under: | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,453,677 | This is an application for bail.Applicant has been arrested inconnection with Crime No. 68 of 2019 registered with Police Station Boom,Dist.Applicant is a woman.Applicant, being a woman, cannot prima facie be said to havecommitted offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 354-D of 1 / 2 ::: Uploaded on - 28/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2019 02:30:57 ::: 925-BA-601-19.odtIndian Penal Code.Be that as it may, she may be charged with the offence ofabetment of those offences.::: Uploaded on - 28/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2019 02:30:57 :::Perused the F.I.R. The first informant is 16 years of age.It willtake time for completion of investigation.In the factual backdrop, it wouldnot be desirable to keep petitioner behind the bars any longer.Thisapplication, therefore, is allowed in terms of following order :-(i) Applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 68 of 2019 registered with Police Station Boom, Dist.Osmanabad for the offences under Sections 363, 354, 354-A, 354- D, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on her executing P.R. bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount(ii) Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.::: Uploaded on - 28/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2019 02:30:57 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,476,602 | The applicant is in custody since 20/05/2016 and trial could not conclude.The applicant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE MKB | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,483,146 | sm Allowed CRM No.2383 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.03.2017 in connection with Salar Police Station Case No.158 of 2016 dated 14.08.2016 under sections 370/370A/372/366B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)And In Re:- Tumpa Bag @ Khatun & Ors. .. Petitioners.Soumik Ganguli.... for the petitioners Mr.Saswata Gopal Mukherjee Mr.Rudradipta Nandi ... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioners are in custody for about 219 days.Although the charge-sheet has been submitted, but the case has not yet been committed.Let the petitioners be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad at Kandi upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.50,000/- each, with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, one of whom must be local.Accordingly, this application for bail is disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Shivakant Prasad, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,486,133 | These are Anticipatory Bail Applications under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused Nos.5 and 6 respectively in Crime No.40 of 2018 registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station for the::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 3 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 463, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::I have heard both the sides.State of Maharashtra and another ; 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 687 and particularly the following observations in paragraph No.13 :When an application for anticipatory bail is considered, the police may not place all factual details before the Court as the investigation in most::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 4 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt of such cases is at a preliminary stage.Therefore, some role can be played by the complainant by pointing out factual aspects.In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the first informant or the complainant cannot be heard in an application for anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::5 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt In the process, reliance has also been placed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Chandrakant Chandulal Bhansali Vs.Shrikant Shrikrushna Joshi ; 1992 Bom.Therefore the applications filed by the informant in both these Anticipatory Bail Applications deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed.In sum and substance, the allegations as are levelled by the informant in the FIR are to the effect that in the year 2010 accused Nos.1 to 6 approached him and offered to allot shares to him personally and to his company by name and style 'Rakh Hospitals Private Limited', Jalna having currently the name as 'Deepak Hospitals Health and Wellness Limited' of which he is the Managing Director.They promised to make him Director of Kadwa Goda Khore Sugar Manufacturing Company Limited having the current name as 'KGS Sugar and Infra Corporation Ltd'.At that time, accused Nos.1 to 5 were the Directors of the company whereas accused No.6 who is the present applicant in::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 6 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt Anticipatory Bail Application No.194 of 2019 was the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Director.Believing in their words during the period from 2010 to 2014 he and his company invested around Rs.65,00,000/- in the company of the accused persons.During that time he also in the capacity of a Director of that company signed on the bank documents pertaining to a loan which was to the tune of Rs.74.38 crores.However, during the period 2012 to 2017 all the accused persons which include the officers of the banks obtained a huge loan which in aggregate was for more than 350 crore.However, while furnishing a guarantee in his name his signatures were forged, when he had never agreed to stand as a guarantor.After such revelation he demanded documents from the bank and realized that his signatures were forged.Thus he alleged that the accused persons have indulged in misappropriation, cheating and forgery and have::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 7 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt used the forged documents for obtaining the loan from the bank.The crime was registered as mentioned herein above.The applicants are now seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::I have heard the learned senior advocate Mr. Pradhan, the learned APP Mr. Sonpawale and the learned advocate Mr. V.D.Sapkal for the informant.He would also point out that though the Canara Bank issued a statutory notice to all the Directors on 18.09.2017, he was not served with any::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 8 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt such notice since he was an Independent Director.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::On a query as to how his status as an independent Director would have any relevance when he is alleged to have, in connivance with the other accused, indulged in cheating and forgery, the learned senior advocate submits that he is pointing out these aspects to buttress his submission that being an Independent Director he has had no opportunity to indulge in the alleged cheating and forgery.He would point out that in view of the reply by the Canara Bank in response to the query put by the Investigating Officer the Bank has informed that as per the usual practice, these documents including deed of guarantee have to be executed personally by approaching the bank and similarly the other documents are also executed by going to the office of the bank.Therefore being an Independent Director he was neither the signatory to the loan agreement nor the deed of guarantee.As far as applicant Debasish Krishnapada Mandal is concerned, the learned senior advocate would submit::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 9 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt that he is merely a Chief Executive Officer of the Company and in that capacity has merely acted for and on behalf of the Company and cannot be roped in for the alleged forgery and cheating.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::Thus according to the learned senior advocate, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not at all necessary for completing the investigation.They would be put to disrepute if they are allowed to be arrested.Many other accused have been granted bail or anticipatory bail.Accused No.1 has been released on regular bail whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the Directors and accused No.7 who is the Chartered Accountant of the Company have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, whereas the accused Nos.8 to 10 who are the bank Managers at the relevant time have also been granted regular bail and therefore not only on merit but even on the ground of parity the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::10 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odtThe learned APP duly assisted for the learned advocate for the informant strongly opposes both the applications.In the process they have referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Investigating Officer in Criminal Writ petition No.1614 of 2018 preferred by the informant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the manner in which the investigation was being done.The learned APP would submit that as far as accused No.5 Anil Mishra is concerned, he has not been appointed under Section 149 of the Companies Act but has been appointed as an Additional Director under Section 161 and point out and refer to the certified true copy of the resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company dated 23.06.2014 whereby he was appointed as an 'Additional Director (Independent)'.For that purpose, the official capacity of the applicants-accused Nos.5 and 6 as the Additional Director or Chief::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 11 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt Executive Officer is in-consequential.In what manner they were involved in the crime is a matter to be investigated and is being investigated which is independent of their position in the Company.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::The learned APP would further point out that there is a report of the hand writing expert to whom sample signatures, admitted signatures as well as the disputed signatures on the Deed of Guarantee were forwarded and an opinion was sought.The hand writing expert has clearly opined that the sample signatures of the informant do not tally with the questioned signatures on the Deed of Guarantee.Therefore, there is prima facie material to substantiate the allegations about there being a forgery.The investigation being in progress and since the applicants were holding different positions touching the day-to-day affairs of the company, their custodial interrogation is necessary and even applying the principles laid down in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.State of Maharashtra; (2011)1 SCC 694 and Gurbaksh::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: 12 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt Singh Sibbia Vs.State of Punjab; (1980) 2 SCC 565, the applicants are not entitled to claim anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::At the outset the most important thing that needs to be borne in mind is that a huge loan has been obtained by getting executed a Deed of Guarantee under the purported signature of the informant from a nationalized bank.There is a report of the hand writing expert which clearly corroborates the allegations of the informant that the signatures on this Deed of Guarantee purported to be his are in fact forged ones.This much of material, in my considered view, is sufficient to infer that the Directors and Officers of the Company have been able to obtain the loan under a shoddy document and even the bank officials have obliged them.The investigation is being at a nascent stage, no inference need to be drawn at this juncture.However when the matter has been examined by a hand writing expert, which prima facie corroborates the allegations, this much of material is sufficient to reveal complicity of the accused persons in commission of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::13 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::The applications for anticipatory bail are therefore rejected.(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) ...::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:42 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,491,754 | As per the prosecution, the applicant along with his co-accused Dhiraj Prasad and other associates have cheated the complainant- Rishabh Gupta to the tune of Rs. 2.10 crores by preparing forged documents to establish their title to the subject land admeasuring 430 acres.The prosecution further states out of the total cheated sum of Rs. 2.10 crores, a sum of Rs. 1.10 cores has been paid through banking challans to the M/s JMD Techinfra Private Limited and the balance was paid in cash.c) The applicant has previous involvement, inasmuch as, another FIR bearing no. 225/2011 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC has been registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, Delhi against him and he is already been charge-sheeted in that case.d) The applicant has no permanent address in Delhi and there is a distinct possibility that he shall not be available to stand trial.BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 3 of 18BAIL APPLN.Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State Inspector Arun Dev Nehra, P.S. Amar Colony Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Adv.for the Complainant CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the applicant- Jitender Kumar seeking regular bail in FIR No. 219/2014, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Amar Colony, Delhi.BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 1 of 18BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 1 of 18I have heard Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the official respondent.I have also been assisted by Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant in the subject FIR.In a nutshell, it is contended on behalf of the prosecution as well as the complainant that the conduct of the applicant herein disentitles him from BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 2 of 18 being enlarged on regular bail.The aforesaid conduct is summarized as follows:-BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 2 of 18a) The applicant had at the time of securing bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge undertaken to refund the sum of Rs. 1.10 crores as recorded in the order dated 9th July, 2014 and subsequently, resiled from making the said payment for one reason or the other.b) Subsequent to the dismissal of the bail application by the Sessions Court and the miscellaneous applications seeking extension of time for making the payment as undertaken before the Sessions Court on 27th January, 2015, the applicant allegedly evaded arrest till the 19th April, 2015 when he was finally arrested in execution of the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Court.2707/2015 Page 3 of 18In a landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India crystallized the law in respect of regular bail in the following paragraphs:-Bail has been refused first by the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and subsequently, by the High Court.Furthermore, as mentioned above, the beneficiaries in the subject transaction have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this court; and the applicant has already been in custody for over five months.In view of the foregoing, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail pending trial on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 17 of 18 Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the further conditions that:-BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 17 of 18(i) The applicant shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi without the prior permission of the Trial Court;(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for the hearing of the case;(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the present case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority.(iv) The applicant shall also surrender his Passport, if any, before the Trial Court at the time of furnishing bail bond/surety bond.With the above directions, the present bail application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court Master to counsel for the parties.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 24, 2016/sd BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 18 of 18BAIL APPLN.2707/2015 Page 18 of 18 | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,749,287 | THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MD.MUMTAZ KHAN AND HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA CRA 426 of 2015 With CRAN 1152 of 2018 Sri Chhatradhar Mahato & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & CRA 425 of 2015 Raja Sarkhel & Anr.121 A of 10 years' imprisonment with fine of Rs.It was alleged that PW 1 along with other officers and constables of the Lalgarh Police Station and the forces of the CRPF left for working out an information regarding terrorist activities.After crossing Dalilpur village, when they came to a place, after passing a baniyan tree at about 13.35 hours on 26.09.2009, suddenly an explosion occurred on the left side of 'morum' road at the base of a date tree.Luckily no one was injured.During the search for the remnants of the IED, an electric wire was found stretching up to a nearby bush in the field.The raiding party followed the wire up to the bush and found four persons including the accused Sambhu Soren, Ranjit Murmu and Sagun Murmu hiding behind the bush.While they could nab the three men, the fourth one escaped.At about 14.25 hours they reached Birkar village and noticed about six or seven persons engaged in a conversation in a very low voice under the cover of hedges.The raiding party immediately chased them and could apprehend Chhatradhar Mahato with printed gazettes styled as Guerilla Barta, 4th edition, August 2007 and Biplabi Jug Potrika, May 2007 edition.But, the others fled away by opening fire from their firearms.They could identify Sido Soren, Santosh Patra, Sasadhar Mahato, Lalmohan Tudu while Chhatradhar Mahato stated that the others were Kishnaji and Bikash.The said Chhatradhar Mahato confessed that he and Kishanji had procured explosives and mines and supplied the same to Sagun Murmu, Shambhu Soren and Ranjit Murmu directing them to plant them on the roadside at Dalilpur village to prevent police from moving into the areas as they had a meeting scheduled nearby.Chhatradhar Mahato and others were the activists of CPI (Maoist), which was an organization banned by the Central Government, but was continuing with its terrorist activities in different areas of Paschim Medinipur district and the adjacent districts.They were having an organizational network with their counterparts in Jharkhand.This terrorist group indulged in various criminal activities including committing murder of police personnel and political persons, looting firearms from police and extorting money from different businessmen and thereby creating a reign of terror covering vast areas.It was alleged that the accused had entered into a conspiracy for abetting waging of war against the Central Government as well as the State Government to overawe them by show of criminal force.The CPI (Maoist) and the PSBJC had brought and attempted to bring hatred, contempt and excite disaffection towards the Governments established by law.The accused were also members of an association declared unlawful by the Government of India.Subsequently, further searches and seizures were effected.After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted.From a careful perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that PW 1, a Sub Inspector of Police, was the defacto complainant of the case.He fully supported the first information report lodged by him.He first apprehended three out of the four accused namely, Sagun Murmu, Sambhu Soren, Ranjit Murmu.Some articles were also seized.Then he went with Sagun Murmu to a place near Birkar village.There, the accused Chhatradhar Mahato was also nabbed, but the rest fled away.Two maoist gazettes/magazines of 2007 were seized from Chhatradhar Mahato.In his cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that there was no label affixed on the electric wire and there was no wire attached to the flash-gun allegedly seized from Sagun Murmu.He was a seizure list witness for the magazines seized from Chhatradhar Mahato.In the cross, he stated that IRBn was actually a State force.According to him, the blast took place about thirty/thirty five feet away.He admitted that there was no signature on the labels of the articles appended by him.The seizure list did not state that the flash-gun was fixed to a wire.He did not send any message for more force.PW 3, a police constable, was a raiding party member.However, he also stated at one place that nothing was recovered from Sagun Murmu.In the cross- examination, he stated that there were about 150 members in the raiding party.He admitted his signature on three papers.However, he deposed that he did not know what articles were seized.In his cross, he stated that the seizure lists were already written and he signed on them later on.He did not even know about the contents of the document.He could not identify the explosives, etc. However, he was not declared hostile.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know about the contents of the document.PW 14 was a local witness who identified Chhatradhar Mahato.He was a witness to the seizure of documents from Chhatradhar Mahato at his residence.However, he said that he was not taken to the house of Chhatradhar Mahato.In his cross, he admitted that his signature was taken at the police station.PW 15 was another hostile witness.PW 16 was a Scientific Officer in respect of the pictures and the video recordings contained in the compact discs.Relevant documents and his report were seized from him.According to him, the extracts of materials were examined and the tests were found positive for explosives.PWs 18, 19 and 20 were the other hostile witnesses.PW 21 was an Officer in the Forest Service.In 2008, some members of PSBJC came to collect subscriptions.He paid a sum upon being given threats.In the cross-examination, he admitted that no document was available in respect of such arson.PW 22 was the Police Officer who filled up the First Information Report.PW 23 was an Inspector of Police.He sent a message to the Forest Beat Office to produce the ones apprehended.Suksanti Baskey and Chhatradhar Mahato declined to give their specimen signatures.In the cross, he admitted that he did not send any notice personally to them.PW 24 was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.He went to arrest the accused Suksanti Baskey as per direction.Some money, gelatin sticks and detonators were seized from him.In his cross-examination, he admitted that the Investigation Officer did not examine him.He could not even identify the accused Suksanti Baskey.The place of seizure was not mentioned and labels were not prepared and affixed over the seized articles.He further admitted that it was true that gelatin sticks were often seized and kept at the police station.The police personnel effecting such seizure were not searched before the seizure and no local person was made a witness.PW 25 was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID.He arrested the accused Raja Sarkhel.Some articles were seized.In the cross-examination, he admitted that there was no mention of a GD entry in the arrest memo and no labels were affixed on the seized articles.PW 26 was an Inspector-in-Charge and the first Investigating Officer.He deposed that there were sixteen other cases against the said Chhatradhar Mahato and his associates.After a secret information was received, the same was diarized.Two seizure lists were received after the raid.PW 27 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID who was asked to arrest the accused Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee.Some articles like mobile phone and leaflets were seized from Prasun Chatterjee.PW 28 was another Investigation Officer of the case.He recovered some documents from under the bed of the accused Chhatradhar Mahato.He deposed that the PSBJC used to forcibly collect money from people.On 14.06.2009 eight villagers were abducted and they could not be traced out ever again.He was a seizure list witness for the bullets, etc. on 06.10.2009 (Exbt-30).In his cross, he admitted that no label was affixed on the articles in his presence.PW 30 was a local witness.He identified Chhatradhar Mahato, but he could not identify the other accused.Eight to ten others were also abducted.PW 31 was a local witness and a cousin brother of the accused Chhatradhar Mahato.He could not identify the other accused.He admitted his signature on a seizure list of 30.09.2009 (Ext- 17/3).But, he stated that he did not know why he signed it.However, he did admit that some documents were seized.In his cross, he stated that the police collected his signature at the police line.PW 32 was the last of the investigating officers.Atmosphere of terror:It has come out from the evidence adduced by several witnesses that there was an atmosphere of terror created by members and/or supporters of the PSBJC.They were allegedly indulging in destruction of properties, extortion, looting and abducting people and the like.The receipt for the forced subscription could not be produced as the same was destroyed in an arson committed by the members of Committee.There was also a reference to an earlier case of abduction of eight villagers from the locality by some miscreants of the Committee.Although the present accused/appellants could not be specifically connected with such prior acts, nonetheless, there was no doubt that an atmosphere of terror prevailed in the area where the PSBJC or its members or supporters exerted their influence.Some accused were nearly caught in the act or soon thereafter:Immediately after the bomblast, the raiding party apprehended three of the four accused who were trying to flee from the place of occurrence.They were the accused Sagun Murmu, Sambhu Soren and Ranjit Murmu.As shown by Sagun Murmu, the raiding party went to Birkar village soon thereafter and were able to nab the other accused Chhatradhar Mahato, who had allegedly given them a slip earlier.Seizure of arms, ammunitions and other documents:The seizure of a flash gun, an iron pipe, electric wire, etc. from the place of explosion on 26.09.2009 was supported by three witnesses.Although the seizure was from the possession of the accused Sagun Murmu, the other accused Sambhu Soren and Ranjit Murmu apprehended along with him also signed on the seizure list (Ext. 2).The witnesses PWs 2 and 3 as seizure list witnesses and PW 1 who effected the seizure, supported the same.When the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato was apprehended, some gazettes, magazines were seized from him.Ext. 1 was similarly prepared by PW 1 and the seizure was witnessed by three persons out of whom PWs 2 and 3 came to depose.It also contained the signature of the accused.On 05.10.2009 some leaflets and papers were also seized from his house.Not putting of labels on some articles are not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, especially when trustworthy witnesses support such seizure.After the flash-gun and wire were seized and tested, the wire might not have remained attached to the gun.Although the revolver seized from the accused Sagun Murmu could not be cocked at the first instance and could be fired only after apply some effort, if does not at all prove that the weapon was not in working condition.But, these were not the only things that were seized.By the said judgment, while accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren alias Lalu, Sagun Murmu, Suksanti Baskey, Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee alias Bhutan were acquitted from the charge under Section 307 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren, Sagun Murmu and Suksanti Baskey were exonerated of the charges under Sections 16(1)(b) and 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (the UAPA, for short), the accused Sambhu Soren alias Lalu and Sagun Murmu were acquitted from the charge under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and the accused Suksanti Baskey and Chhatradhar Mahato were exonerated from the charge under Section 4(b) of the said Act, the following accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced as herein below :After search, a flash-gun was recovered from the accused Sagun Murmu.The apprehended accused disclosed their identities and confessed that they exploded the IED as per order of Chhatradhar Mahato and Kishanji who were the leaders of Police Santras Birodhi Janasadharaner Committee (the PSBJC, for short) and CPI (Maoist), respectively and who had supplied the bomb to them.Chhatradhar Mahato, Kishanji, Bikash and others had been staying for a meeting at Birkar village.Then the raiding party proceeded for Birkar following the way as was shown by the accused Sagun Murmu.In 2012 charges were framed against the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren alias Lalu, Sagun Murmu, Suksanti Baskey, Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee alias Bhutan under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123, 124-A and 307 of the Penal Code, under Sections 18, 38(2), 39(2) and 40(2) of the UAPA, against the accused Suksanti Baskey under Sections 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, against the accused Sambhu Soren alias Lalu and Sagun Murmu under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, against the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren alias Lalu, Sagun Murmu and Suksanti Baskey under Sections 16(1)(b), 17 and 20 of the UAPA and against the accused Chhatradhar Mahato under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act. Prior to the framing of charge, the accused Ranjit Murmu passed away.During trial the prosecution examined thirty two witnesses to establish its case.The said flash-gun was kept with the CRPF personnel before seizure.All the witnesses to the seizure were police personnel.He further admitted that there was no warrant of arrest pending against Chhatradhar Mahato at that point.PW 2 was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who accompanied PW 1 in the raid.He heard a mine blast from a nearby date tree.Three accused were initially arrested.Sagun Murmu led to the capture of Chhatradhar Mahato while five or six other accused fled away.A portion of the seizure list was written in the police station.He admitted that after going to the police station, he put his signature at three or four places.He was not examined by the Investigating Officer.PW 4, a Block Development Officer, was a seizure list witness for the seizure of certain documents on 06.10.2009 in respect of the complaints of workers about extortions and threats given by the extremists in the area and their prayer for mass transfer.In this regard a group of twenty five to thirty people of the PSBJC met him at his office.Subsequently, the members of the PSBJC, the official staff of the BDO, Binpur-I and the SDO, Jhargram held a meeting in which the accused Chhatradhar Mahato was present.In his cross, he admitted that he could not produce any document in connection with the tripartite meeting.PWs 5, 6 and 7 were local witnesses who turned hostile.PW 8 was a seizure list witness for the articles seized from the accused Suksanti Baskey.He was not examined by the Investigating Agency.PWs 9 and 10 were two other local witnesses who turned hostile.PW 11 was a Sub Inspector of Police.PW 12 was a ballistic expert.There was no label affixed on the arms and ammunitions.PW 13 was the Collector for the area.He was a seizure list witness for the mass petitions for transfer vis-a-vis' the demand of Rupees Three Lakhs by the PSBJC.In his cross- examination, PW 16 admitted that the contents might be fifteen to twenty days old.He could not say whether such data was tampered with or not.He could not identify the accused Sombhu Soren, Sagun Murmu or Suksanti Baskey.In his cross-examination, PW 28 stated that some leaflets and other documents were recovered.But he admitted that no effort was made to get a handwriting expert compare and identify the writings in the diary.PW 29 was an Upa Pradhan of Dharampur Gram Panchayat.Thereafter, the names of the other accused transpired.The statement of Suksanti Baskey led to the recovery of magazines and photographs.He collected the report of the BDO regarding the prayer for mass transfer.On 06.10.2009, pursuant to the statement of the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, he recovered arms, ammunitions and gelatin sticks from a nearby bush.He sent them for examination and received a report.Relevant sanctions to prosecute were received from the District Magistrate and the Home Secretary.Compact discs containing conversations were seized.The material exhibit No. VI did not tally with the articles as mentioned in the FSL report.He did not prepare any sketch map for the spot where the blast took place.A hole in the fire arm was not noted in the case diary.No villagers were examined either at Dalilpur village or Birkar village.There was no note in the case diary about whether the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code were also sent for obtaining sanctions for prosecution.Therefore, the entire prosecution was completely bad in law.The gravity and the enormity as would constitute a waging of war were sadly lacking in the present case.No independent witness could be examined from the villages Dalilpur and Birkar so as to support the prosecution case.Even the ballistic expert was tentative in his approach.The PSBJC was inferred to be a part of CPI (Maoist).But there was no basis for coming to such conclusion.No idea was given as to when the PSBJC was formed.No list of members of PSBJC was seized.There was hardly anything to connect PSBJC with the banned CPI (Maoist-Leninist).The accused Suksanti Baskey alleged that he was coerced to sign.Although the accused Chhatradhar Mahato refused to give his specimen signature, yet a conclusion was arrived at that some relevant documents were signed by the said Chhatradhar Mahato.PW 28, the Investigating Officer, admitted that he did not pray for examination of handwriting.The details of articles seized, as contained in the seizure list, did not match with the articles as sent back from the FSL.Legally admissible evidence was lacking in respect of the offences alleged under Sections 121 and 124A of the Penal Code.The defence cross- examined the witness on this, but never challenged the existence or validity of sanction as referred to herein.The State Government's subsequent sanction granted on 24.05.2009 seems to have been more in the nature of an additional safeguard.On 30.09.2009 some leaflets, etc. including leaflets of CPI (Maoist) were seized from the house of the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato.The appellant refused to sign on this seizure list (Ext. 17).The two local witnesses to the seizure PWs 14 and 31 (cousin of the said appellant) did not support the seizure and turned hostile although they admitted their signatures.On 30.09.2009, pursuant to a statement of the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato, an improvised firearm, ammunitions, two detonators and eleven compact discs were recovered that had been kept concealed under the soil near a thick bush at Narcha jungle.The seizure list (Ext 30) contained the appellant's signature in it.Out of two seizure list witnesses, one was not examined.The other one being PW 29 supported the seizure.First, the allusion to an overwriting for the row "Name and residence of person whose house is searched from whom seized" is quite meaningless.Besides, a little below at item no. 5, capital letters were again used to denote "ONE" although the rest were written in small letters.In any event, all these fade into insignificance as PWs 29 and 32 clearly supported the seizure.On 01.10.2009, vide two seizure lists (Exts. 8/1 and 9/1), some objectionable leaflets, receipts for forced subscriptions and thereafter, three gelatin sticks and two detonators were seized by PW 24 from the appellant Suksanti Baskey His signature was obtained.Although the seizure list witness PW 8 admitted his signature, he did not support the seizure of anything except a few papers.But, he was not declared hostile.However, the challenge was not complete as PW 24, who seized the articles, was not cross-examined on this.As regards the evidence regarding call records, whether they are found admissible in evidence or not, they do not appear to be clinching enough as against the appellants.However, the apprehension of some accused at or from near the place of occurrence, the recovery of arms and ammunitions from some of the accused and the seizure of similar objectionable literature from most of them give a clear indication of a sinister design to commit terrorist acts and indulge in seditious activities.The appellant Sagun Murmu was apprehended immediately after the bomblast from near the place of occurrence and a flash gun, an iron pipe, electric wire, etc. were seized from him.Subsequently some other offending literature were also seized from him.The accused Sambhu Soren and another were apprehended from near the place of occurrence along with the co-accused Sagun Murmu immediately after the occurrence.The appellant Chhatradhar Mahato purportedly fled away from near the place of occurrence and after the way was shown by the co-accused Sagun Murmu, the raiding party tracked him to Birkar village and apprehended him from there.Some offending literature were found from him there as also from his residence afterwards.More significantly, arms and ammunitions including two detonators were recovered from a jungle as produced by the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato.He had no explanation for possessing the compact discs containing some extremely objectionable clips.Some arms and ammunitions as also some offending literature and receipts for forced subscriptions were recovered from the appellant Suksanti Baskey.Some mobile phones, cash money and leaflets could be recovered from the appellants Raja Sorkhel and Prasun Chatterjee.Their images were purportedly present in the seized compact discs, but not in any of the extremely offensive clips as referred to earlier.Defective investigation:The Investigating Agency ought to have pre- empted that in cases involving such serious offences, some witnesses, especially the local ones were bound to turn hostile.Moreover, the Investigating Agency failed to come to terms with the changes brought about in law owing to scientific advancements.Had the investigation been more sincere and adept, the true expanse and the gravity of the crimes could have been unearthed.It is true that a flea-bite sentence should not be awarded for a serious offence.At the same time, one has to take into consideration diverse factors in awarding a sentence.Not only is the gravity of the crime to be considered, the other factors like the range of sentence imposable and the minimum sentence fixed, if any, are also to be taken into account.The aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances are to be carefully weighed.For instance, in the present case, the aggravating factors are the seriousness of the crimes and the recovery of relatively sophisticated items like gelatin sticks and detonators.On the other hand, the mitigating factors are the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 of the Penal Code and the non-seizure of any huge cache' of arms or more sophisticated and lethal weapons like rocket launchers or RDX.Keeping all these factors in mind, an adequate sentence is to be imposed in this case.As had been mentioned earlier, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges under Sections 20, 38(2), 39(2) and 40(2) of the UAPA against any of the accused and as such, they are exonerated of such charges.We also think that the presence of the purported images of the appellants Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee in some compact discs, albeit not in the most objectionable clips, does not sufficiently connect them to the alleged offences.The same fails to bring them within the ambit of conspiracy in the facts of the present case. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,974,963 | The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of running a brick-kiln and is also a member of the Management of Janta Inter College, Ghatampur, Kanpur.Janta Degree .College.district Kanpur Dehat and Vaidik Inter College.Kunwa Kheda.He applied for gun licence in the year 1994 for proteclion of his life and properly.The District Magistrate.an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and his two brothers.The trial was pending in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge as S.T. No. 371 of 1995, State v. Dinesh Chandra and others.The Station House Officer.Police Station Sajetl recommended to the District Magistrate that the gun licence of the petitioner be cancelled.The District Magistrate issued a show cause notice on 23.5.99 to the petitioner to show cause why his gun licence be not cancelled.I.P.C. In pursuance of the F.l.JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner i.s challenging the order dated 13.5.1998 passed by the District Magistrate.(filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 16.7.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, respondent No. 1 (filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition).However, the District Magistrate, Kanpur, vide order dated 13.5.98, cancelled the gun licence of the petitioner on the ground that the criminal case under Section 302/201, I.P.C. is pending and the petitioner can misuse his gun at any time.Against the order dated 13.5.1998, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner.Kanpur Division, Kanpur.The Commissioner vide order dated 16.7.1998 had rejected the appeal filed 'By the petitioner on the ground that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner and only after the case is decided, it will be known as to whether the petitioner is guilty or not.A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner In which the copy of the Judgment dated30.1.1999 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge.Kanpur Dehat. had been filed wherein the Court had acquitted the petitioner.It may be mentioned here that the Court vide order dated 21.8.1998 had granted four weeks time to the standing counsel to file counter-affidavit.No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent so far.The writ petition is.therefore, finally decided at the admission stage itself.I have heard Shri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. B. Tiwari.learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the orders dated 13.5.98 passed by the District Magistrate.Kanpur and 16.7.98 passed by the Commissioner.I.P.C. is pending before the trial court and the petitioner can misuse his gun at any time.The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge.Kanpur vide order dated 30.1.1999 had acquitted the petitioner.Thus, the basis on which the gun licence of the petitioner has been cancelled does not survive.This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate.Pratapgarh and others.Consequently, the orders dated 13.5.98 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 16.7.1998 passed by the Commissioner.Kanpur (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. | ['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. |
197,497,276 | Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction sb-9 Appellate Side .C.R.M. No.3442 of 2015 Kalu Sk. @ Nehajuddin Sk.The State of West Bengal Mr. Rajdeep Majumder Mr. Asraf Ali ...for the petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, PP Mr. Partha Pratim Das ... for the State The petitioner accused of offences under sections 147/148/ 149/337/338/325/353/333/383/307/427/435/506/283 IPC and in custody from February 23, 2015 is seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have perused the case diary produced before us.Learned advocate for the State was unable to draw our attention to any injury report.Considering the length of the period of detention and the contents of the case diary, we are inclined to admit the petitioner to bail.For these reasons, we allow the application and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties (one local) of Rs.5,000 each - all to the satisfaction of CJM, Krishnanagar.(GirishChandraGupta,J) (ShibSadhanSadhu,J) 2 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,498,952 | P.W.8 (Md. Arif) deposed that on 8.1.2005 at 7 p.m. there was a quarrel between the appellant on one hand and Hasibul, Habibul and himself over throwing of mud on the trouser of the appellant.Local people intervened in the matter.In cross examination he stated that he was a tailor.The place of occurrence was about five minutes from his place of work.Upon hearing the incident he went to the hospital at 9 p.m. He deposed that Hasibul had been admitted to the hospital while Habibul and Arif were released from the hospital after treatment.Hasibul died while he was being shifted to P.G hospital in an ambulance.P.W 1 is the grand father of the deceased.He deposed that on 8.1.2005 a disturbance occurred between the appellant and Md. Arif over sprinkling of mud.Local people intervened.At 8.30 p.m. he was informed that his eldest son, Hasibul was stabbed with a razor at karbala field.Md. Arif and Habibur informed him about the incident.On 9.1.2005 she was discharging duty as emergency medical officer.One Hasibul Kazi was referred to the hospital from Howrah General Hospital.The patient had stabbed injury on the neck by a sharp cutting instrument caused by Nijamuddin.The patient was brought dead.She proved her report (Ext 3).P.W 13 (Dr. Tapan Kanti Roy) is the post mortem doctor who held post mortem over the dead body of Hasibul and found the following injuries :There were two incised wounds on left side of neck, obliquely placed directed downwards medially from the left sideThere was a wound placed at the anterior abdominal wall at the lower end of costal margin over the last ribThe wound was stitched with five stitches.The dimension of the wound was 3 "long and " deepThere were abrasion at the back measuring 10" x 2".He proved the medial report (Ext. 9).P.Ws 15 and 16 are the investigating officers in the instant case.P.W 15 (S.I. Biswanath Datta) is the first investigating officer.He went to the place of 8 occurrence and drew up sketch map (Ext. 10).He arrested the appellant.He seized blood stained apparels from the appellant under a seizure list (Ext 2).P.W 3 witnessed the said seizure and signed on the seizure list.He collected injury report from the hospital.He obtained post mortem report.He made over charge of investigation to O/C upon transfer.P.W 16 (S.I. Shyamal Chakraborty) is the second investigating officer.He sent the seized wearing apparels for FSL examination.and 29.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 493 of 2005 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 324/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a find of Rs.1,000/- i.e. to further imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 8.1.2005 around 6.30/7.00 P.M., there was an altercation between the appellant and one Md. Sarif, P.W.12 over sprinkling of mud on his trouser.Over such issue, the appellant along with Zakir and Jabir attacked one Hasibul Kazi, Md. Arif (P.W.8) and Habibul Kazi (P.W.9) with a sharp cutting weapon causing severe injuries on them.The victims were shifted to Howrah General Hospital where Hasibul was admitted and two others were discharged after treatment.Unfortunately, Hasibul subsequently succumbed to his injury.In the meantime, Rabiul Hossain, P.W.1, grand father of the deceased lodged First Information Report resulting in registration of Golabari P. S. Case No.9 of 2005 dated 8.1.2005 against the appellant and others.Charge sheet was filed in the instant case and charges were framed under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and one Sk.Zakir Hossain @ Jakir and Md. Jabir @ Sk.In the course of trial prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses.Defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by judgement and order dated 28.05.2009 and 29.05.2009 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.However, by the self-same judgement and order, co accused persons Sk.Zakir Hossain @ Jakir and Md. Jabir @ Sk.Jabir were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.Hence, the present appeal.Pursuant to such direction, enquiry was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Howrah, which has been placed before this Court.No upper age limit was stated by him.He also was not examined on oath by the trial court.Trial Judge failed to notice such infirmity in the opinion of the Radiologist and erroneously came to a finding that theappellant was 12 year of age on the date of occurrence.As the age disclosed by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held on 8.12.2008 was 23 years, we are of the opinion that the appellant was not a juvenile on the day of occurrence.It is trite law that a finding in a bail order is an interlocutory one and cannot have binding effect at the time of final hearing of the case.A perusal of the said order would also show that the finding of the trial judge was accepted on its face value and no reasons had been given in support thereof.Hence, the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits.She argued that the assault on the deceased and P.W 8 and 9 cannot be linked with the earlier incident which occurred between the appellant and Md. Sarif (P.W 12).It is also argued that there are contradictions in the ocular versions of the witnesses and the medical evidence.Alleged seizure of wearing apparels have not been proved reasonable doubt.It is also submitted that the name of the appellant as the assailant was disclosed by P.W 11 at the earliest opportunity before the medical officers.P.Ws.8 and 9 are the injured and most vital witnesses in the instant case.At 8.30 p.m. when they were playing at Karbala math the appellant came with a razor.He strucked Hasibul on the throat and abdomen causing bleeding injuries.He and Habibul intervened and were also assaulted resulting in bleeding injuries.They took Hasibul to Howrah District Hospital where he was admitted.On the next morning Hasibul expired.P.W 9 (Habibul Kazi) is the other injured witness.He deposed in the same line.P.W 10 (Md. Moinuddin) is another eye-witness to the incident.He was also playing along with Md. Arif, Habibur Rahaman and Hasibul Rahaman at karbala math when the incident occurred.He lodged the FIR.He, however, was not an eye witness to the incident.P.W 12 (Md. Sarif) was a boy with whom the appellant had a dispute over sprinkling of mud on his trouser prior to the incident.He had corroborated the prosecution case.He went to Howrah Hospital.He found Hasibul had been stabbed on the throat.Hasibul was admitted in the hospital and later shifted to P.G hospital but the doctor of P.G Hospital declared him dead.Habibur and Md. Arif also suffered injuries in the course of said incident.P.Ws 4, 5 and 13 are the medical witnesses.P.W.5 (Dr. Pamela Ghosh) was posted at Howrah District Hospital as medical officer.On 8.1.2005 she was posted at emergency medical officer in the said hospital.One Hasibul Kazi was brought to the hospital.She examined the patient at about 8.50 p.m. As per statement of Md. Tarique (P.W.11) the patient was assaulted by Nijam with knife.The patient was unconscious with cut throat injury and chest injury.He was admitted under Dr. A. K. Ghosh.She proved injury report (Ext 4).She also examined Md. Arif.As per statement of Md. Tarique he was assaulted by Nijam with knife.Md. Arif was conscious and mentally alert.One incised wound measuring about 1" x " on the left side upper lip was found.She proved injury report (Ext 5).She also examined Habibul Kazi (P.W 9).As per his statement he had been assaulted by Nijam with a knife.She found one incised wound measuring about " x " on elbow joint.She proved injury report (Ext 6).All the injuries were incised wounds and could have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like knife or razor.In her opinion cut throat injury of Hasibul Kazi was 7 sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.She was extensively cross- examined.He opined that the death was due to effect of injuries as noted above to the blood vessels, trachea etc. which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.Injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon.The injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person.He collected FSL report (Ext12).He submitted charge sheet.P.Ws 8 and 9 are the injured eye witnesses.They deposed they were playing at karbala math around 8.30 p.m. At that time, appellant came and assaulted Hasibul on throat and abdominal cavity with a razor.He suffered serious injuries, appellant also assaulted P.W 8 on the left lip and P.W 9 on the elbow.The witnesses took Hasibul to Howrah District Hospital where he was admitted.The said witnesses were also treated in the said hospital.Hearing about the incident P.Ws 11 and 14 rushed to the hospital.She found injuries on the throat and chest of the deceased.She opined that the injury on the throat was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Victim was referred to SSKM Hospital.P.W 14 is the father of the victim took the victim to SSKM hospital where P.W 5 declared him dead.P.W 13 conducted post mortem on the victim and found the incised injuries on the left side of neck and abdominal wall.He opined that the death was due to effect of injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.He corroborated the version of P.W 5 and deposed the injury in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death.Ms. Ghosh has disputed the prosecution case on the ground that the seizure of blood stained wearing apparels at the behest of the appellant has not been proved.In the face of the consistent narration of the injured eye-witnesses P.W 8 and 9 implicating the appellant as the assailant of deceased and the said witnesses, we are of the opinion any irregularity in the by seizure of wearing apparels would not erode the credibility of the said witnesses.It is also important to note that the ocular versions of the injured witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence on record.P.W 5 medical officer who treated the deceased and P.W 8 and 9 at Howrah District Hospital found injuries on the neck and chest of the victim deceased, Hasibul.P.W 13 (post-mortem doctor) also found injuries on the neck as well as abdominal cavity of the victim which, according to him, was sufficient to cause death.In view of the aforesaid medical evidence on record corroborating the ocular version of the injured witnesses, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant did not have any intention to commit murder.Initially there was a dispute between the appellant and one of the relations of the deceased namely Md. Sarif (PW 12).Local people intervened in the matter.Thereafter, the appellant attacked the deceased and his brothers, Md. Arif and Habibul (P.W.s 8 and 9), at Karbala Math around 8.30 p.m. in the evening.He dealt repeated blows on the vital parts of the deceased, namely neck and abdominal cavity.Injuries were noted by P.W.5 (treating doctor) and P.W.13 (post-mortem doctor) on the neck and abdominal cavity of the deceased.The medical witnesses opined that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Hypothetical argument that the injury might have been a slash injury, is of little relevance in the face of the consistent medical opinion with regard to the gravity of the injuries which, as per the Medical Officers, were 10 sufficient to cause death.The conduct of the appellant in repeatedly attacking the victim on the neck and abdominal cavity with a sharp cutting weapon reinforces my conclusion that the appellant had intended to murder the victim.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.The appeal is dismissed.Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once.I agree. | ['Section 324 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. |
1,975,000 | This appeal by special leave takes exception to the acquittal of the first four respondents, who were arraigned before the J.M.F.C. at Wai for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Penal Code.The complaint moved by the appellant was to the effect that his family owned a piece of agricultural land in Village Kavathe, Taluka Wai, District Satara.This land as also that owned by respondents 1 to 4 received water for irrigating crops from Hanmant Dam.The right to irrigate the lands from the said dam was regulated by turns.On 17-12-1978 it was the turn of complainant's family to take water from the dam.While the watering of the standing crop was in progress, which was being supervised by the complainant, his father Jagannath and grand-father Waman, they found a blockade in the flow of water.Thereupon, the complainant went with his grand-father to verify what had happened.They had taken a lantern with them.Going up the channel, they noticed a breach in it whereby the flow was diverted towards the land of the accused.All the accused were present and engaged in the diversion of the water flow.When the complainant protested, the accused abused and gave him a beating.He, his grand-father and his father Jagannath who came later were all beaten.On his part, accused 1 struck him on the head with a pick-axe.But for the intervention of people present on the spot, the victims would have been dealt with more severely.A report of the occurrence was given at the Bhuinj outpost.The wounded persons were sent to Dr. Joshi for examination and treatment.On the person of the complainant, he found three contused lacerated wounds, caused probably by means of a hard and blunt substance.Waman except for a slight tenderness on the chest had no visible injuries.The police declined to take action holding that a non-cognizable offence had been committed.For that reason, the appellant lodged a complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C., Wai.Cognizance was taken as desired by the complainant under sections 323, 504 and 506 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code.Accused pleaded not guilty - their defence being that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity.Nothing of the nature alleged by the prosecution had taken place.They were innocent and deserved an acquittal.Complainant examined himself, his father, grand-father, uncle, the Medical Officer and the Police Officer who had reduced to writing the report given by complainant's uncle Shivaji.The Magistrate held that no independent witness had been examined, that there were discrepancies in the accounts given by the witnesses and that having regard to the animosity that existed between the parties it was dangerous to record a conviction.For that reason, he acquitted the accused and that has given rise to the present appeal.My reasons for so holding are given below.Before proceeding to a consideration of the testimony of the witnesses examined let me make it clear that the enmity between the two sides was deep and bitter.However, the need for corroboration should not be made into a fetish and to such an extent as to disbelieve the evident and obvious.In the present case, complainant's version in relation to the injuries sustained on his head by him at the hands of respondent 1 is corroborated by the report lodged at the police outpost by Shivaji and also the medical evidence.In the report given by Shivaji at Ex. 25 there is a clear reference to respondent 1 striking the complainant on the head with a pick-axe.Dr. Joshi examined the complainant on 17-12-1978 and found on his head two contused lacerated wounds - third one being on the left leg.The Medical Officer testifies that the three injuries were caused by a hard and blunt substance.He denies the possibility that these could have been caused by a mere fall on hard and blunt surface or substance.That has not stopped the witnesses from trying to rope in the remaining accused persons.Waman and Jagannath also claim to have been beaten.No injuries were found on the person of Waman though when taken before the Medical Officer he groaned and moaned to show that he was in pain.Accepting that which is acceptable and undeniable, the conclusion would be that complainant alone was beaten by accused 1 on the head with a pick-axe.The rest of the prosecution version has to be dismissed as so many lies.The effort to implicate the rest cannot be accepted on account of the mere say-so of Shivaji.After all that person is a graduate in Education and a double graduate in Arts.When the offence committed by accused 1 is established by unimpeachable corroborative evidence viz. the report lodged with the police and medical evidence there was no need to go in search of elusive independent witnesses.Counsel for the accused submits that the first accused acted in defence of his person and property.That can hardly be a reason for treating the appeal as good in law but infructuous substance because of the passage of time.Having regard to the foregoing I hold that the Magistrate erred in acquitting all the accused and that he should have convicted accused accused 1 for the offence punishable under S. 323, I.P.C.That brings me to the question of sentence.The passage of time will here be of great significance.Accused 1 has an unblemished past and having regard to the slight harm that was done to the complainant - the Medical Officer says that complainant prolonged his stay as an indoor patient at the hospital though he could have left immediately after examination and treatment - no sentence is called for.Instead of imposing a sentence upon accused 1 I direct that he do execute a bond to preserve the peace and be of good behaviour for a duration of one month as from the date of execution of the bond.The bond shall be in the sum of Rs. 100/-.Accused I shall pay Rs. 10/- as costs to partly reimburse the State for the expenses incurred by it in making available two Courts and spend public time for the hearing of the complaint and the appeal.Appeal partly allowed as above.Appeal partly allowed. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,501,779 | k.b. /b.r.In the matter of: Pabitra Das ....Petitioner.Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.The petitioner has been implicated in a case arising out of a mob violence upon public transport.It is submitted that the petitioner is in the same footing as those of some FIR named persons who have already been granted bail by this Court.The petitioner shall meet the investigating officer as an when called for and shall abide by the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code.CRM 4853 of 2020 is disposed of.(Tirthankar Ghosh,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,521,676 | Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10th February, 2011 in connection with Howrah P.S. Case No. 01 dated 01.01.09 under Section 147/148/ 149/ 333/224/353/ 307/ 436/ 379/427 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Suraj Pathnayak @ Suraj Patnayak..... Petitioner (in Jail).Mr. Suman De.....For the Petitioner.Mr. Achyut Kumar Basu.... For the State.The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to the offence punishable under Section 147/148/ 149/ 333/224/353/ 307/ 436/ 379/427 of the Indian Penal Code.It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years and 3 months.He further submitted that already the principal accused and other accused were granted bail by this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner is also standing on the same footing with those accused persons.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced the case diary, but has not disputed the fact that the three other similarly situated persons have been granted bail by this Court.He also very fairly submitted that the injury suffered by the victim is simple in nature.Considering the aforesaid facts and since the principal accused is on bail, we are inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail.The applicant/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount.The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution case and shall not commit any offence while on bail.The application for bail accordingly stands disposed of.(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.) (MRINAL KANTI SINHA, J.) | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,753,176 | (i) Bail Application No. 2067 of 2019 is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 13:50:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 13:50:57 :::connection with C.R.No.54 of 2018 registered with Gokul Shirgaon Police Station, District-Kolhapur, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.(iii) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10:00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till further order.(iv) Bail Application No.2067 of 2019 stands disposed of.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 13:50:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 13:50:57 ::: | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,975,319 | The appellant is Kishanlal Agarwalla carrying on business under the name and style of "Shree Katihar Jewellery" at Katihar in the district of Purnea.A servant and an employee of the appellant by the name of Dharam Chand Jain was going from Katihar to Calcutta.He was following a rather devious route, it being from Katihar by train to Raiganj, thereafter, by bus to Kaliaganj and then he Intended to proceed by bus to Balur-ghat from where he wanted to travel by air to Calcutta.This was the appellant's case.On the journey at Kaliaganj this Dharam Chand Jain was caught red-handed carrying 41 gold bars bearing No. 999.10 and weighing 412 tolas 1 anna and 4 ratis, on the strength of an information, received by the Land Customs Authorities from a source.Dharam Chand Jain carried this large number of gold bars round his waist tied in dhoti.Four hundred and twelve tolas was a heavy weight.Apart from this large amount of gold and the large number of bars and their being all carried round the waist, an unusual place, there were other remarkable features attending this seizure of gold.This gold was packed with or wrapped up with printed census papers of East Pakistan.The fineness of the gold "999.10" suggests that this gold was imported foreign gold because normally this fineness is not achieved in India.The seizure was made at Kaliaganj during the transhipment or change that the said Dharam Chand Jain was making in the journey.The seizure was actually made on the 13th November, 1956 between the hours 15.55 and 20.30 hours.2-A. The defence of the appellant was that, the gold was not smuggled or imported foreign gold, that this gold bar was made out from old ornaments purchased from Jewellers and thereafter melted at the shop of the appellant in the moulds of the appellant.Another part of the defence of the appellant is that the gold seized was later on substituted by a different gold by the Custom Authorities.A further defence of the appellant is that his servant Dharam Chand Jain was going to the firm of M/s. Ramdhondas Bhagwandas at No. 56, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta with this gold.There was an investigation followed by the adjudication of the Collector of Land Customs.On the 14th November, 1956, the appellant's mould or forma in which the gold was supposed to have melted and moulded was handed over to the Authorities.Thereafter, on or about the 14th May, 1957, the Superintendent of Land Customs, Raiganj Circle took over the gold bars from the Sub-Inspector.District Enforcement Branch Police, Kaliaganj, Raiganj Sub-Treasury.Thereafter, on the 26th September.1957 the appellant received the show cause notice or memo dated the 5th September, 1957 from the Superintendent, Land Customs, Raiganj Circle, Malda.Further investigation followed.The samples were tested and assayed by the Mint Authorities of the Government of India.This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J. dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and discharging the Rule against the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta.Finally the present show cause notice was given on or about the 1st October, 1958 on which the adjudication took place.This show cause notice gave a fair account of the evidence on which the charge was based slating, namely, (1) that the seizure was made on the basis of a source information lodged with the seizing police officer, a copy of which was enclosed; (2) the search list was prepared by the seizing police officer showing the recovery of the gold bars from fhe person of Dharam Chand Jain wrapped up with printed census papers of East Pakistan and the copy of the search list was also enclosed; (3) Dharam Chand Jain's statement that he was proceeding from Katihar to Calcutta, but on search of his person if was found that Dharam Chand Jain had no money with him for meeting the expenses of air journey to Calcutta; (4) the appellant's case that the gold was obtained by the appellant after melting and moulding old ornaments purchased by the appellant in the ordinary course of business was not supported by any reliable evidence and as long as six months after the date of seizure, the appellant submitted certain books of accounts and purchase memos which on investigation showed that none of the alleged sellers of broken ornaments could produce the original purchase receipts; (5) that although the appellant said that he could not produce the relevant account books, purchase memos etc. before 25-6-1957 on the ground that they were sent to Calcutta to M/s. Ramdhondas Bhagwandas on 11-11-56 bv messenger; Mr. G.N. Shroff, partner of M/s. Ramdhondas Bhagwandas stated that the account books sent to them were returned within 8 to 10 days of their receipt and such account books were brought only for verification of certain amounts of monev lent and that neither G.N. Shroff nor any of the partners of his firm had ever dealt in gold, (7) that the Assay Reports of the Government of India Mint.New Alipore, show that the fineness of the gold seized and the copies of Expert opinion of the Mint Authorities and the Bullion Merchants Association, which were also sent to the appellant indicated that the gold was imported.The appellant showed cause on or about the 13th October, 1958 as well as Dharam Chand Jain who was also served with the notice to show cause.There was attempt to postpone the hearing of the adjudication.On the 18th November, 1958 when the hearing was fixed the appellant raised the contention that unless the breaking of the seal on the gold was first decided it was not possible to submit complete answer.On the 18th November, 1958 however, the adjudication of the Collector proceeded with the enquiry and the evidence of Dharam Chand Jain and R. M. Das was recorded The appellant with the advocate was present.In fact, the appellant's lawyer cross-examined R. M. Das and a point has been raised that some of the questions in cross-examination were not allowed.The appellant was informed by a letter enclosing copies of the evidence taken on the 18th November, 1958 as well as the statement of the jewellers from whom the appellant is supposed to have procured the broken ornaments which he alleged to have melted and made into gold bars.The appellant through his lawyer went on writing long legalistic letters.Finally, on the 3rd December, 1958 at the hearing the appellant attended with the lawyer ready to non-co-operate with the adjudication because it was found that the lawyer had already come armed with a typed letter which he gave as his reason for with drawing from the hearing on the ground that "natural justice and reasonable facilities to defend" have been denied to the appellant.The order recorded on that date, the 3rd December, 1958 showed that the appellant came ready and prepared to take that step.The Collector had no other option but to carry on as best as he could.On the 17th December, 1958 he enclosed a statement from Mohendra Narayan Ghosh and asked for further submission of the appellant in respect of that evidence.This Mohendra Narayan Ghosh was the printer of the receipt form of the appellant which he was supposed to have given to the jewellers from whom he got the broken ornaments for melting.On the 7th January, 1959 the appellant submitted his explanation and comment on the statement of Mohendra Narayan Ghosh.Then on the 10th January, 1959 the Collector of Land Customs offered inspection of the account books of the appellant as well as the records of the "Yogomaya Press" and asked for further submission of the appellant on that point.Thereafter, on the 30th January, 1959 the appellant through his lawyer wrote to the Collector stating that he had no jurisdiction to determine the liability until and unless it was proved that the samples drawn by the Superintendent were from the seized gold.Finally, the Collector made the following order of adjudication on the 9th April, 1969, after a careful survey of the facts:" I order that the 41 pieces of sold weighing 412 tolas 2 annas 11 pies (as found on weighment in the fine balance in the Custom House Laboratory), seized from Sri Dharam Chand Jain at Kaliagunj on 13-11-1956 shall be confiscated under Section 5 (3) of the Land Customs Act and Clause (8) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act. This confiscation is made absolute by virtue of Section 23-A of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act."I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) on Shri Dharamchand Jain, son of late Shri Ashkasan Jain under section and (C) (Sic) Land Customs Act.(Sd.) K. Narasimhan.The appellant moved this Court and obtained ex parte the rule on the 14th July, 1959 under Article 226 of the Constitution.That rule was discharged by Banerjee, J. on the 16th August 1961, against which this appeal has been preferred.Therefore, the fact that Dharam Chand Jain's statement was recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. form does not prove that this was not a proceeding under the Land Customs Act read with the Sea Customs Act.It is essential in this connection to bear in mind the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which in effect provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.That shows that trial of offences against other laws is aided by the Criminal Procedure Code only up to a certain point and the special laws like the Sea Customs Act and the Land Customs Act would apply in regulating the manner or place of investigation, enquiry or trial or other wise dealing with such offences.Therefore, reference to Sections 161, 56 and 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the form of recording the statement of Dharam Chand Jain does not take the offence out of the Sea Customs Act read with the Land Customs Act. In this connection it is appropriate also to bear in mind the provisions of Section 3 of the Land Customs Act saying that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazettee, appoint, for any area adjoining a foreign frontier and specified in the notification, a person to be the Collector of Land Customs and such other persons as it thinks fit to be Land Customs Officers.Such notification is already there and has been shown to us, where police officers have been appointed as Land Customs Officers for the frontier areas.Indeed the clearest possible reference in express language is made to this Notification in the show cause memo dated the 1st October, 1958 in these terms:In that case before the Supreme Court the goods were seized by the City Inspector of Police and an actual complaint was filed charging the three accused of the offences under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code before the Magistrate.What happened thereafter was that this charge of receiving stolen property preferred against the three accused was, however, not proceeded with and as the police Inspector made a report that no case had been made out against them, the case was dropped.Meanwhile the Assistant Collector of Customs contacted the City Police and made an application to the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Jullundur for the delivery of these gold-bars to the Customs authorities obviously under Section 180 of the Sea Customs Act.Here the facts are entirely different.The detention receipt No. 41/C1/Imp.dated 14th May 1967 and issued on 14-6-87 was issued from the Collectorate of Central Excise and Land Customs, Calcutta.No Magistrate ever took charge of this case under the Criminal Procedure or under the Indian Penal Code.The next submission for the appellant concerns the theory of substitution of the gold.The appellant's case before the Collector of Land Customs was that the seized gold might have been substituted at some period between 13-11-56 and 18-7-58 when ten samples were drawn for testing.It was really an after-thought of the appellant.The facts are that all these 41 pieces of gold bars were seized on 13-11-56 from the possession and person of Dharam Chand Jain.After seizure a seizure list was prepared and the police officer scaled the gold on that very day.Subsequently, an escort was arranged by him and on 16-11-56 with the seals intact the entire gold was deposited into the Raiganj Sub-Treasury.It shows that between the date of recovery and deposit to the Sub-treasury, that is between 13-11-56 and 15-11-65 there was no room for substitution.The next period is from 16-11-56 to the date of taking over gold by Sri Das when it was lying with the Sub-treasury at Raiganj with the police seals intact.On that date, the 14th May, 1956, at the time of taking over the gold, it was weighed again.The allegation of the appellant is that he had the "Tojabi Gold" of lower fineness.Why should gold of lower fineness be substituted by gold of higher fineness and naturally costing more?The outstanding feature of this point is that neither the lawyer for the appellant nor the appellant himself ever thought of this plea of substitution until the 21st July, 1958, although the fact remains that over a period of a year and a half they had been addressing several communications to the the Superintendent of Land Customs and the Collector of Customs about the seizure of 41 pieces of gold bars.Secondly, the significant aspect of this point is that on the 18th July, 1958, when the appellant's lawyer who had also executed a vakalatnama on 14-5-58 for Dharam Chand Jain along with the appellant appeared before the Superintendent of Intelligence--Preventive Unit for drawing 10 sample pieces for being assayed, at that lime neither of them denied that the gold bars produced before them were not the same ones seized at Kaliaganj.On the contrary they accepted the ten pieces as representative samples drawn from the 41 pieces seized from Dharam Chand Jain.Both of them appeared before the Bullion Registrar to witness the drawing of samples from the ten pieces and also signed the inventory list then prepared.A copy of this inventory list was also taken by the lawyer for the appellant and attested by him and they show their admission without protest that the samples were drawn from the "seized" gold.For the first time doubt was raised about the identity of the gold pieces only on the 21st July, 1958, in a letter addressed to the Collector of Land Customs by the appellant.The Collector of Customs was right in holding from the records that that letter misstated the facts for the records clearly show that the identity of the gold must have been finally accepted by the appellant or else there was no reason why the appellant or his lawyer should have proceeded with the selection of ten samples, witnessed the drawal of samples from these pieces by the Bullion Registrar and also attested the inventory that was later prepared and of which a copy was taken by the lawyer himself.The appellant only wanted an enquiry to be made as to when and why the seal of the bag containing the gold was broken in his absence or in the absence of his employee Dharam Chand Jain.Here a word must be said about the seals.He has no right to this gold and, therefore, he has no right to complain about its confiscation.No doubt, he can complain as he has complained that the Collector of Land Customs has found the goods to be in fact belonging to the appellant.But even then that will afford no relief to the appellant because even if the gold was held not to be his, be cannot get out of the order of confiscation on the ground that, there is nobody to complain about such confiscation.Even if he could sue ceed on the issue of fact about substitution then all that could have happened was that the Government will be liable to make good the loss caused to the appellant for converting his gold but that is not the relief that can be canvassed under Article 226 of the Constitution or which is even sought in this writ What is worse, such a relief by way of damages for substitution or conversion of the appellant's goods certainly has become time barred under limitation.In the first place, he argues that Abalakants Bhattacharjee, Sub-Inspector, District Enforcement Branch was not produced for cross-examination because he was the person who should have been called as he seized the gold and then lodged it at the Raigunj Sub-treasury.It is also his complaint that the police officer who brought the gold from Raigunj to Calcutta has also not been produced for cross-examination.Then, the complaint is that Mr. P.N. Sen, Superintendent of Land Customs Prosecution and Intelligence Branch, who was the person before whom samples were to be taken and when seals were found to be broken had not been called.The further, complaint is Mr. N. N. Roy Chowdhury, Superintendent, Seizure and Disposal Branch Customs House, had not been called to show under what seal and label he had received the gold and when the seal was broken and the gold actually wighed.with number, weight and other descriptive details specially the mark "999.10" that there appears no substance in this point at all.Oral evidence on this point would be immaterial when on the appellant's own oral evidence through his servant Dharam Chand Jain could not deny affirmatively the identity of the goldWe shall now deal separately about Mohendra Narayan Ghosh.That statement was sent to the appellant for comment.The appellant did make the comment.That means that he had full opportunity to see the "evidence" and to make his comments.Mr. Bhabra for the appellant also made a point with regard to the evidence of R. M. Das.His complaint was that some of the questions had been disallowed in cross examination.We have carefully gone through the short evidence of R. M. Das and cross-examination at pages 84 to 90 of the Paper Book.We have seen the questions disallowed.Mr. Bhabra also made a minor point for the production of case diaries in the challan printed at page 91 of the paper book.We do not think that was ever denied to the appellant on the records and in any event no reliance was placed on such case diary and therefore, there can be no question of violation of natural justice.The circumstances against the appellant are eloquent These circumstances are :(1) Fortyone bars of gold, a large quantity, weighing more than five seers and of the value of more than Rs. 50,000;(2) they were in bars with special mark as '999' which are not to be obtained in India according to the expert opinion;(3) that they were found in the waist of the person Dharam Chand Jain wrapped in Pakistan census papers;(4) that Dharam Chand Jain was taking a devious route from Katihar to Raiganj, from Raiganj to Kaliaganj, from Kaliaganj to Balurghat and from Balurghal to Calcutta and yet he had not the money for the air ticket.For these reasons the appeal is dismissed with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at five gold mohurs, and the order of the Collector of Customs is upheld.Let the ad interim order restraining the opposite party from disposing of the gold bars continue for one month from date.Masud, J. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,979,021 | The allegation was never looked into carefully.No details of the dates of deductions or the names of employees to whom the salaries had been paid were given.Although the tax deducted from the salary of each employee was to be deposited to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed period instead of stating the details of offences which were as many as the defaults in making the deposits, in paragraph 6 of the complaint only the periods of deductions, and the amounts of tax deducted were mentioned.That was much before the 31st of March, 1970, on which date the complaint was purported to have been signed by the Income-tax Officer.The complaint was not filed by the Income-tax Officer.It was filed by the counsel engaged by him.On the filing of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate dealing with it passed the following order on 31st March, 1970:The afore-quoted order passed on 31st March, 1970, did not accept the request to proceed with the case in the absence of the complainant.Even if an extended meaning is given to the order, the court was to proceed with the complaint only when the complainant was to be present through his counsel.(Manjula Mahajan) Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 4-5-70."The notice did not state the particulars as to on which dates salaries were paid to any particular employees and any specified amounts were deducted'at the source towards income-tax.The complaint itself lacked the requisite particulars.The amount of Rs. 4,586 consisted of numerous deductions, each one of which was to be separately deposited within the requisite period and each default constituted a separate offence.The accused were then required to show cause why they should not be convicted.If anything, the notice was full of illegalities.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 4-5-70."It is a case in which the default had, according to the allegations contained in the notice given to the accused, ended on the 11th of June, 1968, more than two months after the incoming of Section 276B of the Act and as such the accused could not have been convicted under Section 276(d) of the Act.The proceedings before the trial court give the impression that the notice was given and the plea of guilt came forth in an atmosphere where it was expected that a small fine in default whereof the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for a few days only will be imposed.No order can be made under Section 439(2) of the Code enhancing the sentence without giving an opportunity to the accused of being heard in his defense.The complainant and the accused were the same as in the case with which Criminal Revision No. 49 of 1971 was concerned.Personal attendance of the complainant was similarly exempted with the condition that he was permitted to appear through his counsel.On the 4th May, 1970, sections 247 and 242 of the Code being applicable, accused No. 1 appeared through accused No. 2, Shri B.L. Verma, and the notice given was similar to the one in the former case.It was presented by the counsel.The order passed on 20th March, 1970, summoning the accused for the 16th of April, 1970, was similar to that passed in the course of the trial of the case out of which Criminal Revision No. 49 of 1971 arises and which order has been noticed earlier.Personal attendance of the complainant was exempted on the condition that he was permitted to appear through his counsel.It was not mentioned in the order as to for which offence the accused were to be summoned.When the complaint was taken up on the 16th of April, 1970, Shri K. Mehta on behalf of the department was present for Shri K. L. Arora, advocate, while Shri J. L. Sabharwal was present on behalf of the company and Shri K. D. Kohli.On 6th May, 1970, while acting under Section 242 of the Code the court did not take into consideration the absence of the accused and the particulars of the alleged offence were stated to Shri J. L. Sabharwal, advocate, who appeared for the accused.The accused being absent and the notice having been given to their counsel, Shri J. L. Sabharwal, he made the following statement:"The accused pleads guilty.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 6-5-70."After recording the statement the trial court passed the judgment."JUDGMENT:Accused has pleaded guilty to the allegations contained in the notice above voluntarily.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 6-5-70."Sections 276 and 276B being punitive provisions in a fiscal enactment like the Income-tax Act, the trial court should have paid utmost attention to their scope.The complaint in which Shri O. P. Gupta, Income-tax Officer, was described as the complainant was against the same accused as in the preceding case.On the dates of the deposits Section 276B of the Act was in vogue.The personal attendance of the complainant was exempted imposing the condition that he was permitted to appear through his counsel.It was notified under Section 242 of the Code to the accused that they were guilty under Section 276B of the Act and they were called upon to show cause against conviction.The accused being absent Shri J. L. Sabharwal, appearing both for Messrs. Printers House (Private) Ltd. as well as for Shri K. D. Kohli, made the following statement:" The accused pleads guilty.The amount deducted had actually been paid but a little delay which is only of a few days has occurred due to a regrettable lapse on the part of the employee who was responsible for this job.Before the complaint was filed the entire amount due has actually been deposited and the default is thus merely technical.And the income-tax department has also separately levied penalty for this lapse depart-mentally.This amount has also been paid.(Manjula Mahajan) Judl.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 6-5-70."After recording the statement made by their counsel the trial court passed the following judgment:"JUDGMENT:Accused has pleaded guilty to the allegations contained in the notice above voluntarily.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 6-5-70."The trial court's record of these cases gives the irresistible impression that the proceedings were held in an accepted atmosphere in which notices were issued as a matter of formality and the plea of guilt was offered expecting that only fine would be imposed.The complainant and his counsel as well as the accused being absent it was significant that the absentee accused were sentenced not only to a fine of Rs. 30 each, but also to undergo simple imprisonment for three days in case default was made in paying the fine.The trial court did not at all apply its mind to what was being done and it was not taken into consideration as to how Messrs. Printers House (Private) Ltd. were to be imprisoned for three days if the fine was not paid.The Income-tax Officer, Shri Rajeshwar Tyagi, figured as the complainant while the accused were described as Messrs. Tyagi Anand and Company Private Ltd., and Shri H.R. Tyagi, managing director, thereof.There was a lapse of five years in filing the complaint.As observed in respect of other cases, there being no allegation regarding any specific offence in the complaint, the notice given under Section 242 of the Code, did not state as to which were the employees to whom salaries were paid on particular dates from which deductions were made for depositing them to the credit of the Central Government.In the absence of the complainant and his counsel, Shri H.R. Tyagi, accused No. 2, the managing director of accused No. 1, made the following statement:" I plead guilty to the offence.The reason for delay was that the (sic) ciname started in 63 and some of the employees paid the income-tax directly.We did not know about the rules.As soon as we received the knowledge about it the tax was deducted and paid immediately.(Manjula Mahajan) Judl.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 8-5-70."on that statement the trial court passed the following judgment:"JUDGMENT:Accused Messrs. Tyagi Anand and H.R. Tyagi have pleaded guilty to the allegations contained in the notice above voluntarily.I, therefore, hold them guilty under Section 276(d), Income-tax Act, and sentence them to pay a fine of rupees 25 each or in default to undergo S.I. for 3 days.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 8-5-70."A sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine was being imposed, although the company could not have been sent to the prison.The complainant was the same as in the former case and the accused were Messrs. Dina Industries (Private) Ltd. and Shri Gobind Sharan Gupta, the managing director thereof.The complaint was made under Sections 276(d)/276B of the Act, read with Sections 192(1) and 200 thereof.It was not presented by the Income-tax Officer but by his counsel and on 31st March, 1970, an order similar to those noticed earlier was passed by the trial court summoning the accused for the 5th of May, 1970, and exempting the presence of the complainant on the condition that he was being permitted to appear through his counsel.On the 5th of May, 1970, the counsel for the parties being present, the proceedings were adjourned to 18th of May, 1970, because the presiding officer was on leave.The proceedings on being taken up were again adjourned to 23rd May, 1970, and on the 26th May, 1970, the notice under Section 242 of the Code was given to both the accused through their advocate, Smt. Shanti Gupta.The record does not show that the complainant or his counsel were present on the said date.The accused, whose counsel alone was present, were called upon to explain as to why they should not be held guilty under Sections 276(d) and 276B of the Act. No particulars were given in the notice describing the employees from whose salaries on any particular dates deductions had been made which were to be deposited to the credit of the Central Government within seven days.The advocate appearing for the accused made the following statements :I have understood the particulars of the offence as read out to me.On behalf of both the accused I plead guilty.Both the accused have instructed me to plead guilty on their behalf.The complaint was filed actually after the entire amount had already been paid.The delay was due to inadvertance on the part of the employees who were directed to obey all the regulations."The trial court then passed the following judgment:"JUDGMENT:Accused Dina and Gobind Sharan Gupta (sic) has pleaded guilty to the allegations contained in the native (sic) above voluntarily.I, therefore, hold them guilty under Section 276(d)/276B Income-tax Act and sentence them to pay a fine of rupees 25 each or in default to undergo S.I. for 3 days.Out of this half of the amount will go to the income-tax department.(Manjula Mahajan) Judl.Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.Dt. 26-5-70."The court did not at all apply its mind to Sections 276B and 276(d) of the Act. While acting in the absence of the complainant, his counsel and of the accused on 26th May, 1970, the court ignored the provisions of Sections 242 and 247 of the Code.The seventh petition being Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1971 arises out of trial court Case No. 294/3 and the complaint was preferred by the same Income-tax Officer as in the preceding case.The accused were also the same.Similar notice was given on 26th May, 1970, to the same advocate appearing for the two accused containing all the infirmities noticed earlier.The counsel made a similar statement and a similar judgment was passed on 26th May, 1970, convicting both the company as well as Shri Govind Sharan Gupta under Sections 276(d) and 276B of the Act and imposing a fine of Rs. 25 each or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,905,463 | B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Anisur Rahaman @ Sk.Bulbul ... ... petitioner Mr. Amajit De ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjee ... ... for the de facto complainant Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Kanksa P.S. Case No. 184 of 2018 dated 14.06.2018 under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The State opposes the prayer on the ground that two persons were killed and there are material linking the petitioner to the deceased persons shortly before the two were found dead.Considering the fact that two persons died, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary.2 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,908,939 | In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.6.2018 in connection with Maheshtala P.S case no. 425 of 2017 dated 21.7.2017 under section 498A/306/448/341/325/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code And In Re : Goutam Roy ...... petitioner Mr. Sujan Chatterjee Mr. Anirban Guhathakurta ...... for the petitioner Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld.PP Ms. Amita Gaur ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that date for recording of prosecution evidence has been fixed before the trial court.Having considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in mind the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged murder and the fact that trial has progressed since the last rejection of bail by this court, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 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. |
1,979,098 | The defacto complainant / the second respondent herein and his father were carrying on business in textiles under different trade names at Pallipalayam, Erode.It is alleged that accused 1 and 2 approached the complainant and represented that they are doing export business and fabrics and wanted the complainant to supply the goods.The complainant supplied fabrics to the accused and they were very prompt in their dealings in the beginning and thus made the complainant and his father to take them into confidence.After making the complainant to part with goods, for which the accused made few payments, the accused came with a version that they had secured an order for export fabrics of the value of Rs.1.50 crores and they would be getting another order of the value of Rs.5 crores on completion of the supply to the value of Rs.1.50 crores.The complainant, on believing the representation to be true and on the faith that the accused would make payment as hitherto been done by them for the earlier purchases of export fabrics, started supplying the materials and by the month of June 1996, the accused had taken delivery of materials worth Rs.1,41,91,408/- at their business premises at Door Nos.38 and 39, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 14 under invoices made in different firm names run by them such as Misty Apparels Private Limited, Kiron Fashions Private Limited and Kiron Creations Private Limited.While so, the complainant came to know that the accused on the same modus operandi had obtained fabrics from different traders for the value of several crores and when the complainant contacted the accused, he promised payment as soon as the goods were delivered to the foreign buyers.But as payments were delayed and on enquiry the complainant came to know that the accused had sold the materials obtained by them in the local market for lesser value and no export was made, the complainant warned the accused with penal consequences if they fail to make the payments and the accused requested the complainant for time by stating that they will sell their properties and settle the amounts due to them, but they failed to keep up their promise.M.Ps are closed.17.09.2009Index : Yes / NoWeb : Yes / NosrkTo1.The Inspector of Police, E.O.W.II, Chennai 2The petitioners herein, who are accused in C.C.No.17397 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and who are facing trial for an alleged offence under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash all further proceedings therein.The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition is set out below:-At the end of the year 2000, the complainant and his father approached the accused in their house and demanded payments, but, at that time, the accused directed their watchman to push the complainant and his father out of the house and untied the ferocious dog.It is further alleged that the second accused threatened the complainant with the revolver.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case in Crime No.11 of 2001 was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC.After completing investigation, a charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offence.Being aggrieved by that the above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused seeking to quash all further proceedings therein.5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent, P.Manoharan, had filed a counter affidavit in the above Criminal Original Petition on behalf of the second and third respondents stating that they have meet the second and third petitioners and amicably settled their disputes and have entered into a compromise by which they have received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by a demand draft and all the dispute between them have been put an end to.In the same counter affidavit, he has also stated that in view of the said settlement reached, the attachment of the immovable property belonging to the second and third petitioners at No.20, Anderson Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 004, as per G.O.Ms.No.316 Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 08.04.2003, may be raised and appropriate orders may be passed in the above Criminal Original Petition No.10765 of 2004, so that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, can also allow the compounding of the offence.But, at the time of hearing, the second respondent, P.Manoharan, denied the very contents of the counter affidavit and he has filed an affidavit sworn on 07.09.2009 stating as follows:-I submit that we also agreed for receipt of Rs.1.10 crore as full and final satisfaction because at that time we were in a position to settle our dues due to our creditors, hence except no other way we accepted that proposal which was offered by the petitioners.I further submit that initially they paid Rs.10 lakhs by way of two demand drafts one is in favour of my father and another in my favour and the petitioners promised us to settle the remaining amount within three months and believing their words we accepted those two demand drafts but the petitioners insisted us to sign in blank stamp papers and other blank papers, and on enquiry they told us that to withdraw the case they wanted out signatures in blank papers but initially we refused to sign in blank papers but the petitioners refused to handover those two demand drafts hence no other way we signed in blank papers stated above and received those two demand drafts.I further submit that after receiving the said Rs.10 lakhs from petitioners we settled the same to our creditors.I submit that according to the settlement talk my father and myself approached the petitioners several times for balance amount of Rs. One crore but the petitioner prolonged the period without any proper response and the stipulated period of three months also over but the petitioners activities changed day by day.I further submit that the act of cheating of the petitioners and their illtreat activities, my father expired on 05.02.2006 due to heart syndrome and thereafter I am very much struggling to lead my day to day life as well as manage the business.Thereafter I approached the petitioners several times in person for the settlement of balance amount of Rs. One Crore.But the petitioners refused to see me that too they treated me badly and finally told that they had already settled entire dues which are liable to pay to me.I hope that I can get proper and appropriate relief before the court of law since the complaint in C.C.No.17397 of 2004 was pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and hence I am not taking any further course of actions against the petitioners for all these days.I submit that while being so the petitioners used to signed papers, which is obtained from me and my father at the time of settlement, and some how other managed and filed the counter affidavit and memo as if we prayed before this Honourable Court to raise the attachment which is made against the petitioners' properties.Therefore, the above Criminal Original Petition has to be disposed of on merits.At the time of arriving at such an agreement, none of the other appellant either met the respondent No.2 or induced him to enter into any agreement with a view to cheat him.The agreement was further renewed for a period of one year.He also mentioned that respondent after receiving the goods have sold them to others and still he did not pay the money.Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities."I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.Consequently, the connected Crl.2.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, ChennaiK.MOHAN RAM, J.,srkCrl.O.P.No.10765 of 2004 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3649 and 3650 of 200417.09.2009 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,911,448 | On 19th April, 1996 Kulbeer Singh (PW4) had gone to Darya Ganj at about 6.00 P.M. to purchase medicines for his uncle who was admitted in G.B. Pant Hospital.Two persons i.e. the appellant and his deceased accomplice accosted him in the galli near "Dena Bank".One of these persons Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 1 of 12 put a knife on his stomach and told him not to shout, whose name he came to know later as Gurcharan Singh, and his accomplice Rama took out his purse from the pocket of his shirt.He threatened Kulbeer Singh that in case he shouts the consequences will not be good.Two police officers who were on the patrolling duty reached there and the Appellant along with his co-accused Rama were caught on the spot.On a perusal of the testimony of PW4 Kulbeer Singh, the complainant the role assigned to the Appellant is that while accompanied by the co-accused Rama, Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 7 of 12 he put knife on the stomach of the complainant, whereupon his co-accused removed the purse from the pocket of his shirt containing five currency notes of `50 each and his driving license.This witness duly identified his purse, currency notes and the driving license.In his cross-examination on the same date, i.e. on 23rd December, 1998 he has denied the suggestion that the Appellant was not the person who had put knife on his stomach.It is only after a year when he was recalled for further cross examination he stated that the co-accused Rama was the one who had put the knife on his stomach.The knife was recovered from the right hand of the Appellant Gurcharan Singh.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 1 of 12On the basis of the statement of the complainant Kulbeer Singh, FIR No. 178/1996 under Section 392 IPC and another FIR bearing No. 179/1996 under Section 27 Arms Act, PS Darya Ganj were got registered.After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant and his co-accused for the offences punishable under Section 392 and 397 IPC.The co-accused Rama died during the trial and after adducing evidence and recording the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellant Gurcharan was convicted for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act in the two FIRs.The Appellant was awarded a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for one month for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 27 of the Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 2 of 12 Arms Act. This judgment of conviction and sentence is impugned in the present appeal.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 2 of 123. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that since the co-accused Rama expired, the witness has leveled entire allegation against the Appellant.On the said date when the incident took place, the Appellant was plying his TSR and was waiting for the customers when Rama, who used to run a tea stall and knew the Appellant, was called by the police.Thereafter the Appellant was also called and falsely implicated in the present case.It is next contended that for one incident two FIRs cannot be registered and two separate charges cannot be framed.This act of registration of two FIRs is contrary to the law and thus, the second FIR needs to be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Singh vs. The State and another, AIR 1952 SC 45 and Sukhjinder Singh vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2001 III AD (Cr.Further, drawing the attention towards the discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses, it is contended that PW4 though in his examination-in-chief states that the Appellant had put a knife on his stomach however, in his cross- examination states that the deceased co-accused Rama had put the knife on him i.e. there is a complete change in the roles attributed to the accused in the case and therefore, the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted of offence Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 3 of 12 punishable under Section 397 IPC.Though PW1 and PW2 state that they had witnessed the incident as they were Patrolling around and when they saw these two persons accosting PW4 Kulbeer Singh they ran after the accused persons and caught hold of them, there are material discrepancies in the statements of these witnesses.PW1 states that the finger prints and the photo of the Appellant were taken on the spot whereas PW2 and other witnesses say that the photographs of accused persons were taken in the police station.The testimony of the eye witness remains uncorroborated as no public witness has been associated despite the place of incident being a crowded area.It is alleged by the Prosecution that the Appellant was running with an open knife in a lane in Darya Ganj.This story of the prosecution sounds highly improbable as an area like Darya Ganj is always full of people and remains crowded.To contend that the weapon of offence i.e. the knife is not a deadly weapon, reliance is placed on Paramjit and another vs. State of Haryana, JT 1996 (8) SC 440 and Balak Ram Vs.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 3 of 12Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the prosecution has not produced the prescription slip which could prove the version of PW4 Kulbeer Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 4 of 12 that he had come to buy medicines for his ailing uncle.Further, the distance between Dena Bank, Dayanand Road and PS Darya Ganj is a few minute walk.The ruqqa was sent at 6.00 P.M. whereas the head-constable returned to the spot after getting the FIR registered only at 6.50 P.M. Though it is alleged to be a case of conspiracy but no question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been put to the Appellant as regards the conspiracy.Hence the Appellant cannot be convicted for conspiracy.Reliance is placed on Gulam Din Buch and ors.Learned counsel for the appellant thus contends that the Appellant is entitled to acquittal as the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 4 of 12Per contra learned APP for the State contends that there is no discrepancy in the statement of PW4 Kulbeer Singh, the complainant as pointed out by the defence counsel.Name of the Appellant is mentioned in the Ruqqa Ex. PW4/A itself.PW4 Kulbeer Singh in his examination-in-chief recorded on 23rd December, 1998 has stated that the Appellant was the person who had put the knife on his stomach at the time of occurrence.He has deposed that the accused at the time of incident was "mona" and he did not have beard.In his cross-examination conducted on the same day he has denied the suggestion that the Appellant was not the person who had put the knife on his stomach.However, when this witness was further cross Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 5 of 12 examined after a year on 12th November, 1999 it was at this stage that PW 4 Kulbeer Singh stated that the other boy who was there with the Appellant had put the knife on his stomach.In his re-examination conducted by the learned APP thereafter on the same day it was admitted by him that he may have stated in the FIR the name of the Appellant as the person who took out the knife and put the same on his stomach and it is correct that he has forgotten the details due to passage of time.It is further stated that the testimony of Complainant PW4 is duly corroborated by PW1 Constable Govind Singh, PW2 Constable Ramesh Kumar, PW5 Head constable Gaje Singh and PW6 ASI Ram Chander.All these witnesses have deposed that while they were near Dena Bank they saw one person surrounded by two persons and being robbed at the point of knife.The police officers ran after them and overpowered the Appellant and co-accused Rama since died.It is stated that though PW1 has deposed that the finger prints and the photo of the accused had been taken on the spot, however, all the other witnesses have stated that the same were taken at the police station.This minor discrepancy in the testimony of PW1 is not a material discrepancy and cannot discredit the testimony of the witnesses.PW2 and PW5 have deposed Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 6 of 12 that the knife was a button operated knife.As per the recovery memo Ex. PW2/A and ruqqa it is mentioned that it was a button operated knife and the sketch Ex. PW2/B shows the length of the blade of the knife as 10 centimeter and thus, the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that this kind of weapon is not a deadly weapon is wholly unfounded.Though the Appellant has taken the defence that he was sitting with co-accused Rama and Rama who was illegally arrested by police, and so the Appellant was also arrested, however, no such suggestion has been given to any of the police witnesses and thus, there is no merit in this contention.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 5 of 12Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 6 of 128. Learned APP for the State states that for the incident two FIRs have been registered, one for the offence punishable under Section 392/397 IPC and the other for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act though the two distinct offences could be registered in one FIR however, the same i.e. recording of the separate FIRs does not vitiate the trial as the offence under Section 392/397 and 27 Arms Act are distinct offences and being a part of the transaction have been tried together.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Immediately thereafter on re-examination by the learned APP he has clarified that he may have stated in the FIR that the name of the person who carried the knife and put the same on his stomach whose name was later disclosed was Gurcharan Singh and it was correct that he had forgotten the details of the case due to passage of time.This change in the stand after a year of his examination and cross-examination stands clarified by him in his re- examination.This testimony of the PW4 Kulbeer Singh complainant itself is sufficient to convict the Appellant for the offences punishable under Section 392/397 IPC and Sec. 27 Arms Act. At this stage it would be appropriate to note the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khuji (supra) where dealing with a similar situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: -Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 7 of 12"The examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 when he identified all the assailants by Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 8 of 12 name.He stated that he knew the six accused persons in court and they were the persons who had surrounded the rickshaw and launched an assault on PW 4 and the deceased Gulab.Of them Gopal struck PW 4 with a chain.He also stated that the appellant Khujji and his companions Gudda and Parsu were armed with knives and when Khujji tried to assault PW 4 with a knife, Gopal shouted "Khujji that man is not Gulab".Thereupon Khujji and his companions ran after the Gulab, overtook him and the appellant, Parsu and Gudda assaulted Gulab with their weapons.Gudda struck Gulab from the front on his chest, Parsu stabbed him on the side of the stomach while Ram Kishan and Gopal held him and the appellant attacked him from behind with a knife whereupon Gulab staggered shouting 'save-save' and fell in front of the house of Advocate Chintaman Sahu.Thereafter all the six persons ran away.In his cross-examination he stated that the appellant Khujji and Gudda had their backs towards him and hence he could not see their faces while he could identify the remaining four persons.He stated that he had inferred that the other two persons were the appellant and Gudda.On the basis of this statement Mr. Lalit submitted that the evidence regarding the identity of the appellant is rendered highly doubtful and it would be hazardous to convict the appellant solely on the basis of identification by such a wavering witness.The High Court came to the conclusion and, in our opinion rightly, that during the one month period that elapsed since the recording of his examination-in-chief something transpired which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant.We are satisfied on a reading of his entire evidence that his statement in cross-examination on the question of identity of the appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his examination- in-chief.Since the incident occurred at a public place, it is reasonable to infer that the street lights illuminated the place sufficiently to enable this witness to identify the assailants.We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that he had ample opportunity to identify the assailants of Gulab, his presence at the scene of occurrence is not unnatural nor is his statement that he had come to purchase vegetables unacceptable.We do Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 9 of 12 not find any material contradictions in his evidence to doubt his testimony.He is a totally independent witness who had no cause to give false evidence against the appellant and his companions.We are, therefore, not impressed by the reasons which weighed that the trial court for rejecting his evidence.We agree with the High Court that his evidence is acceptable regarding the time, place and manner of the incident as well as the identity of the assailants."Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 8 of 12Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 9 of 12The contention that the distance between Dena Bank, Dayanand Road and the police station is a few minutes distance and it should not have taken PW2 Constable Ramesh 50 minutes in taking the Ruqqa and getting the FIR registered is also misconceived.Though the walking time may have been a few minutes, however, PW2 took the ruqqa to the police station, the same was recorded in the First Information register and it is thereafter that a copy of the Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 10 of 12 same was sent which reached at about 6.50 p.m. Therefore, time gap of 50 minutes is not such which can be said to be unreasonable for all these actions.Thus I find no infirmity in the order of conviction.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 10 of 12In the order on sentence, the Appellant has been awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC.As the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence punishable under Sec. 397 IPC is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years which has been awarded to the Appellant, the same cannot be reduced.However, the Appellant has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 11 of 12 month under Section 27 of the Arms Act which is less than the minimum sentence of imprisonment for three years prescribed under the Act. The learned Trial Court erred in awarding the sentence for a period of less than three years to the Appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The State has filed no appeal for enhancement of the sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. After 14 years of the incident and 11 years of the impugned judgment, it will not be in the interest of justice for this Court to issue a notice of enhancement of the sentence for offence punishable under Sec. 27 Arms Act.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 11 of 12The appeal is dismissed.The bail bond and the surety bond are cancelled.The Appellant be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE DECEMBER 16, 2010 vn Crl.Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 12 of 12Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,791,244 | Heard finally at motion stage.This criminal revision has been filed under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.09.2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Tikamgarh in Cri.Appeal No.21/2017, whereby learned Third Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment passed by JMFC, Tikamgarh dated 19.01.2017 in Criminal Case No.2605/2013, whereby learned JMFC found applicants guilty and convicted and sentenced as under:-Applicant Sections Sentence Fine Default stipulation Keshar 324 IPC 6 months Rs.500/- 1 month.Vikram 324/34 IPC 6 months Rs.500/- 1 month.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.12.2013 at about 04:00 PM, when the complainant Dayaram was irrigating his field situated beside applicant Keshar Singh's field in Village Mau Bujurg, on a trivial issue, applicant Keshar assaulted the complainant on his head and applicant Vikram also assaulted the complainant, due to which, he sustained injuries.Applicants also threatened to kill him.After the incident, complainant lodged the report at Police Station Digoda.On that report, police registered 2 Cr.R.No.2613/2017 (Vikram & Anr.v. State of M.P.) Crime No.230/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and filed charge-sheet before JMFC, Tikamgarh.On that charge-sheet Criminal Case No.2605/2013 was registered.Learned JMFC framed charge against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34, 506 Part II of IPC and tried the case.The applicants abjured their guilt and took the defence that they have been falsely implicated in the crime.However after trial, learned JMFC acquitted the applicants from the charge punishable under Sections 294, 323 r/w 34 & 506 Part II of IPC but found the applicant Keshar guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and applicant Vikram guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid, against which, applicants filed Cri.Being aggrieved from that judgment, the present revision has been filed. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,912,754 | This appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the victim challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 26.12.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore in S.T. No.21/2018 acquitting the respondent No.2 from offence under sections 328, 366, 344, 376(2-n) and 506 Part II of the IPC and respondent Nos.3 and 4 from offences under sections 376(2-n) & 506 Part II of the IPC.On perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is a major having children and she visited several places with the accused, however, the Court found it to be a case of consent.Learned counsel for the appellant contends that looking to the facts of the case, in which, the prosecutrix was raped without her will, leave to appeal may be granted.After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the statement of prosecutrix and other material available on record, we are not inclined to grant leave to the appellant/victim.Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed and leave as prayed for is hereby refused. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,921,108 | It is stated by Kandhilal and Dinesh that, the petitioners (Babulal Choudhary and Khanju @ Khajju) have raised a rumour in the village that in the year 2015 Girdhari Choudhary had gone to the house of Hanna Bai at about 11 in the night and came out after a long period .They casted aspersions stating that Girdhari had gone to the house of deceased Hanna Bai with intention to make illicit relationship.Because of this rumour, Hanna Bai was depressed and she felt defamed.After her son Dinesh Kumar returned from Pawai, the accused persons again fanned the rumour.Therefore, on 17/01/2016 Hanna Bai who had gone to watch the field did not returned back.On 18/01/2016 her dead body was found hanging in the nursery of Kandhilal.This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime No.25/2016 registered at Police Station Shahnagar, Tehsil Pawai, District Panna for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.Briefly stated the prosecution sotry is that deceased Hanna Bai wife of Late Bal Govind aged about 60 years died in between 17 & 18 January 2016 by hanging in the nursery of Kandhilal.The postmortem report reveals that Hanna Bai died due to asphyxia as result of hanging.During the course of investigation, it is found that the deceased/Hanna Bai was living with her son Dinesh Kumar and daughter- in-law at the village.Hanna Bai as usual had gone to the field to look after the 'gram' crop.Because of this enmity, the petitioners spread these rumours.Dut to the rumour spread against him and the deceased, the deceased felt defamed and because of which she committed suicide. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,925,511 | The appellant shall be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other matter.Fine amount deposited by him if any be refunded to him.The jail authorities be informed accordingly.C.C.as per rules.09.09.2017 Per : S.C.SHARMA, J.:The appellant before this Court is a Tribal from west Nimar and has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/-.The facts of the case reveal that on 03.03.2005, at about 6 P.M., the appellant has assaulted his father-in-law by using a bow and arrow.The marriage of the appellant took place with Kusum Bai (PW-2), 2 daughter of the deceased.The facts also reveal that 10-12 days prior to the date of incident, the daughter on account of some minor dispute, left the house of the appellant and came to the house of her father namely Lalsingh, and the accused came to the house of Lalsingh to take his wife back.Lalsingh told his son-in-law, the present appellant to take food, and thereafter, take his wife.On account of this, the appellant, who was carrying bow and arrow all of a sudden shot his father-in-law at the back and because of the injury caused with arrow, the father-in-law expired ultimately.It is true that there are eye witnesses to the incident namely Kusum Bai (PW-2) wife of the appellant, his mother-in-law, Kela Bai (PW-1), Paccha (PW-3), brother in law, Ram Singh (PW-5) and Bhav Singh (PW-6) brothers of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant has read out the statements of the witnesses before this Court and she has urged that death was caused on account of single injury which was not because of some previous enmity but it was on account of refusal of father-in-law to send his wife with him.There was no intention to kill the father-in- law.There is only one injury and therefore, conviction under Section 302 is bad in law and at the best he can be convicted for offence under Section 304-II of IPC.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate vehemently 3 opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.He has read out the statement of witnesses and it is true that the witnesses have stated about the incident.They have also stated that it is appellant, who has caused single injury resulting in his death.However, he fairly admits that none of the witnesses have stated about the intention on the part of the appellant and there is no evidence on record that the injury was caused with an intention to kill the deceased.In the considered opinion of this Court, as there was no intention on the part of the present appellant to kill the deceased and on account of agitated state of mind, he shot the deceased by using bow and arrow, the appellant deserves to be convicted under Section 304-II of IPC.Resultantly, conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is set aside.He is convicted for an offence under Section 304-II of IPC and is sentenced to undergo 10 Years of R.I. He has already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,835,791 | Nine persons of village Koylighansi (Khajarwara) made a complaint that a loan was sanctioned to them by Zila Antvyavsayi Nigam Mandla through primary Co-operative Society Kathotiya for land development, however, less amount of loan was paid to them and remaining amount of loan was misappropriated.On the aforesaid complaint an inquiry was conducted by District Vigilance Officer, Mandla and it was found that proper loan amount was not disbursed to following 9 persons:-It was also found that Mr. O.P. Sahu the than Manager and the present petitioner were responsible for misappropriation of the amount.An inquiry was conducted by the Department in regard to illegality in disbursement of loan amount.The inquiry was initiated by the District Vigilance Officer on the basis of a complaint submitted by 9 persons.In the inquiry it was found that some illegalities were committed in the disbursement of loan and 9 beneficiaries were not received correct amount of loan.another person Mr. O.P. Sahu who was than Manager of the Bank.Thereafter, the District Vigilance Officer written a letter to the Superintendent of Police for initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Sahu vide letter dated 29/12/1994 Ex.P/4 thereafter FIR was lodged.10. PW/1 Pussu in his evidence deposed that in the year 1992-93, Mr. Manmohan Singh Gram Sahayak came to his village and informed that they could take loan from the Bank for land development and pair of bullocks, thereafter I along with other persons of the village Veer Singh, Lamu, Jhamu, Dumar, Phagu, Nan Singh and Pahal Singh Dhanu had gone to the village Kathotiya.Thereafter, some paper work was done and after 3-4 months we received Rs. 1000/- each for development of land from Doman.Another witness Veer Singh (PW/2) deposed the same fact that he had gone with other persons to Kathotiya at Doman Sahu's residence at there forms were filled and after 3-4 months, the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Sahu came to the village and informed us that loan was sanctioned and thereafter we went to the Cooperative Bank and signed the papers.Doman had given us Rs. 1000/- each and we had signed the papers.Pattas of the land were deposited in the bank and when we received pattas back we came to know that in the pattas it was mentioned that loan amount of Rs. 7000/- was sanctioned, however, we had received only Rs. 2000/-.He had also found the allegation proved.By the aforesaid order the appellate court affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court by which the trial court found appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 406 of the IPC and awarded the sentence of R.I two years and fine amount of Rs. 1000/-.The petitioner has already completed the jail sentence of two years because he is in jail since 28/11/2013 from the date of passing of the judgment in criminal appeal.The petitioner has also been convicted in similar 8 cases and the same sentence has been awarded for commission of similar offence under similar sections of the IPC.On the instruction of the Collector a letter was written to the Superintendent of Police for registration of FIR.The letter is Ex. P/4, thereafter, FIR was registered and Police registered 9 different cases against both the persons for committing singular offence in regard to disbursement of loan to a singular person vide crime no. 54/1995 registered at Police Station- Mohgaon District Mandla.fine of Rs. 1000/- each.The fine amount has already been deposited.The trial court did not pass any order that sentence shall run concurrently.Against the order of conviction petitioner file 9 appeals and all the appeals were dismissed by the appellate court.Before the trial court the petitioner adjoured the guilt and pleaded that he had not committed any offence.After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 406 of the IPC and awarded the sentence mentioned above in this order.Against the aforesaid judgment the petitioner filed an appeal that has also been dismissed.The beneficiaries signed the cheques and they had also received the amount.The trial court has committed an error in believing an oral evidence contrary to the documentary evidence.report was lodged, hence the petitioner cannot be punished treating each and every case as a separate offence because the incident had happened in regard to one transaction at the same time.Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that both the courts have appreciated the oral evidence and both the courts have considered the same oral as well as documentary evidence and found the petitioner guilty for commission of offence.Hence, the findings recorded by both the courts are in accordance with law.Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to get benefit of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. because offences are different.In support of his contentions learned Public Prosecutor relied on the following judgments:-1. M.R. Kudva Vs.to the Collector in this regard and an inquiry was conducted.In his cross-examination he deposed that the form in regard to loan was filled by Doman Sahu and we came to know the fact of exact loan amount when we received back the patta of the land.He admitted the fact that he had made thumb impression on the documents of the bank.Same facts have been deposed by Phagu (PW/3), Pahal Singh (PW/4), Dumar (PW/5), Dhanu (PW/6), Kehar Singh (PW/8) & Jhamu (PW/13) Lamu (PW/14), Nan Singh (PW15).K.L. Shrivas (PW/12) deposed that before me two cheques were seized vide Ex. P/1 and he signed the same.Madhukar (PW/10) deposed that he was posted as Deputy Collector/ SDM Mandla from 1993-97, a complaint was made by 9 persons against Mr. O.P. Sahu to the effect that a loan amount was sanctioned, however, the complete amount of loan was not paid to the complainants.Thereafter, I conducted an inquiry and inspected the spot, I came to conclusion that false certificates were issued to the beneficiaries and the government amount was misappropriated.Thereafter I submitted inquiry report in the capacity of District Vigilance Officer, Mandla to the Collector.PW/9 Mr. R.R. Singh deposed that he had recorded the FIR.of witnesses.He also seized the record vide Ex. P/1 thereafter, arrested the accused persons.Witnesses PW/1 to PW/6 and PW/8 to PW/13, PW/14 & PW/15 clearly deposed that amount of loan was sanctioned to them, they had signed the papers, however complete amount of loan was not paid to them.Only Rs. 400/- to some persons and Rs. 2000/- to some persons was paid, subsequently they received their pattas from the bank, then they came to know that loan amount of Rs. 4000/- to 6000/- was sanctioned against them.They admitted the fact that they had signed loan papers at the bank.He in his evidence deposed that he had seized the record of the bank and also inspected the spot.He had recorded statement of various persons and found that amount of loan which was sanctioned to the beneficiaries was not paid to them.& 406 of the IPC.As regards exercise of that power it had struck a balance between the wholesale consolidation of sentences and total denial of the facility.The sentences in various cases were clubbed into two groups depending on the number of cases in which the respective appellants are involved and the sentences in the cases in each group were directed to run concurrently.groups were ordered to run one after the other."A common inquiry was conducted by the District Vigilance Officer thereafter, report was sent to the Superintendent of Police for taking criminal action.Evidence of the beneficiaries have recorded in a same case, the judgment of the trial court was passed on the same day and the judgment of the appellate court was also passed on the same day.Criminal Appeal No. 139/2007, Criminal Appeal No. 125/2007, Criminal Appeal No. 123/2007, Criminal Appeal No. 128/2007, Criminal Appeal No. 124/2007, Criminal Appeal No. 126/2007, Criminal Appeal No. 131/2007 & Criminal Appeal No. 130/2007, vide judgment dated 28/11/2013 shall run concurrently.Doman Lal Sahu Versus The State of M.P. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,836,428 | It has been alleged that first informant Mrs. Farhin W/o Wasim Bargir, on 10-01-2019 approached to the Police of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, District Latur and filed the report that her marriage was solemnized on 25-12-2011 with Mr. Wasim Bargir at Latur.It has been alleged that after the marriage, the father-in-law and sister-in-law used to scold the complainant that there was no proper arrangement in the marriage.The inmates of matrimonial home used to maltreat and harass the complainant on account of domestic work.They humiliate and insult her by saying that she could not do the work in proper manner.The complainant attempted to disclose about her persecution to husband, but, he assaulted her by::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 4 903-CriA-1804-19 kicks and fists.The husband also gave threats that she should not disclose these facts to anybody else; Otherwise, she would be allowed to go to her parents' house.Initially, the complainant-wife did not disclose the fact of maltreatment to her parents.Lateron, she disclosed about ill-treatment to her parents.Thereupon, they convinced the complainant-wife for better future marital life.The father also told the complainant-wife that the marriage of her two sisters are remained to be performed.Therefore, the complainant-wife maintained silent.According to complainant, after fifteen days of marriage, the spouses started residing in Pamne Nigdi Pradhikaran Luk Building, Near Anand Hospital, in the flat on rent, that time her in-laws and one divorced sister-in-law were accompanied with them.After applicant-husband had been to office, the other inmates of matrimonial house used to torture and insult the complainant-wife on account of trifle reasons of not cooking, washing cloths properly, etc. They sarcastically used to say that they did not like her.The husband was also not paying attention to the grievance of complainant.In contrast, he used to beat and abused her.The applicants gave threats of desertion to the complainant wife.The husband used to come home in an inebriated state.He was also arranging wet parties with friends at home and asked the complainant-wife to prepare meal.The mediator of marriage Mr. Haji Jatkar and his wife came to matrimonial home of complainant.She ventilated the grievance to them, but, they also reprimanded and abused her in presence of inmates of matrimonial home.According to the complainant-wife, applicants also insisted her to bring Rs.25 Lakhs from her parents to purchase house property and for satisfaction of::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 5 903-CriA-1804-19 demand she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::It has been alleged that, in the month of May, 2012, the husband left the complainant-wife to her parents house at Latur.Thereafter, applicant-husband got employment in America, and hence, after giving understanding by the parents of complainant-wife, the applicant-husband took her with him at America.When the spouses were in America, the complainant begotten one daughter, namely, Myarah.The applicant-husband also harassed her physically and mentally for the reason that she delivered a female child.The applicant-husband also beaten the complainant severely and in December, 2015 he abandoned her at parents home and made demand of Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs.The applicant-husband also abused the father of complainant-wife in filthy language, humiliate and manhandled him.It has been alleged that when applicant-husband left the complainant wife at the house of parents, he threatened her to bring money otherwise she would not be allowed for cohabitation.Thereafter, applicant-husband went to America.ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per: K.K.SONAWANE, J.)1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel for parties.The point of controversy in both the proceedings are centered on the issue of quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding bearing::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 3 903-CriA-1804-19 Crime No. 0019 of 2019 on the similar and identical facts and circumstances, therefore, both these allied proceedings are dealt with together for its decision on merit by this Common Judgment.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::The applicants preferred present applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") seeking relief to quash and set aside the First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 0019 of 2019 registered at Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC").The applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019) are the distant relatives of husband of first informant.In September, 2016, applicant - Shaikh Javed had been to Latur and demanded the amount.He gave threat of dire consequences to the complainant-wife and her father.Since, then complainant-wife is residing with her parents.Eventually, she approached to the Police and filed the present report for penal action against the applicants.Pursuant to FIR, Police of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur District Latur registered the crime and set the penal law in motion.Pending the investigation, the applicants moved the present application::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 6 903-CriA-1804-19 to quash and set aside the F.I.R. and prayed to absolve from the charges pitted against them in aforesaid crime.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::Learned counsel for applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019) submits that applicants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.There were no unlawful demand of money on the part of these applicants.There was no any specific allegations against applicants for cruelty as contemplated under Sections 498-A of IPC.The applicants Haji Saipan Jatkar and Vahida W/o Haji Jatkar have no any concerned with the marital life of applicant-husband and complainant-wife.They are only the mediators and residing separately.They are not the relatives of husband of complainant-wife.They have no any reason to cause interference into the marital affairs of the spouses.All the allegations are general and vague in nature.The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.It would unjust and improper to compel these applicants to face the agony of trial.Hence, learned counsel urged to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against the applicants.The learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Application No. 1128 of 2019 vehemently submits that the allegations made against the applicants are all false, baseless and concocted one.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.According to learned counsel, the complainant was not interested for cohabitation with applicant-husband.There were no unlawful demand of money.There was no any specific allegations against applicants for::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 7 903-CriA-1804-19 cruelty as contemplated under Sections 498-A of IPC.They have no concerned at all with the allegations made in the FIR.The applicant- Mrs. Asma Javed Shaikh and applicant No.5 - Javed Shaikh both were in employment residing at Pune, whereas, the applicants No. 2 and 3 - in-laws were residing separately at Sangli.The applicants No. 2 to 5 have no any concerned with the marital life of applicant No. 1 and complainant.They have no any reason to cause interference into the domestic affairs of the spouses.All the allegations are general and vague in nature.According to learned counsel, the span of marital life of spouses was near about 7-8 years, but up-till 2019, there was no complaint against the applicants.But, due to difference of opinion, in a fit of rage, the present FIR came to be filed.The complainant-wife also suffering from mental ailment.He submits that the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.It would unjust and improper to compel the applicants to face the agony of trial.Hence, learned counsel urged to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::The learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-first informant opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of applicants and submit that the allegations of ill-treatment nurtured on behalf of complainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 etc. of the IPC.The complainant categorically described the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands of applicants.There was unlawful demand of money from applicants for purchasing house property.There were allegations of physical assault as well as abuses in filthy language on::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 8 903-CriA-1804-19 the part of applicants to the complainant.The respondent No.2 filed the affidavit-in-reply on record and submitted that applicant-husband has created his matrimonial bio-data on web-site at USA, wherein he has declared his status as divorced and he is having no issue.There is possibility that applicant-husband may perform second marriage.The applicant-husband also filed petition for divorce in the Court of USA and succeed in getting ex-parte decree of dissolution of marriage by playing fraud.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::10. Having given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, we find that there is no scope for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1128 of 2019) as it appears from the FIR that prima facie case is made out against them.There are specific allegations cast against husband, in-laws and brother-in-law about cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of I.P.C. There was unlawful demand as well as physical and mental torture to the complainant following marital discord.It is also worth to mention that the applicant-husband attempted to get ex-parte divorce from the Court at USA.He has also pretended himself as divorced person and seek marriage proposal from brides by creating his matrimonial bio- data and displaced it on web-site.All these circumstances prima facie made out the offence as alleged against applicants.It cannot be said that the present criminal proceeding against applicants (in Criminal::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 9 903-CriA-1804-19 Application No. 1128 of 2019) is abuse of process of law.However, the allegations nurtured on behalf of complainant-wife and applicant- husband against each other are to be tested on the anvil of merit in detail trial before concerned Court of Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::In regard to allegations made against applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019), we find that during crucial period of co- habitation of complainant with husband, these applicants were not available at matrimonial home of complainant and they are the only mediators for settlement of marriage between spouses.Moreover, they are not the relatives of husband of complainant-wife as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC.The entire allegations about cruelty are against husband and in-laws.There was reference that these applicants instigated the husband and in-laws for mental and physical harassment to the complainant-wife, but all the aspersion against them are vague, and general in nature.There were no specific instances or details of participation of applicants in the alleged act of cruelty available on record for adverse inference about their involvement into the crime.There are no specific allegations attributing overt-act of applicants to maltreat and harass the complainant.The allegations against applicants are also stray and omnibus in nature.Therefore, it would unjust and improper to compel the applicants to face agony of trial before criminal court following marital discord between spouses.It is worth to mention that the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Schindia and another Versus Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: 10 903-CriA-1804-19 1988 SC 709, categorically elucidated in paragraph No. 7 as under:::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::Moreover, if the allegations in the FIR against the applicants are taken at their face value and accepted the same in its entirety would not constitute any offence or make out case against applicants, in such circumstances, there would not be any propriety to allow the prosecution to proceed further into the matter.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 :::11 903-CriA-1804-19In the instant case, it would be unjust and improper to allow the prosecution to proceed against applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019).It would be an futile efforts and would cause injustice to them, if they are compelled to face agony of trial before the Court of law.It would also dissipate the precious time of Court of law as the possibility of ultimate conviction is totally bleak.The ends of justice would be served by ensuring that these applicants may not be forced unnecessarily to go on litigations before the Criminal Court.Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019) deserves to be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :ORDER i. The Criminal Application No. 1128 of 2019 is dismissed.The Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019 is hereby allowed.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:24 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,978,430 | It may be pointed out that Rabia @ Indira was Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 2 of 15 already married at the time of the incident and was living separately and was in the family way.A. No. 371/97 Page 2 of 15At the time of the alleged incident i.e on 31.3.1994, the deceased Shahjahan had been married for over 15 years with Sabu @ Shahabuddin and was residing peacefully in her matrimonial house with her husband and in-laws.Shahjahan was taken to the G.T.B. hospital, Shahdara by the appellant Akbari Begum (her mother- in-law) at about 7.30 p.m. on 31.3.1994 after she had received severe burn injuries.As per the MLC, Ex. PW-7A, she had received about 90% burns.Though, initially the MLC indicated 99% but, the same was subsequently over-written to read as 90% burns.The burns were stated to be all over her body except her head.She was stated to be conscious and oriented.The MLC also indicated that there was an alleged history of burns by in-laws.The prosecution case is that the appellants are responsible for having burnt Shahjahan by pouring kerosene oil over her and then lighting her by a burning match stick.The prosecution case essentially rests upon an alleged dying declaration, Ex. PW-8C which was allegedly recorded by ASI Jagbir Singh (PW-8) in the hospital in the presence of Dr R.A. Gautam (PW-7), who was the Chief Medical Officer.PW-3 Chamman, who is the brother of the deceased stated that he had not seen his sister alive after she had received the burn injuries.Advocates who appeared in this case:Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?This appeal is directed against the judgment and / or order dated 06.09.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 59/96 arising out of FIR No.162/94, registered under section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 1 of 15 Seelampur whereby the appellants have been held to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on point of sentence dated 9.9.1997 whereby each of the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of `.5000/- each and, in default whereof, to undergo RI for a further period of three months each in respect of the said offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC.A. No. 371/97 Page 1 of 15The Charge against the appellants, namely, Akbari Begum, Salma Begum, Shahida Begum and Rabia @ Indra was that on 31.3.94 at 6.30 pm at H. No. 905, G. No. 30/6 Indira Chowk, Jafrabad within the jurisdiction of P.S. Seelampur, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the murder of Shahjahan, w/o Sabu and thus caused her death and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC.The appellants pleaded not guilty.Consequently, the trial took place which culminated into the impugned judgment and order on sentence.Akbari Begum is the mother-in-law of the deceased Shahjahan, w/o Sabu.Salma Begum is the jethani (wife of the husband's elder brother) whereas Shahida Begum is the devrani (wife of the husband's younger brother) and Rabia @ Indra is the nanad (husband's sister).The prosecution sought to place reliance upon PW-3, Chamman Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 3 of 15 (Shahjahan's brother); PW-4 Mohd. Iqbal (another brother of Shahjahan); PW-5 Noorjahan (mother of Shahjahan); PW-6 Sabu (Shahjahan's husband); PW-7 Dr. R.A. Gautam; PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh, who was the investigating officer till the death of Shahjahan; PW-11 Constable Ravinder Singh, who was the photographer; PW-12 Dr. A.K. Tyagi, who conducted the postmortem examination; and PW-14 Constable Narender who accompanied PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh to the hospital.Reliance was also placed by the prosecution on the PW-2, Constable Om Prakash, who accompanied PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh, to the scene of the crime on receipt of DD No.9 (Ex. PW-8A) at P.S. Jafarabad at 5.45 pm, to the effect that one woman had put herself on fire (ek aurat ne aag laga lee hai).The return entry was DD-10, Ex. PW-8/B, which was recorded by Constable Vijender Singh wherein it was noted that the injured had been admitted in hospital by the mother-in-law of the injured.A. No. 371/97 Page 3 of 15The English translation of the alleged dying declaration, Ex. PW-8C, reads as under:-"Smt. Shahjahan, w/o Sabu, aged 30 years resident of House No. 905, Gali No. 30/6, Indira Chowk, Jaffarabad, Delhi made the following statement:-I reside at the aforesaid address along with my family.Today in the evening at about 6.30 p.m., I was cleaning rice while sitting in my house when the son of my sister in-law (nand) pushed my son Javed into a drain regarding which I complained to my mother in-law Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 4 of 15 Smt. Akbari that Phaddi, the son of my sister in-law (nand) pushed my son Javed into a drain whereupon my mother in-law instead, scolded me and on that the quarrel escalated.Thereupon my mother in-law Akbari, Jethani Salma, dewrani Shahida, sister in-law (nand) Rabia alias Indira jointly poured kerosene oil on me from behind and my mother in-law Akbari lit me with a match-stick as a result my entire body sustained burns.Appropriate action may please be taken against them.A. No. 371/97 Page 4 of 15I have heard the statement and the same is correct.Thumb Impression L.T.I. Shahjahan Attested Sd/- Jagbir Singh (In English) Assistant Sub-Inspector 31/3/94 Taken in my presence.31.3.1994 (Doctor R.K. GAUTAM)"The alleged dying declaration had been recorded in Hindi.Therefore, it would be instructive to examine its transliteration, which reads as under:-"Byan Ajaane Shahjahan, w/o Shabu, r/o Gali No. 30/6, House No. 905, Indira Chowk , Jaffarbad, Delhi Ba Umar 30 saal Byan Kiya ki mein pata uprokt par seh parivar ke rehti hoon.Aaj waqt qarib 6/30 baje sham ko apne ghar mei baithe chawal been rahi thi toh mera ladka javed ko meri nanad ke ladke ne naley mei dal diya tha jo mainey apne saas akbari se kaha ki mere ladke javed ko nanad ke ladke faddi ne nalhey main dhakel diya hai jo mere saas ne mujhe hee ulta dhamka diya aur isi baat par baat bar gayi toh pechay se meri saas akbari jethani salma devrani sahahida nanad rabia urf indira ne Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 5 of 15 milkar mere upar mitti ka tail dal diya aur mere saas akbari ne mujhe machis ki tilli se aag laya di jis se mera sara shareer jal gaya inkey kilaf uchit karyawahee ki jayey.Byan sun lia theek hai"A. No. 371/97 Page 5 of 15The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in so far as PWs 3, 4, 5, 6, who are the brothers, mother and husband respectively of the deceased Shahjahan, are concerned, they have not at all supported the case of the prosecution.On the contrary, the prosecution has treated them as hostile and they were cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.She further submitted that in view of this fact, the entire case rests upon the so called dying declaration and the testimony of PW-7 Dr. R.A. Gautam and PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh.She submitted that the dying declaration cannot be made the sole basis of the conviction in as much as there is no fitness certificate given by the Doctor either on the dying declaration or just prior to the dying declaration.She also submitted that the language of the dying declaration itself indicates that they were not the exact words spoken by the deceased Shahjahan but closely resembled the language of a police officer.It was, therefore, her case that the dying declaration was not of a stellar quality and cannot be made the sole basis of the conviction.She contended that courts have always doubted purported dying declarations recorded by police officers and, that too, by an investigating officer, who is interested in seeing that his case results in a conviction.For this purpose, she has Crl.She also submitted that the fact that the deceased Shahjahan was taken to hospital by the appellant Akbari Begum (mother-in-law of Shahjahan) is also a circumstance which is consistent with her innocence.For this proposition, she placed reliance on the following decisions:-A. No. 371/97 Page 6 of 15Therefore according to her there was ample time and opportunity for the police to have informed the Magistrate and to have taken him to the hospital to record the statement of the injured.The fact that no such attempt Crl. A. No. 371/97 Page 7 of 15 was made is also indicative of the doubtful nature of the dying declaration.She also submitted that as per the photographs Ex. PW -11/5,11/6,11/7, the stove shown therein does not reveal any darkening and this clearly demonstrates that it is not the stove which caught fire and that the burns were not accidental, but that the deceased Shahjahan Begum suffered the burn Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 9 of 15 injuries as indicated in the dying declaration.A. No. 371/97 Page 9 of 15A. No. 371/97 Page 10 of 15There are also contradictions between the testimony of PW-7 Dr. R.A. Gautam and the facts which emerge from the other circumstances.Apart from this, Dr R.A. Gutam, who was in the casualty ward, is stated to have been present when the purported dying declaration was recorded.But, it is clear from the death summary (Ex. PW-7/DA) that Shahjahan Begum was shifted from the Casualty Ward to Ward No.20, which is the Burns Ward, at 7.53 p.m. and PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh, in his testimony before Court, stated that the statement of Shahjahan was recorded after 8 p.m, may be around 8.05 p.m. or 8.10 p.m. This also casts doubt on the dying declaration in as much as it is alleged to have been recorded at a time when Shahjahan Begum had already been shifted to Ward No.20 and was no longer available in the Casualty Ward, where Dr R.A. Gautam was stationed!A. No. 371/97 Page 11 of 15A. No. 371/97 Page 12 of 15There are other contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-8 AIS Jagbir Singh, in as much as he has stated that there was no stove present in the room where the deceased Shahjahan is stated to have got the burn injuries whereas the evidence of the photographer and photos themselves clearly show that the stove was lying in the room.PW-2 Constable Om Prakash, also gave the description of the scene in which he has included the presence of the stove.PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh also stated that there was no crowd outside and inside the place of occurrence.PW-14 Constable Narender, stated to the contrary.PW-4 Mohd. Iqbal (another Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 13 of 15 brother of the deceased), stated that he had asked his sister as to what happened.She had simply said it happened all of a sudden.PW-5 Noorjahan, who is the mother of the deceased, stated that her daughter did not tell her anything regarding the involvement of the appellants present in the court.She stated that her daughter had become unconscious.On the other hand, PW-6 Sabu, who is the husband of the deceased Shahjahan, stated that she had told him that she caught fire on account of the stove while she was preparing some food items.A. No. 371/97 Page 13 of 15Even the contents of dying declaration do not inspire much confidence in as much as according to the said Ex. PW-8/C the incident took place because Shahjahan's son had been pushed by her sister-in-law Rabia's son and that she had accordingly complained to the mother-in-law Akbari Begum who instead of controlling the situation scolded her and therefore a quarrel ensued.Thereafter, all the appellants poured kerosene oil upon her from behind.Akbari Begum lit the match stick.The incident of one small child being pushed by another small child escalating into such a serious event also does not seem to be probable.In the same light, we may also notice the fact that Ex. PW-8/C ropes in all the female members of the house, which are the four appellants before us.We may also point out that Crl. A. No. 371/97 Page 14 of 15 the language in which dying declaration is recorded is clearly not that of Shahjahan but is that of a police officer.A. No. 371/97 Page 14 of 15For all these reasons, we cannot place reliance on Ex. PW-8/C which is the main piece of evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution.The conviction of the appellants in the absence of the PW-8/C cannot be sustained.Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.The appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties stand discharged.The appeal is allowed.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J MAY 18, 2011 kb Crl.A. No. 371/97 Page 15 of 15A. No. 371/97 Page 15 of 15 | ['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. |
Subsets and Splits