Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

Case diary is available.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 04.01.2018 in connection with Crime No.17/2018 registered by Police Station Kotwali District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 506 of IPC and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2018.01.24 10:18:10 +05'30'

['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.

Shri Vijay Lakhera, learned counsel for the Objector.The appeal is directed against the order dated 15/10/2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, Katni.The prosecution case is that the appellant is well known to prosecutrix because they are neighbour.It is alleged that the appellant has committed forcefully intercourse with the prosecutrix about 10 years back and afterwards he started blackmailing the prosecutrix by saying that he is having her objectionable videos, if she will not permit him, he will viral the same.Thereafter, he started to exploit her physically and economically.On 22/09/2018 at about 5.30 p.m. when the husband of the prosecutrix was not at home, appellant has entered in her house and tried to rape her forcefully.When she refused then he has beaten her and threatened to kill her children.Then she informed the matter to her husband and thereafter prosecutrix along with her husband lodged the report in the concerned police station.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State on the other hand has opposed the application.On medical examination, simple injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix.She herself accepted to be in relation with the appellant.Consequently, this appeal for bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.It is directed that the appellant Prakash Dubey shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2018.12.07 17:00:09 +05'30'

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order dated 26.09.2016 passed in BCDFGISSSV No.1074/2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Lakkan Sowpaul, S/o.Dunnai Chowpar and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :i.R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station Crime No.60/2016 registered under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.ii.R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station Crime No.171/2016 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station Crime No.426/2016 registered under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code.Further, it is averred that on 26.06.2016, one Kandan, S/o.Veeraraghavan, as de facto complainant has lodged a complaint against the detenu in R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.479/2016 under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived to a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu has committed the crime mentioned in the affidavit and ultimatley, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the detenu himself as petitioner.

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

When the petitioner and co-accused who is the brother in law of the petitioner came to know about this illegal affair, they assaulted the deceased with wooden log and iron pipe, resulting the death of the deceased.(b) the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur within 15 days from the date of lifting of the lockdown and the commencement of the Court’s normal functioning, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9319 of 2020(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on Every Monday and Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks, thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9319 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.kas Crl.O.P.No.9319 of 2020 24.06.2020(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2020 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.566 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The petitioner had been preventing his sister to have illegal relationship with the deceased, however, they were continuing their relationship and on the date of occurrence, the deceased was found in the company of the petitioner's sister, aggravated by this, the petitioner along with A1 his brother in law, assaulted the deceased with wooden log.Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's sister had illicit affair with the deceased Shanmughasundaram @ Thirumalai.(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined and thereafter on his release;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9319 of 2020(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Uthiramerur, Kancheepuram District.2.The Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Police Station, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case may be summarized as hereunder: petitioner Sanjivanee Suklikar lodged a written report in the police station against deceased Moolchand to the effect that she owned an orchard at village, Barjorpur admeasuring about 4 acres.She had planted 2,000 pomegranate saplings in the orchard.In the year 2017, the 3 M.Cr.C.No.26485/2018 plants were three years old.She had also made arrangement for irrigation of the aforesaid plants by a drip-line.At about 8:00 p.m. on 19.04.2017, deceased Moolchand had set dried stumps of the crop which were left behind after the harvest, on fire.At that time Moolchand was present in the field.The fire went out of control and reached the orchard of petitioner Sanjivanee.As a result, the pomegranate plants were destroyed in the fire.The drip irrigation line was also destroyed.Consequently, she sustained loss of Rs.3,00,000/-.She lodged a written report in this regard in the police station.(13.02.2019)At about 8:00 a.m. on 20.04.2017, a police man in plain clothes from police out-post Divnaganj, went to the house of the deceased and took him to police out-post on the ground that aforesaid complaint of arson had been lodged against him.Whereon, Phool Singh and Ranjit Singh, sons of Moolchand, reached the police out-post.At that place, Head Constable Hariom Rana told them regarding the report lodged by petitioner Sanjivanee.He adviced them to meet the petitioner; whereon, they went to Pali House to meet petitioner Sanjivanee and her son Ashwani Kumar.Petitioners alleged that every year Moolchand sets his crop afire and that year also the stumps must have been set on fire by deceased Moolchand.They claimed that they had sustained a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- and unless deceased Moolchand and his sons compensated the petitioners for the loss, Moolchand will have to go to jail.Whereon, the deceased and his sons returned to the police out-post and told Head Constable Hariom Rana that they were unable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and the police could proceed 4 M.Cr.When Moolchand returned home, he told his sons that he was harassed for past four years by petitioner Sanjivanee and her sons, who wanted him to sell his field to the petitioners.The petitioner Sanjivanee also used to threaten the deceased that if he disclosed the matter to his sons, she would get his sons killed.The sons of the deceased assured him that they would report the matter against the petitioners to police in the morning and the deceased should sleep peacefully at night.However, the deceased was not reassured and was purturbed.Therefore, an offence under Section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioners.3 M.Cr.4 M.Cr.As a result, he had committed suicide.5 M.Cr.Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.In the case an hand, it has established on the basis of the statements of the witnesses that petitioner Sanjivanee had lodged a report against the deceased for causing loss to her orchard and Drip Irrigation System amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-.7 M.Cr.Petitioner Sanjivanee and his son were demanding Rs.3,00,000/- from the deceased by way of compensation.They had threatened that otherwise Moolchand would have to go to jail.If the petitioners believed that the fire that had destroy their orchard and the Drip Irrigation System had been caused by the deceased, they were perfectly within their rights to lodge a report in the police in this regard.Likewise, when on the advice of the Head Constable, the deceased and his sons went to the petitioner and her sons, she was again justified in demanding Rs.3,00,000/- by way of compensation and warning the deceased and his sons that otherwise the deceased would have to go to jail.In the same manner, petitioner Sanjivanee and her sons had committed no wrong if they had adviced the deceased or even insisted that the deceased sell his field to the petitioners.9 M.Cr.

['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.

23.For reporting compliance, post the matter after four weeks.2. DO THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE TIRUNELVELI2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 are the relatives of the victim girl Sundari/PW2, who has studied 8th Standard and being a relative, the accused are frequently visited the house of the victim and the victim's mother had not taken as serious of their visit to the house and the further case of the prosecution is that 10 months prior to the complaint, A1 and A2 raped the victim girl and thereafter, the accused threatened to cause death, if you have disclosed to others.The Inspector of Police attached to All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli City has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/A2 is before this court.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.The main contention raised on the side of the appellant/A2 is that the mother of the victim has not chosen to give the complaint immediately, but she has given the complaint 10 months after the occurrence and further, PW1 has stated before the Doctor that the victim is aged about 18 years old and the Radiologist also has given a report that the victim is above 17 and below 18, but PW7 Headmaster has been examined on 07.08.2006 and the victim herself stated that she is 18 years old and to confirm her version Ex.D1 shows that the age of the victim is above 17 and below 18, but the later examination of PW7 shows that the victim is aged about 14 and this is a case of purely consent and there is no question of gang rape in this case and if the court feels she is minor, but it ought to have reported the matter earlier in point of time and it is the case of the prosecution that 2 persons were developed illicit intimacy, but DNA confirms only one person and this itself shows that the case of the prosecution is false in this case and the conviction under Section 367(g) IPC is legally defective since one person has been acquitted and there is no question of 376(g) IPC in this case and prays that the appellant/A2 is entitled to acquittal.PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint in respect of the occurrence.PW1 in her complaint and evidence stated that at the time of occurrence, her daughter was studying 8th Standard and A1 and A2 are brothers by way of relation to the victim and both A1 and A2 stayed in their house due to their avocation and afterwards, she knew that her daughter's stomach became big and then she took her daughter to hospital and scan was taken, at that time, she came to understand her daughter was pregnant and she asked her daughter, who is for the cause of pregnancy and for that, her daughter replied that A1 and A2 threatened her and thereby subjected her to intercourse and hence, she left her daughter in the home and they admitted her daughter in the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and her daughter gave birth a male child and in the next day, she gave the complaint in the police station and then her daughter, her child and A1 and A2 were sent for DNA test.7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 submitted that after PW1 came to understand that her daughter was pregnant, she has not chosen to give the complaint immediately and hence, it creates doubt about the prosecution case and prays that the appellant/A2 is entitled to acquittal.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 Crl.A.(MD)No.275 of 2009PW1 during his cross examination stated as follows:-"“!;nfd; vLj;J fh;g;gk; MdJ bjhpe;jJk;fhty;epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLf;f Kaw;rp vLf;ftpy;iy vdJkfs; ahuhy; fh;g;gk; Mdhs; bjhpahJ vd;gjhy; jhd; cldoahf fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;Wr; brhd;dhy; rhpjhd; rk;gtk; vdf;Fk; vd; FLk;gj;jhUf;Fk; neuoahf bjhpahJ vd;Wr; brhd;dhy; rhpjhd; !;nfd; vLj;J ghh;jj; nghJ vdJ kfs; Re;jhp 7 khjk; fh;g;gkhf ,Uf;fpwhs; vd;W brhd;dhh;fs; rk;gtk; vg;nghJ Kjd; Kjyhf ele;jJ vd;W nfl;nld; Re;jphaplk; vg;nghJ ele;jJ vd;W nfl;nld; 3tJ khjk; rk;gtk; ele;jjhf brhd;dhs;...FHe;ij 2.12.05 k; njjp gpw;ejJ kWehs; 3k; njjp g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;.. "9.From the above, PW1 properly explained that she came to understand that her daughter became pregnant only at the time of 7 and then in order to save the future of her daughter, she left her daughter in the Home and after the birth of the child, she and her daughter went to the police station and gave the complaint.PW2 deposed that at the time of occurrence, she was studying 8th Standard and A1 and A2 stayed in their house and both A1 and A2 threatened her and subjected her to intercourse and due to it,she became pregnant and when her stomach became big, her mother took her to the Hospital and scan was taken and in the scan, it was found that she was pregnant and due to save her future life, her mother left her in the home and she gave birth a male child and afterwards, she along with her mother went to the police station and her mother gave Ex.P1 complaint and both A1 and A2, she and her child were sent to DNA test.7 khjj;jp;y; jhd; fh;g;gk; MdJ bjhpa[k.; ” ""“vd;dplk; gpwe;j njjpia brhy;yp mJ re;njfkhf cs;sJ vd;Wbrhd;djhy; ehd; gjpt[ bra;atpy;iy re;njfkhf cs;sJ vd rhl;rp uj;jpdk; jhd; brhd;dhh; rhl;rp Re;jhp goj;j gs;spy;ngha; mth; rhd;wpjiH ifg;gw;wpndd; buf;fhL rPl;L th';fpndd; jiyik Mrphpah; bghd;uh$; vd;gthplk; rhl;rp Re;jhpapd buf;fhL rPl;il th';fpndd; mry; buf;fhL rPl;L th';fpndd; mry; Mtzj;ij ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F mDg;gpitj;njd; jiyik Mrphpah; bghd;uhi$ tprhhpj;Jthf;F K:yk; jhd; gjpt[ bra;njd;.” "But in this case, PW2 categorically stated that A1 and A2 subjected her to intercourse by way of threat.PW11 in respect of his analysis gave Ex.P9 DNA test report.PW11 during his cross examination has stated as follows:-"o.vd;.V nrhjidapd; mog;gilapy; jhd; ghyre;jh; FHe;ij jpUkiyek;gpd;je;ij vd Kot[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;nsd;.”"The defence put forth on the side of the accused is that they have not committed the offence.PW5 deposed that she knew PW1 and PW2 and A1 and A2 and A1 and A2 prior to the occurrence stayed in the house of PW1 and further she heard that due to A1 and A2, PW2 became pregnant and then PW1 gave complaint to the police station.But PW15 during his cross examination stated as follows:-ghjpf;fg;gl;lbgz; brhy;ypa[ss ; hh; 2k; vjphp ghjpf;fg;gl;l bgz;zpd; tPl;oy; j';fpapUe;jhh; vd;gjw;Fgf;fj;J tPl;oy; cs;sth;fis tprhhpj;njd; $hdfp vd;gtiu tprhhpj;njd; $hdfp vd;gth; ghjpf;fg;gl;l bgz; FoapUe;j bjUtpy; FoapUf;ftpy;iy gf;fj;J bjUf;fhuh; ghjpf;fg;gl;l bgz; FoapUe;j tPl;od; chpikahsiu tprhhpf;ftp;y;iy mth; btspa{Wf;F brd;wjhy; mtiu ehd; tprhhpf;ftp;y;iy. "Further, the learned counsel appearing for the accused argued that even though the charge under Section 376(g) IPC was framed as against A1 and A2, but the trial court found only A2 on the basis of DNA test and hence, A2 also entitled to acquittal since A1 was acquitted.Therefore, no separate punishment for 506(ii)IPC is necessary.21.On careful perusal of evidence of witnesses and documents produced, this courts finds that the appellant/A2 is found guilty under Section 376 IPC alone and not under Section 506(II) IPC.However, considering the fact that the appellant/A2 is the breadwinner of the family, the punishment imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC requires modification.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, TIRUNELVELIDO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELIINSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELITHE SUPERINTENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAITHE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.275 of 2009 25.10.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Allowed md.CRM No. 1644 of 2016 In Re:-An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 25.02.2016 in connection with Contai Police Station Case No. 147 of 2015 dated 15.04.2015 under Sections448/323/324/325/307/354/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code;And In the matter of:-Mainu and others Petitioners Mr. Saibal Mondal ... for the petitioners Mrs. Purnima Ghosh ... for the State The petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with Contai Police Station Case No. 147 of 2015 dated 15.04.2015 under Sections 448/323/324/ 325/307/354/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in 2 connection with dispute over landed properties and out of village rivalry.Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in no way connected with the offence as alleged against them.Learned Advocate for the State draws our attention to the injury report at pages 17, 18 and 19 of the Case Diary as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC.at pages 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 thereof.It appears from the materials on record that Charge sheet has already been submitted against all the petitioners and accordingly custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation of this case.The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus allowed.The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus allowed and the application is disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey J.)

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.1213/2017, which is an application for execution of suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.2 Shyam Singh.The appellant No.2 Shyam Singh has been convicted vide judgment dated 30.8.2016 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shajapur in S.T.No.76/2015 for an offence under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 201, 120 B and 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years, three years, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, seven years with fine of Rs.500/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and one month respectively with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence wrongly convicted the appellant.As per prosecution story on 13/11/14 when deceased Nagu Singh alongwith appellant/accused Shayam Singh, Babu Singh and Bhagwan Singh were going to Manjukhedi, on the way, co accused Karan Singh, Shankar Singh, Gokul Singh, Gangaram and Kalu Singh stopped him and beated Nagu Singh.At that time appellant flew away from the spot.So Only on the ground that appellant Shayam Singh flew away from the spot, it cannot be said that appellant was involved in the incident.In the FIR no overt act is attributed to the appellant No.2 Shyam Singh.Even Babu Singh (PW8), so called eye-witness of the incident did not tell anyone about the incident on the date of incident.Two days after the incident he told the incident to other persons.Even the complainant did not support the prosecution case.At the time of incident Cr.A.No.1120/2016 appellant was not present on the spot.The statements of witnesses are also contradictory.Despite this, learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.The conclusion of appeal will take time.Therefore, the appellant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that appellant only had called deceased Nagu Singh and he is conspirator of the crime.We have gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.Looking to the fact and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that there is no mention of the applicant taking part in the assault in the F.I.R., we are of the considered opinion, that appellant No.2 Shyam Singh's case is fit for suspension of jail sentence therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case I.A.No.1213/2017 is hereby allowed and It is directed that the execution of jail sentence of the appellant Shyam Singh shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal subject to payment of fine and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerning Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017, and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.Matter be listed for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.791/2016 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Akola arising out of First Information Report No.68/2016 registered with Old City Police Station, Akola for the aforesaid offence against the applicants are hereby quashed and set aside.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2018 00:57:08 :::

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

therefore, it appears improbable that someone would try a gang rape at such a place with a mature lady;the petitioners are real brothers;one of them is 60 years old and other one is 56 years old;the petitioners have been in custody since 17.02.2017;the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed;- in the opinion of this Court, petitioners deserves the benefit of bail Consequently, this first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Chhidami Lal and Veer @ Virendra Prasad is allowed.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- each with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

On inquiry by EOW, it was found that Rajendra hatched the conspiracy with Manoj Kumar, Vice President, Lav-Kush Grah Nirman Sehkari Sanstha, Laxminarayan, President, Vikas Apartment Grah -: 2 :- Nirman Sehkari Sanstha have got executed the sale-deeds in his favour as well as in favour of his wife and minor daughter, on the basis of forged documents and false affidavits.Sale-deed of plot of No.44 belonging of Lav-Kush Grah Nirman Sehkari Sanstha got executed in favour of Smt. Usha Jaiswal/wife of Rajendra.Sale-deed of area 373 sq.ft.Sale-deed of plot of No.240 belonging of Vikas Apartment Grah Nirman Sehkari Sanstha, Alok Nagar got executed in favour of Rajendra on 31/03/1995 and Sale-deed of plot of No.241 belonging of Vikas Apartment Grah Nirman Sehkari Sanstha got executed in favour of Ku.On the basis of compromise between the society and Rajendra Jaiswal who encroached the land of 5 plots were allotted to him with all the value of the plot and sale-deed was executed in favour Rajendra Jaiswal, Smt. Usha Jaiswal/his wife and Ku.(Passed on 25th day of August, 2015) PER PALIWAL, J. :-This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 readwith Section 401 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Indore in special case No.769/2014 on 05/02/2015 whereby the charges under Section 13 (1) (c) readwith Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420, 468, 120-B and 201 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.Brief facts of the case are that Dilip Singh Chouhan made a complaint alleging that Rajendra Jaiswal S/o Ramlal Jaiswal with the connivance of Government Officials on the basis of forged documents and false affidavits has got executed the sale-deeds from Lav-Kush Grah Nirman Sehkari Sanstha in his favour and also in favour of his wife Smt. Usha Jaiswal and minor daughter Namrata Jaiswal.It was also found that out of the aforesaid plots some plots have been sold to another person.Thus, Manoj Kumar, Upadhyaksh of Paliwal Nagar, Laxminarayan, Adhayaksh of Lav-Kush Grah Nirman Sehkari Sanstha have not followed the bye-laws of Co-operative Societies and on the basis of forged documents and false affidavits, sold the plots in favour of Rajendra, Smt. Usha Jaiswal/wife of Rajendra and Namrata/daughter of Rajendra causing loss of revenue to the Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs.5,21,000/-.After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed and learned trial Court has framed the charges under Section 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420, 468, 120-B and -: 3 :- 201 of IPC against the petitioner, being aggrieved this revision petition has been preferred.-: 2 :--: 3 :-The petitioner has executed the sale-deeds in pursuance of the resolution by the society mentioning that in Village-Khajrana at Paliwal Nagar since 1975 there has been encroachment on the land and despite of the efforts they are unable to remove the encroachment on 21 plots, then, compromise may be entered with such persons, so that they can be removed from the plots encroached.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

% P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.8868/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.M.A. No.8867/2017 (Condonation of delay) & Crl.1) By this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 195 days in filing the accompanying petition for seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.07.2016 whereby the accused have been acquitted from the offence Crl.L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 1 of 5 under Section 354, 354A, 354D, 323, 506 of IPC.L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 1 of 52) Heard the submissions made on behalf of the State.3) In the application for condonation of delay, the ground taken is that after the passing of impugned judgment, the matter was sent to the various authorities and after passing through various channels the file of the case alongwith opinion was sent to Department of Law, Justice and Legal Affairs.The APP of the trial court gave opinion dated 16.08.2016 that the case was not fit for appeal, to which the Chief Prosecutor (West) has also endorsed followed by the endorsement dated 19.08.2016 of the Directorate of Prosecution.However, after examining the matter in detail, it was considered by the office of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor to file an appeal in the matter.certain documents got translated and due to other personal difficulties of the Public Prosecutor including medical treatment of family member in the month of March, change in roster in the month of April the appeal could not be drafted on time.The ground taken causing delay was that there was procedural delay which was beyond the control of the State.4) Apparently, there is delay of 195 days in filing the instant appeal.The aforesaid submissions made by the learned APP for the State is that the matter took time to take approval from various authorities and due to change in opinion with regard to filing the Crl.L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 2 of 5 appeal against the impugned judgment by the authorities, which caused the delay in filing the appeal.L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 2 of 55) While dealing with the application on behalf of the State for condonation of delay, this court deems it fit to scrutinise the impugned judgment to find out the merit in the appeal preferred by the State.She has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not raise any alarm or shout for help in November 2012 and on 03.01.2013 when accused Jai Parkash had allegedly beaten her or threatened to defame her.She had also admitted that even in February 2013, when accused Jai Parkash had raped her, she had not shouted for help.This itself shows that there was consent between the parties for having physical relationship.She has also admitted in cross-examination that co-accused Rajan, Sagar and Sajan have never beaten her or have threatened her.Consequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that from the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses taken together, no such offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.Even the incident dated 02.04.2013 does not prove that accused had any Crl.L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 3 of 5 intention of sexual harassment i.e. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or demand or request for sexual favour, repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by prosecutrix, which could fall within the purview of Section 354A and 354D. Ultimately the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents from the offence with which they were charged.L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 3 of 5The procedural delay as claimed by the prosecution cannot be a ground to condone the delay.The State is expected to file the appeal Crl.L.P. No. 323/2017 Page 4 of 5

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The compromise deed is annexed to the present petition as Annexure-B. The salient terms of the compromise deed dated 29.04.2016 are as follows:-W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 2 of 7BETWEEN Sh.Harpreet Singh S/o Sh.Manmohan Singh, R/o 46, Hargovind Enclave, Delhi - 110092 (hereinafter referred as FIRST PARTY) of the one part.AND Sh.Manoj Garg S/o Late Sh.Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal) with Inspector B.K. Singh, DIU/NE for R-1 Manoj Garg, R-2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.7240/2016 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.W.P.(CRL) 1382/2016The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.655/2014, under Sections W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 1 of 7 420/380/419/448/467/468/471/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Khajuri Khas, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 1 of 7The subject FIR came to be registered on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.2 Manoj Garg, alleging that the subject property, which had been acquired by him from one Mr. Mohd. Yaqiib, was forcibly occupied by the petitioner after breaking open the locks of the house on the subject property and removing all his household goods lying therein.It is an admitted case that the petitioner who has instituted various complaints against respondent No.2 Manoj Garg, complainant herein, including CC No.32/14, Police Station- Khajuri Khas, Delhi, which is pending before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.A revision petition instituted by the petitioner herein against an order dated 11.08.2015, whereby the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed his application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., is also pending disposal before the concerned Sessions Judge.Rameshwar Dayal R/o B-69, Shashtri Park, Delhi (hereinafter referred as SECOND PARTY) of the Second Part.WHEREAS on 28.06.2014 FIR No.655/2014 was registered at P.S. Khajuri Khas U/s 380/419/420/448/467/468/471/34 IPC on a complaint made by the second party against the first party and other unknown persons.WHEREAS the first party had also made various police complaints against the second party and also filed a criminal complaint bearing CC No.32/14 which is still pending disposal before concerned M.M. at the stage of pre-summoning evidence.The first party also filed a revision petition before the Ld. ASJ against the order dated 11.08.2015 whereby an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Ld. M.M. and the same is also pending disposal.WHEREAS after the registration of the aforesaid FIR and during the pendency of the other litigation as mentioned above both the parties with intervention of the respectable members of the society have settled all their disputes amicably arising out of the aforesaid FIR and other legal proceedings without any force, coercion or pressure from any side, in terms of this compromise deed.W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 3 of 7WHEREAS now to resolve all the disputes between First Party & Second Party herein appearing and IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND DECLARED by and between the First Party & Second Party as under:NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER:That the FIR No.655/2014 was registered at P.S. Khajuri Khas U/s 380/419/420/448/467/471/34 IPC at the instance of second party on account of certain misunderstanding but now the second dparty is in the possession of property in dispute and all the disputes have been resolved between the parties amicably therefore both the parties have no intention to go into the multiple litigations in future in any manner against each other.2. That both the parties have been settled their disputes full and final and now the relationship of both the parties are normal as all the misunderstandings have been already resolved between the parties amicably and without any force or coercion.That it is agreed that First Party shall not have or claim in future any right, title or interest in the property bearing No.D-2/281, Gali NO.2, D Block, Village Mustafabad, Nehru Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 50 sq. yards.Now both the parties are left with no claims or grievances against each other with respect to the said property as now the second party is already in the legal possession of the above said property.It is also agreed that first party will hand over all the documents related to above said property to the second party either having in his possession or seized by investigation officer of the above FIR, as and when receive from the investigation W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 4 of 7 officer of the above mentioned FIR to avoid any other litigation in future.W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 4 of 7That first party undertakes to withdraw all above mentioned cases filed against the second party on the next date of hearing unconditionally.The petitioner has also unequivocally undertaken to withdraw the numerous complaints instituted by him against the respondent No.2/complainant forthwith, without demur.The offences alleged to have been committed in the subject FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.In view of the foregoing, since the dispute that led to the registration of the subject FIR, which arose out of the ownership of the subject property, has been settled amicably by and between the parties without any undue influence, pressure or coercion no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No.655/2014, under Sections 420/380/419/448/467/468/471/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Khajuri Khas, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 6 of 7 quashed qua the petitioner subject to the parties depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of four weeks from today.A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.W.P. (CRL) 1382/2016 Page 6 of 7

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The accused/ A1 to A3 in S.C.No.189 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.3) Virudhachalam, are the appellants herein.All the accused stood charged for the offences u/s.294 (b) IPC.A1 stood charged for the offence u/s.307 IPC.A2 stood charged for the offences u/s.307 r/w.34 IPC and A3 stood charged for the offences u/s.307 r/w. 34, 341 & 323 IPC.On receipt of the news, PW4 went to the house of the accused and questioned him.At that time, all the accused have scolded him with filthy language and quarreled with him.On hearing the incident, PW1 went to the house of the accused and questioned the accused.At that time, A3 instigated other accused and scolded him with filthy language along with other accused, A1 and A2, the sons of A3, attacked him, A1 attacked PW1 with knife.In the said incident, A2 along with other juvenille accused caught hold of him, then, A2 also attacked him with a wooden log and with knife.Thereafter, all of them ran away.P.3).PW8, The Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar(Ex.P.3) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.5).The trial court convicted A1 to A3 u/s.294(b) IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.A1 was sentenced to undergo 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s.307 IPC.A3 was sentenced to undergo 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s.307 r/w.34 IPC and A2 was convicted for the offence u/s.307 r/w.34 IPC.A2 was acquitted from the charge u/s.307 r/w. 34 IPC.A3 was acquitted from the charge u/s.341 and 323 IPC.PW1 filed a complaint before the respondent police.PW6/a Head Constable, registered the case in Crime No.25 of 2006 under Sections u/s.307 r/w. 34 ,323 and 294(b) IPC and he prepared the First Information Report(Ex.On 05.03.2006, he prepared the observation mahazar, recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent the accused for judicial custody.PW7/doctor, in Virudachalam Government Hospital admitted PW1 in the hospital, and found as many as 7 incised wounds on the body of PW1, and he has given Accident Register/Ex.He was of the opinion that injuries 1 and 2 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature.PW8, the Inspector of Police continued the investigation and examined the Doctor and other witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed a final report against the accused.Considering the above materials, the trial court framed charges as mentioned in the first paragraph of the judgment and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were exhibited and one material object was marked.Out of the witnesses examined, PW1 is an injured eye-witness to the incident.On hearing the quarrel, PW1 rushed to the house of the accused, and questioned them.Immediately A1 attacked him with knife and caused injuries.At that time, the other accused caught hold of him, and A2 attacked him with wooden log.Immediately, he rushed to the police station and filed a complaint.He is also an eye witness to the occurrence.At that time, A1 scolded him with filthy language and he caught hold of him with the help of one Ratnasabapathy and another son of A3, and A1 attacked him with knife, and A2 attacked him with wooden log.PW3 is another neighbour of PW1, he is also an eye witness.He has stated that A3 scolded PW1 and A2 attacked him with a wooden log.He deposed that on 04.03.2006, while a hen belongs to PW1 was wandering near the accused house, A2 had beaten it and killed.When PW1 questioned him about the same, at the instigation of A1, A3 attacked him with knife and A2 attacked with wooden log and sharp weapons.PW5 is the witness to the observation mahazar.PW6 is the Head Constable, who registered the complaint and commenced the investigation and arrested the accused.PW7 is the doctor who treated PW1 and given Accident register/Ex.P6 where he found 7 injuries on PW1, and he has given his opinion that injuries 1 to 3 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature.PW8/Inspector of Police, registered a complaint, conducted the investigation and recorded the statements and after completion of investigation, he laid a final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.They did not examine any witnesses nor marked any documents.Considering all the materials, the trial court convicted them as mentioned in the first paragraph.Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this court by way of the present Criminal Appeal.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it is submitted that pending appeal, A2 viz., Shankar died on 01.08.2015 and the counsel for the appellants also filed a memo to that effect.The learned Government Advocate also verified and confirmed the same.In view of the abovesaid circumstances, Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated as against A2/Shankar.8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records carefully.Eventhough all the witnesses have stated that A1 attacked PW1 with knife, medical evidence does not corroborate with eye witness, PW1 sustained incised injuries, which cannot be inflicted by a knife.From the evidence of the prosecution, no material is available to bring home an offence u/s.307 IPC.The learned counsel further submitted that so far as A3 is concerned, even though witnesses have stated that A3 and the other accused, Ratnasabapathy had caught hold of PW1, in the final report, his name was omitted.In the above said circumstances, prosecution witness cannot be believed and hence, the accused cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there are four eye witnesses to the occurrence.Evidences of all the witnesses are consistent and reliable, which is also corroborated by medical evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses.Apart from that, both the weapons to the scene of occurrence have been produced before the police station.Considering all the materials, the trial court convicted the appellants and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court.I have considered the rival submission.There are four eye witnesses to the occurrence.According to PW1, prior to the scene of occurrence, there was a quarrel between PW4 and the accused.The above occurrence had taken place in front of the house of the accused.After hearing the quarrel, PW1 went there and questioned the accused.At that time, A3 scolded them with filthy language and A1 attacked him with wooden log and caused injuries and A2 attacked him with weapon.PW2 and PW3, who are neighbours to PW1 have stated that it is only A1 who had scolded and attacked PW1 and PW4 with filthy language and caused injuries.PW4 is the grandfather of PW1, and only in his support, PW1 went and quarrelled with the accused.He has also corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses.Considering the fact that the occurrence took place in front of the house of the accused and PW2 and PW3 being neighbours of PW1, it is the consistent evidence of all the witnesses that A3 has scolded and abused PW1 with filthy language and A1 attacked him and caused injuries, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 are consistent and reliable and I find no reason to disbelieve their evidence.In the above said circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly established that A1 to A3 abused PW1 in filthy language and attacked him and thereby caused injuries.In his cross examination, PW7 has admitted that the injuries are likely to be caused by a blade.Apart from that, the knife was not recovered from the accused.When the accused have scolded PW4, PW1 went there and quarrelled with the Accused.At that time, A1 lost his mental balance and out of sudden provocation, he attacked PW1 and caused injuries, and there is no material available to establish the offence u/s.307 IPC.In the above said circumstances, A1 is liable to be convicted for the offence under Sections 335 IPC nor under Section 307 IPC.So far as A3 is concerned, there is no evidence to show that A3 had a common intention with A1 and committed the offence, hence the conviction u/s.307 r/w 34 IPC is liable to be set aside and A3 is liable to be convicted only under Section 294(b) IPC.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that already A1 was behind the bar for 75 days.Considering the fact that he has no bad antecedents and the occurrence had taken place on sudden provocation, considering the mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, A1 shall be sentenced to the period already undergone.In the result, the conviction of A1 under Section 307 IPC is set aside instead he is convicted under Section 335 IPC and sentenced to undergo the period already undergone and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four months.A3 is convicted under Section 335 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by him and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four weeks.The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 and 3 under Section 294(b) are confirmed.Since pending appeal A2 died , the Criminal appeal as against A2 is dismissed as abated.With the above modification in the conviction and sentence the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.1.The Inspector of Police, Sri Mushnam Police Station, Virudhachalam Cr.No.25 of 20062.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam.gv Crl.A. No.723 of 2008 13.11.2017

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if he is, he shall be Signature Not Verified SAN sent to the nearest hospital designated by the state for treatment.If not, he Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2020.10.05 17:15:48 IST 2 MCRC-36707-2020 shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.C.C. as per rules (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk.Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2020.10.05 17:15:48 ISTThis is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.523/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 481, 482, 483, 485 and 489 of IPC and section 51-A, 52A/63, of the Copyright Act, 1957 registered at Police Station- Hata, District- Damoh.The allegation against him is that from the possession of the applicant 1 bucket of 7 liters filled with yellow colour substance was found.The applicant has been implicated on the basis of the 27 memorandum of the co-accused Vinod Jain, who is the main accuseed and is alleged to have been manufacturing spurious engine oil and thereafter selling it to the co-accused persons.Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant herein, and that besides the seizure herein of 7 liters of spurious engine oil and the 27 memorandum of the co-accused Vinod Jain, there is nothing to connect the applicant herein to the offence.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station - Heeranagar, District - Indore in Crime No.556/2016 under Sections 8/20 and 8/21-29 of NDPS Act.According to the prosecution story, the present applicant was keeping in his possession 540 grams Ghanza.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, if granted bail, the applicant will not indulge in any kind of criminal activity whatsoever.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.It is made clear that in case of breach of any condition of this bail order, this order shall deemed to have been cancelled without reference to this Court.Certified copy as per rules.(Alok Verma)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give suitable orders to the CB CIDto investigate the reasons for the death of the petitioner's son namelyRaja Muthuramalingam alias Muthuramalingam in the Government Hospital a Tirunelveli and the facts and circumstances under which he had sustainedinjuries leading to his death and submit the report to this Hon'ble Courtfor further action including the direction for damages to the petitioner.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, thepetitioner would submit that the petitioner is retired from the post ofExecutive engineer in Public Works Department and his son was a recognised contractor of Thenthirupeai Panchayat Union in ThiruchendurTaluk and that he was Secretary of ADMK MGR Youth Wing; that on 22.4.1999 at about 11.00 P.M., the petitioner received a call from his son that hewould come and meet him at Chennai; that when he was expecting hisarrival, he came to know that the petitioner's son was admitted in thehospital, since he was suffering from severe head injuries ; thathowever, on 27.4.1999, the petitioner' s son died; that the 4threspondent gave a complaint on 23.4.1999 itself,but the 3 rd respondentregistered a case after the death of his son on 27.4.19 99;that his sonwas alright even on 22.4.1999 and he phoned up at 11.00 P.M and that hisson's death is suspicious;On such averments, the petitioner would pray tothe relief extract supra.3.In the counter filed in support of the writ petition, the respondentswould submit that the son of the petitioner fell down from the wall ofthe residence of one Palanisamy and sustained injury on the back of hishead; that the Sub-Inspector, Temple Police Station on receipt of theintimation from the Government Hospital, Tiruchendur went to theGovernment Hospital Tiruchendur and saw the injured in an unconsciousstage; that the 3rd respondent recorded the statement from Respondent 4about the fall of the injured and made entry in the Police StationGeneral Diary about the incident on 23.4.99 itself; that a case has beenregistered in Cr.No.72/99 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.;that the thirdrespondent being the investigation officer, he conducted inquest and tookinvestigation; that the investigation revealed that the deceased was a womeniser and he had also committed theft and a case was registered in Cr.No.1209/94 under Section 379 IPC read with 511 IPC; that on the dateof occurrence, while he was climbing on the house wall with intent tocommit theft or intent to see the scene of husband and wife in their bedin a drunken state and fell down and sustained severe injury on the backof his head; that he was not admitted in the hospital by the policedepartment as alleged by the petitioner; that the said deceased waspunished under Goondas Act; that his name is in the Rowdy list ofAlwartghirunagari Police Station; that the said deceased had indulged inactivities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquilityhe had been detained under the Goondas Act in Alwarthirunagari Police Crime No.193/92 under Section 307 IPC and (2)n 105/96 under Section 324 IPC Cr.16 9/96 u/s 448, 353,294(b) 506(ii) IPC Cr.No.157/97 u/s323,324,336 IPV cr.No.280/97 u/s 294(b) 506(ii) 307 IPC read with 3,4 ofI.E.Act; that since the injured continued to be in unconscious state, hehad been referred to the Tirunelveli Medical College, Palayamkottai; thatinspite of repeated and effective treatment, the injured succumbed to theinjury sustained on 27.2.1999;that soon after getting the deathintimation, the Sub-Inspector registered a case in Tiruchendur Temple PS.4.Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for consideration inthe presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of therespondents, causing production of all the relevant records connectingthe whole affair leading to the death of the son of the petitioner viz.Raja Muthuramalingam @ Muthuramalingam would point out that there is absolutely nothing fishy in the death of the deceased; that it was anatural fall from the wall in a drunken mood which caused the injuries onthe head of the deceased and even on the part of the petitioner tilldate, he is not able to attribute any motive to any individual or therespondents herein to be the cause of the injuries nor is it the case ofthe petitioner that such injuries had been caused in the custody.Further more from the accident register it comes to be known that thedeath was due to the fall from the wall as it had been given by the 4threspondent to the Doctor; that from the medical report, it is revealedthat at the time of the accident, the deceased was under the influence ofintoxication; that many cases have been registered against thepetitioner's son in the past including one invoking the provisions of Act14 of 1982 and therefore the learned Government Advocate would submit that absolutely there is no reason to comply with the request of thepetitioner in referring the case to be investigated into by the CBCIDwhen there is no lapses in the investigation already held nor is it thecase of the petitioner that the investigation as held and concluded inthe causing of the death of the son of the petitioner is perfunctory andtherefore the learned Government Advocate would conclude that in allrespects the above writ petition becomes only liable to be dismissed.5.On the part of the petitioner, the learned counsel would lay emphasis the same old points raised in the petition at the time of filing of thesame, without showing anything anew to substantiate the claim of thesuspicious ground under which they could have been caused otherwise, than in the manner it was decided by the jurisdiction police, the third respondent herein.6.In consideration of the pleadings by parties, having regard to thematerials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both,what comes to be known is that it is a case of the petitioner's son sustaining injuries particularly in the head and dying in suspiciouscircumstances which have not been cleared on the part of the respondentsand therefore not being satisfied with the investigation conducted on hisson sustaining injuries leading to his consequential death in thehospital, the petitioner has come forward to pray for the relief ofdirecting respondents 1 and 2 to pass suitable orders and handing overthe investigation with the CBCID for the further investigation anddecision to be arrived at on the death of the petitioner's deceased son.7.Be that as it may, now the point for consideration is whether there issomething fishy in the death of the son of the petitioner than what it isrevealed in the investigation held by the third respondent jurisdictionpolice concluding that it was a natural death which caused the injuriesto the person of the deceased, ultimately causing his death in the hospital, not only the fourth respondent herein would reveal that thedeceased has fallen from the wall and sustained the injuries as it isseen from the accident register, the medical report would further revealthat at the time of admission, he was under the under the influence ofintoxication and it is relevant to consider that it is the 4th respondentwho had admitted him in the hospital and without having witnessed theoccurrence of the deceased, falling from the wall, the 4th respondent hadno reason to give such a statement before the medical officer so as toput entries into the accident register to the said effect that the causeof the injury was due to the fall from the wall.It is relevant forconsideration at this juncture that on going through the accidentregister, the police never came into picture and hence there is reason toconclude the entries effected therein being genuine.Further the medicalreport showing that he was found to be under the influence of intoxication at the time of admission would also serve such supportingevidence to the fall of the deceased from the wall so as to sustain suchinjuries.8.It is not only that no other facts contrary to this conclusion haseither been brought forth nor even any motive attributed to thejurisdiction police for having held a perfunctory investigation for anyreason whatsoever and therefore the above writ petition filed under suchsuspicion entertained in the death of the son of the petitioner has nobasis and it has to be concluded that the reasons assigned on the part ofthe third respondent is not only reasonable, but also acceptable innature and therefore the question of referring the case to CBCID does notat all arise in the case in hand.9.There is no pith or substance in the writ petition soas to be further gone into and it is only proper to give a quietus to thesuspicion created by the petitioner in the writ petition which is withoutany basis or material and therefore the only conclusion that could bearrived at in these circumstances is to dismiss the writ petition, butwithout costs.10.In result,(i) the above writ petition is without merit and the same is dismissed assuch;(ii) However, there shall be no order as to costs.5.3.2002Index:Yes Website:Yes.1.The Secretatry to Govt.2.The Superintendent of police,District Police Office,Tuticorin.3.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Thiruchendur Temple Police Station,Thiruchendur.VJY V.KANAGARAJ,J W.P.NO.13570 OF 1999 5.3.2002

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

According to the prosecution case, on 1/12/1993 at 9 p.m., when Santosh Kumhar, Kaman, Ramcharan etc. were warming themselves by fire at the door of their house situated at Village Badi Roondh (Dande Ka Bara), appellants, armed with Lathis, came there and filthily abused them in the name of their caste.Appellants told them that they would no longer be allowed land on sharecropping basis and assaulted Santosh Kumhar, Kaman, Ramcharan, Bharatlal, Guthalu and Sunder with Lathis, who all received injuries during the incident.On 2/12/93, Santosh (PW3) lodged the First Information Report (for short "FIR") leading to registration of Crime No.165/93 at Police Station Ajaygarh in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.3. Charges under Sections 148, 323 and 325 of the IPC and Section 3(1)Appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication.In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well merited and the impugned judgment does not deserve to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused.To bring home the charges, prosecution examined, as many as 11 witnesses viz. Bharatlal (PW1), Shivram (PW2), Santosh (PW3), Sunderlal Cr.A. No.719/1998 3 (PW4), Guthalu (PW5), Pachola (PW6), Ramcharan (PW7), Ramdas (PW8), Dr. V.S.Upadhyay (PW9), Budhai (PW10) and Ramkishore (PW11).On a perusal of the evidence and material on record, it is apparent that Bharatlal, Santosh, Sunderlal, Guthalu and Ramcharan all have categorically stated that when they were taking warmth of fire in front of their house, all the appellants came there with Lathis, and in furtherance of their common object, opened assault on them, as a result of which, all of them including Kaman received injuries.Their evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence as the corresponding injuries were proved by Dr. Upadhyay who had prepared respective MLC reports after examining the victims.Minor contradictions and omissions have rightly been ignored by the trial Court to sift out the grain from chaff.So far as the injury received by appellant no.5 Tulsidas is concerned, it has been held by the trial Court that either he had received the injury in his private defence, or it was received in any other incident.In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part.(B. D. RATHI) JUDGE 2/8/13 (and)

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This is first application of the petitioner- Gulab s/o Rama Bhil under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.416/2019 under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act registered at Police Station Badnawar District-Learned counsel for the State submits that there are 16 criminal cases at crime No.109/05 under Section 394 of IPC, crime No.117/05 u/S. 394, 397 IPC, crime No.383/06 u/S.394, 397 IPC, crime No.350/09 u/S.327 IPC, crime No.360/09 u/S.341, 294, 506 IPC, crime No.325/09 u/S.379 IPC, crime No.259/12 u/S.25-B Arms Act, crime No.611/14 u/S.25-B of Arms Act, crime No.372/16 u/S.294, 452, 427, 506, 34 IPC, crime No.580/16 u/S.25-B Arms Act, crime No.206/08 u/S.379 IPC, crime No.340/18 u/S.294, 323, 506, 34 IPC, crime No.246/15-4-19 u/S.25 (1), 27 Arms Act, crime No.247/15-4-19 u/S.14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, crime No.359/14-6-19 u/S.294, 336, 506 of IPC and crime No.416/20-7-19 u/S.34 (2) of the Excise Act have been registered against the applicant.In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present application.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.834/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.

['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on admission.Record of the trial court has been received.Heard on I.A.No.3833/2020 filed by the appellant/ accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.The appellant has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 31.12.2019 passed by Ist Upper Addtional Sessions Judge, Sidhi S.T. No.4/2017 convicting the appellant as under :-appellant was on bail during trial.Hence, sentence be suspended further by extending the period till disposal of the application on merit and he be enlarged on bail.In the circumstances, it is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant Ramsharan -2- Cr.A. 1943/2020 Patel shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the date so fixed by the trial Court and thereafter, on all the dates as may be fixed by the trial court.List the case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.Certified copy as per rules.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2020.02.26 03:49:39 -08'00'

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

BAIL APPLN.1675/2020 Page 4 of 4This is an application for interim bail, to the applicant, who is incarcerated in connection with FIR No.326/2016, which charges him of having committed offences under Section 302/307/452/427/147/148/149 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Specific reliance has been placed, in the prayer, on the minutes of the meeting dated 18th May, 2020, of the High Power Committee of this Court, headed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli, which has made certain recommendations, regarding the release of undertrial prisoners on interim bail.BAIL APPLN.1675/2020 Page 1 of 4The incident, in which the applicant has been indicted, took place on 24th March, 2016, on which date several persons assaulted one Dr. Pankaj Narang and one Vikas Sethi, both of whom suffered injuries, to which Dr. Pankaj Narang later succumbed.The role ascribed to the applicant, in the status report filed by the SHO, PS Vikas Puri is that he was sitting as the pillion rider, behind the main accused Nasir @ Pali.Though, it is stated that one cricket stump was recovered at his instance, there is no allegation, in the status report, of the applicant having been armed, or of having actually assaulted the deceased Dr. Pankaj Narang.This fact assumes importance because the High Power Committee, while recommending favourable consideration, for the grant of forty-five days interim bail, to persons who have suffered over two years' incarceration and are only indicted under Section 302 IPC, has carved out certain exceptions which include, inter alia, "cases investigated by the CBI/ED/NIA/Special Cell of Delhi Police, Crime Branch, SFIO, terror related cases, riot cases, cases under anti- national activities and unlawful activities (Prevention) Act etc." Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP points out that, among the provisions, under which the applicant stands tried, are provisions relating to riot cases.As already noted hereinabove, no actual act of assault is attributed to the applicant, even in the status report filed by the SHO.BAIL APPLN.1675/2020 Page 2 of 4As such, for over a year and eight months as on date, the applicant has had a clean jail record.The aforesaid two punishments, too, were attributable to the recovery of loose tobacco from the person of the applicant.No other act of misconduct has been attributed to him, during the applicant's four year sojourn behind bars.Continuous incarceration of persons, who are yet to be convicted for any offence, has its own deleterious consequences, both on the physical well-being and mental psyche of the person concerned.Cases of incarceration, prior to conviction, merit a different approach vis-a-vis cases of convicts who already stand sentenced for having committed offences.In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on interim bail for a period of forty-five days.It is accordingly directed.The applicant shall be so released on submission of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, with directions BAIL APPLN.1675/2020 Page 3 of 4 that he shall not leave the borders of Delhi, shall not tamper with evidence, shall conduct himself at all times legally and with due propriety and shall surrender before the jail authorities on the expiry of forty-five days.BAIL APPLN.1675/2020 Page 3 of 4The applicant shall also report to the jurisdictional police station Vikas Puri, on every Tuesday and Friday at 11 a.m. The applicant shall also provide, to the Jail Superintendent, the mobile numbers of at least one acquaintance, which shall remain switched on during the period of interim bail of the applicant, and which may be accessed by the jail or the police authorities as and when required.The police authorities would also be at liberty to visit the premises where the applicant is residing and ensure that he is conducting himself with due propriety.The present application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.It is clarified that all observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of consideration of the case of the applicant for grant of interim bail, and should not be treated as an opinion of this Court, even tentative, regarding the merits of the case of either party during trial.C. HARI SHANKAR, J JULY 21, 2020/kr BAIL APPLN.1675/2020 Page 4 of 4

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.482 of 2016 registered at Police Station, Station Road Morena against him for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2) (n) of the I.P.C and 3 r.w 4 and 5 r.w 6 of the POCSO Act.Thereupon, the police registered a case against an unknown offender under Section 363 IPC.He submits that in the FIR, the prosecutrix's age is recorded as 17 years.He submits that the prosecutrix is recovered on 7.7.2017 and thereafter, the applicant is made the accused in the case.After referring the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.(Sunil Sharma Vs.State of M.P) .she has stated therein that the applicant married her on 18.1.2017 in a temple.Thereafter, she remained with him as his wife for a period of about seven months.He submits that she has also stated therein that she does not know cooking.Thereupon, the applicant deserted her.He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Gwalior city and that he has no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon the perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Hence, the application is allowed.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. In case of bail jump, the concerned court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge (Rks) R. K. SHARMA 2017.12.05 14:30:52 +05'30'

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

1 The plaintiff Rajiv Garg had filed two suits; first suit was a suit for permanent injunction which had been filed in August, 2001; his contention was that he is owner of the suit property by virtue of an agreement to sell, power of attorney and receipt dated 12.07.1999 executed by Pradeep Sharma in his favour; total consideration was `2,40,000/-; the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises.Matter was renotified.Defendant was thereafter proceedings ex-parte.On his application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') on 28.08.2001, the ex-parte order was set aside.A second Local Commissioner Arvind Sharma was appointed.Contention of the plaintiff was that in this intervening period he was getting threatening calls from the defendant who threatened him with dire consequences including his submission that he was well known to the various high-ups in the Delhi Police including the Lt. Governor and the Judges; further contention being that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint with the Police Station; Sub-Inspector Vidhu Sharma came to his office with CRP No.157/2007 Page 2 of 5 some police personnel and tried to forcibly evict him from the suit premises; goods of the plaintiff were taken away; a complaint was immediately lodged in the Police Station; proceedings under Sections 448/380/34 of the IPC were registered against the respondent on the complaint of the plaintiff.Mr. Arvind Sharma, the second Local Commissioner has also confirmed the possession of the petitioner in the premises.CRP No.157/2007 Page 1 of 5CRP No.157/2007 Page 2 of 52 On 28.02.2002, the second suit was filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act claiming a restoration of his possession coupled with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code; contention was that he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises and he sought a restoration of the said premises.3 Oral and documentary evidence was led on both the suits.Issues were framed which inter-alia reads as under:-Whether the suit property was duly purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant?Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property before 28.8.01?Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant on 28.8.2001?Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be kept in possession of the suit property?CRP No.157/2007 Page 3 of 54 Issue-wise findings were returned by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced.The testimony of PW-1, the plaintiff had been considered; he was admittedly not cross-examined.The other two relevant witnesses PW-10 and PW-11 were also not cross-examined by the defendant; Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 had been relied upon to return a finding that the suit property had been purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence which was led, the finding was also returned that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on 28.01.2008 when he filed a suit for permanent injunction; finding was also returned that he was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant.These findings were arrived at on the basis of the testimony of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6; a fact finding had been arrived at on this cogent evidence that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the suit premises and this being within the period of six months, the plaintiff is entitled for relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act; suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff; suit for permanent injunction had accordingly been disposed of as having become infructuous.5 Even otherwise, none has appeared for the petitioner.Matter has CRP No.157/2007 Page 4 of 5 been called twice.Petition is dismissed on merits as also for non- prosecution.CRP No.157/2007 Page 4 of 5INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 28, 2012 A CRP No.157/2007 Page 5 of 5CRP No.157/2007 Page 5 of 5

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

3 M.Cr.As per the undertaking of the counsel on behalf of the applicant for social/community work, the applicant is directed to visit Community Health Center, Dabra in Outdoor Patient Department (OPD) and serve the patients on every Monday and Tuesday between 9 am to 1 pm from the date of release of applicant (for next six months), so that he may learn the lesson to believe in peaceful co-existence in the society and become a better citizen.Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO), District -Gwalior /Hospital Superintendent as the case may be, shall permit the applicant to work in the Outdoor Patient Department only while assisting the male nurses to serve the patients.He would not be allowed to move in the Wards and ICU etc. CMHO, Gwalior / Hospital Superintendent shall use the service of applicant in maintaining cleanliness in the building and serving the patients and doing work like First Aid etc., so that applicant may inculcate some basic knowledge of First Aid or Emergency Care of patients which may be helpful for unforeseen exigencies or natural calamities wherein applicant may be helpful as a volunteer.It is made clear that applicant shall not be a source of any infection and discomfort to the patients and would confine himself in the work of cleanliness, registration of patients or those works which may not endanger the interest of any patient.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.Even otherwise, CMHO/Hospital Superintendent as the case may be, may submit a report about the conduct and the work done by the applicant every month, which shall be kept under the caption "Direction".On the other hand, applicant shall also have to submit a report about his experience of community service before this Court, which shall be placed before this Court under the caption "Direction".4 M.Cr.Copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Gwalior, CMHO, Gwalior/Hospital Superintendent of concerned Hospital for information and necessary compliance.Looking to the undertaking given by the applicant, it is further directed that applicant shall plant 5 saplings (either fruit bearing trees or Neem and Peepal etc.) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the duty of the applicant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. " o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gS A" He shall plant saplings/ trees preferably of 6-8 ft., so that they would grow into full fledged trees at an early time.For ensuring the compliance, he shall have to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/ HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.State of M.P.) human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence.6 M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.114/2019 registered at Police Station Billowa, District-Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506-B and 34 of IPC.Confinement would bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience to the applicant.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation as well as trial and would make himself available as and when required.He would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner.He further undertakes to do some community service.Under these circumstances, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.36868/2019 (Pintoo Gurjar Vs.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner.The applicant will appear before the Police Station concern and register his presence on every Friday between 10 am to 2 pm for investigation purpose till filing of charge-sheet.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.36868/2019 (Pintoo Gurjar Vs.C. No.36868/2019 (Pintoo Gurjar Vs.State of M.P.) saplings before the concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of release of the applicant.The report shall be submitted by the applicant before the trial Court on 1st of every month.5 M.Cr.The applicant is directed to plant these saplings/ trees in his vicinity or at an place of his choice, if he intends to protect the trees on his own cost by providing tree guards or fencing, for which applicant shall have to bear necessary expenses for plantation of the trees and their measures for safeguard."It is not the question of Plantation of Tree but the Germination of a Thought."This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 M.Cr.C. No.36868/2019 (Pintoo Gurjar Vs.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The case of the prosecution in brief is as under.The accused, his wife Sanchita and their minor daughter ViashnaviUday S. Jagtap 2 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc were residing in Room No.13 of Hemant Patil Chawl at Bilapada, Nalasopara.PW-1 Ashish, son-in-law of Hemant Patil, the owner of the said Chawl, was residing in Room No.1 of the chawl.On 28.06.2011 at about 9.30 to 10.00 a.m., PW-1 Ashish Patil received a phone call from his mother-in-law that there were some bloodstains outside the room of the accused.On receipt of the said information, PW-1 Ashish and his brother-::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::in-law Krupesh Hemant Patil proceeded to the chawl.The door and the window of the room were closed from inside.PW-1 Ashish accordingly informed the police.On receipt of the information, Police Head Constable PW-5 Prakash Patil, visited Room No.13 of Hemant Chawl.PW-5 Prakash Patil called out to the accused and told him to open the door.The accused opened the door when PW-5 threatened to break open the door.On entering the room, they saw the beheaded bodies of Sanchita and Vaishnavi lying on a mat, in a pool of blood with their severed heads kept by their side.The accused had also sustained injuries and his clothes were soaked in blood.A blood stained knife and a stone were seen lying in the room.PW-8 visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest panchanama at Exh.16 in presence of PW-2 Tushar.She opined that the death of Sanchita and Vaishnavi was due to asphyxia due to hemorrhagic shock with amputation of neck from body by complete cut throat injury.6. PW-8 conducted the scene of offence panchanama at Exh.45 and seized the mat, knife, stone, and the pillows from the scene.He also lifted sample of blood from the scene of crime.He prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and directed PW-6 Amol Ghag to take photographs of the scene.7. PW-8 arrested the accused under arrest panchanama at Exh.20 andUday S. Jagtap 4 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc seized his blood stained clothes.The accused, his wife Sanchita and daughter Vaishnavi were re-Death of the wife and the daughter of the accused was homicidal.Accused was alone present in the Room No.13Accused had injuries on his personAccused had not explained the cause of death of his wife and daughter or the injuries sustained by him.9. Motive.PW-1 Ashish Patil is the son-in -law of Hemant Patil, the owner of Hemant Patil Chawl situated at Bilalpada, Nalasopara.PW-1 Ashish was residing in Room No.1 of the said chawl.PW-1 has deposed that the ac-He has deposed that there was some dispute between the accused and his wife and that they used to quarrel with each other.PW-1 has deposed that they had advised them to behave properly.PW-1 Ashish has stated that on 28.06.2011 at about 10.00 to 10.20 a.m., while he was in his office at Tiwari Nagar, Nalasopara, he received a phone call from his mother-in-law informing him that there was blood out-side the room of the accused.PW-1 came to the room and confirmed that there was blood outside the room of the accused.PW-1 found that the window and the door of the room were latched from inside.PW-1 Ashish phoned the police, whereupon the police person-nel PW-5 Mr. Kale, attached to Pelhar Police outpost came to the spot.5 knocked the door and told the accused to open the door.The accused toldUday S. Jagtap 13 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc him that he would open the door only if called his parents.The accused opened the door only when the police constable Kale told him that he would break open the window.They entered the room and saw the behead-::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::ed bodies of Sanchita and Vaishnavi lying on a mat in a pool of blood, with their severed heads kept beside the bodies.The accused was present in the room.The accused had sustained injuries and his clothes were soaked with blood.PW-1 has deposed that a blood stained knife and stone were lying in the room.PW-5 Prakash Patil is the Police Head Constable, who at the relevant time was attached to Nalasopara Police Station.He has deposed that on 28.07.2011, he was on duty at Pelhar bit.PW-5 has confirmed that PW-1 Ashish Patil had called him at about 12.30 p.m. and informed that he had seen blood outside the room of the accused.PW-5 Prakash Patil visited Room No.13 of Hemant Chawl and saw a pool of blood outside the room.The door and the window of the room were closed.He called out to the ac-cused and told him to open the door.Initially the accused told PW-5 that heUday S. Jagtap 14 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc would open the door only if he called his parents.PW-5 has stated that the accused had opened the door only after he had threatened to break open the window.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::The testimony of PW-5 indicates that he had entered the room and had seen the accused in the room.The accused had sustained injuries and his clothes were stained with blood.PW-5 had also seen two beheaded bod-ies lying on a mat in a pool of blood with severed heads by the side of the bodies.PW-5 has deposed that he had seen a blood stained knife and stone in the room.PW-5 Prakash Patil has deposed that he immediately reported the incident to the P.I. Koregaonkar.He has denied that he had not visited the room.He has also denied that he had never seen the accused in the room.PW-8 Shriram Koregaonkar, the Police Inspector, attached to Nala-3. Abrasion over neck and face near mouth, 3 to 4 in number, nail abrasions.Contused lacerated injuries over inside of upper lip, over buccal mucosa.Loosening of teeth seen of upper and lower inciser and canine teeth 2|1 front.Tongue beaten Internal Injuries :-Central cynosis plus,PW-4 Dr. Dipti has deposed that all the injuries were ante mortem.Age of the injuries was stated to be 36 hours.The cause of death was due to asphyxia due to hemmorrhagic shock with amputation of neck from body by complete cut throat injury.PW4 has deposed that the injuries could be caused by sharp light weapon akin to knife and that asphyxia could be caused by a hard blunt weapon like stone.ig She has deposed that the injuries were sufficient to cause death.34. PW-4 has deposed that vide letter dated 08.08.2011 (Exh.27), P.I. of Nalasopara had forwarded the knife (Art. A) and stone (Art.B) and sought her opinion whether the cutthroat injury and incised wounds could be caused by the said knife.Incised wound over parietal region.3 in number, suggestive of self inflicted wounds suggestive suicidal.One oblique and one vertical CLW over forehead and parietal region.PW-4 has opined that the incised wounds were caused by sharp object like knife at Art. A, whereas the CLW could have been caused by the stone at Art. B. She has deposed that the age of the injury was within 48 hours.She has opined that the incised wounds found on the person of the accused could be caused by theUday S. Jagtap 20 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc knife at Art.ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per Anuja Prabhudessai, J)The appellant herein was tried by the Court of Sessions at Vasai in Sessions Case No.13 of 2012 for offence under Section 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).By judgment dated 03.02.2014, the learned Sessions Judge held him guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC and sentenced him to death for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 309 of the IPC.2. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.669 of 2014 while Confirmation Case No.1 of 2014 arises from the statutory reference under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C.The cloths of the deceased Sanchita and Vaishnavi were seized under panchanama at Exh.19 and the bodies were sent to PHC, Nalasopara for post mortem.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::The accused had injuries on his person hence, he was sent to PHC for examination and treatment.PW-4 Dr. Dipti Gaikwad examined the accused and opined that the injuries were self-::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::PW-8 sent all the seized articles to CFSL for examination and analysis.Upon completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai.Upon committal of the case, charge was framed and explained to the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused claimed that he has been falsely implicated on suspicion.Upon considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned APP for the State and the Learned Counsel for the accused, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of offences punishable under sectionUday S. Jagtap 5 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc 302 and 309 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as stated hereinabove.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the appeal whereas confirmation case arises out of statutory reference under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::Mr. Shaikh, learned APP has submitted that the prosecution has established that the accused, his wife and daughter were residing in Room No.13 of the Hemant Patil Chawl.It is submitted that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-7 proves that accused was suspecting the character of his wife and that there used to be constant quarrels between them.Learned APP has further contended that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-5 proves that the beheaded bodies of Sanchita and Vaishnavi, the wife and daughter of the accused were found in a closed room.The accused was present in the room and he too had sustained injuries.It is submitted that the accused has not offered any explanation and this circumstance leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused had caused the death of his wife and daughter and had inflicted injuries on himself.Learned APP Mr. Shaikh has submitted that the accused had committed the crime in a cold-blooded manner, by severing heads of hisUday S. Jagtap 6 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc wife and minor girl child.Learned APP has submitted that the offence was premeditated and that the same falls in the category of rarest of rare cases.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::We have heard Mrs. Ayubi, learned Counsel for the accused, and learned APP for the State.gent and trustworthy for the purpose of recording conviction, to treat that evidence as mitigating circumstance, would amount to consider- ation of an irrelevant aspect."We shall now endeavor to determine whether the prosecution has established the abovementioned circumstances and whether the circumstances so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.Uday S. Jagtap 12 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::PW-1 therefore proceeded to the police station and lodged the re-Based on the said report PW-8 registered Crime No. I-379/2011 under Sections 302, 309 of the Indian Penal Code.sopara Police Station had registered the FIR, dated 28.07.2011 at Exh.14 lodged by PW-1 Ashish.He visited Room No.13 of Hemant Patil Chawl and saw two beheaded bodies, one of a woman and the other of a girl child, lying in the room in a pool of blood.PW-8 had conducted scene of offence panchanama at Exh. 45 and attached the blood stained mat, two pillows,Uday S. Jagtap 15 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc blood stained knife and stone and lifted sample of blood from the scene of offence.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::28. PW-8 had called a photographer to take the photographs of the scene of offence.PW-6 has deposed that on 28.7.2011 the police had called him to Room No. 13 of Hemant Patil Chawl at Nalasopara and requested to take photographs of the scene of offence.He has deposed that he had entered the room and seen two bodies, one of a woman and the other of a girl child lying on a mat in a pool of blood.He has further deposed that blood had spread all over the room.A blood stained knife and a stone were lying in the room.He has deposed that he had clicked photographs of the scene of offence.He has confirmed that the photographs at Exh.37 are of the scene of offence.PW8 had conducted the inquest panchanama at Exh.16 in presence of PW-2 Tushar.PW2 has deposed that he had seen two beheaded bodies lying on a mat in room no.13 of Hemant Patil Chawl.He has confirmed the con-Uday S. Jagtap 16 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::PW8 had referred the bodies to PHC, Nalasopara for post mortem.PW-4 Dr. Dipti, attached to PHC, Nalasopara, conducted the post mortem over both the bodies.She has deposed that on 28.07.2011, Nalasopara Po-lice had brought two beheaded bodies of Sanchita and Vaishnavi for post mortem.On examining the body, she noticed following injuries.External injuries :-Clean incised cut throat injury amputating head from neck at the level of C6, C7 slightly inclined angle from back to front of neck.Clean incised, cut injuries dissecting all neck muscles with esophagus, trachea and thyroid gland at C6, C7 level.PW-4 has opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to hemorrhagic shock with amputation ofUday S. Jagtap 17 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc neck from body by complete cutthroat injury.She has deposed that cut throat injury could be caused by knife, while asphyxia could be caused by hard and blunt weapon like stone.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::PW-4 had also conducted the post mortem over the body of Vaishnavi and noted the following injuries :-External injuries : -From back to front of neck.All neck muscles with esophagus trachea and thyroid gland (in half) cut injury at C3 level.C3 vertebra shows cut injury to body and cartilage.Fracture of C4 cervical vertibra at transverse process, antemortem fracture.Abrasions over angle of mouth seen with contusion injury above upper lip inner side.Nail abrasion over neck and near mouth.Internal Injuries :-Head - Hematoma over occipital region of head, subdural.Right lung and left lung - pale bluish, cyanosedPericardium, heart and large vessels-Heart and large vessel emptySpinal cord - cut at C3 levelUday S. Jagtap 18 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::5. C4 vertebra, fracture transverse process & body seenC3 vertebra, cut injury, incised to body and cartilage.PW-4 has deposed that the injuries were ante mortem.Age of the injuries was stated to be 36 hours.PW-8 Shriram Koregaonkar had arrested the accused on 28.07.2011Uday S. Jagtap 19 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc under arrest panchanama at Exh. 20, drawn in presence of PW-3 Virendra.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::PW-8 has deposed that the accused had injuries on his person and his clothes were soaked with blood.36. PW-8 had referred the accused to PHC Nalasopara for medical examination.PW-4 had examined the accused on 28.7.2013 and noted that he had following injuries :-Five incised wounds over neck anteriorly suggestive of self inflicted wounds extending posteriorly till nape of neck, suggestive suicidal.A and the other injuries could be caused by the stone at Art.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::She has denied that the injuries found on the person of the accused were not self-inflicted.PW-8 P.I. Shriram Koregaonkar had sent all the incriminating material seized from the scene of offence as well as the clothes of the accused and the deceased and other material collected in the course of the investigation for chemical analysis.The CA Report at Exh.48-49, 50, 51 & 52 reveals that human blood was detected on the mat, pillows as well as on the clothes of the deceased and the accused.Blood sample collected from the scene of offence was stated to be human blood.The prosecution has examined PW-7 Eknath Patil, the brother of the deceased Sanchita.He has deposed that his sister Sanchita was married to the accused and after their marriage, for about two years they resided at village Niland, Dist.Thereafter, they shifted to Malad, Mumbai and in the year 2010, after the birth of their daughter Vaishnavi, they started residing in a rental home at Bilapada, Nallasopara.PW-7 has deposed that his sister Sanchita used to complain that the accused was suspecting herUday S. Jagtap 21 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc character and was ill-treating her.He has further deposed that about a month prior to the incident, he had visited her sister and stayed in her house for about two days.He has deposed that during his stay with his sister, she had complained that the accused was suspecting her character and was ill-::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::treating her.He has deposed that he had told his sister Sanchita that he would convey this to her father and try to dissuade the accused from resorting to such behavior during her visit to the maternal house during Ganesh Chaturthi.He has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not lodged any criminal complaint against the accused for ill-treating Sanchita.He has denied the suggestion that the accused was not ill-treating Sanchita.Thus, from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-7, it is evident that the accused, his wife Sanchita and their daughter Vaishnavi were residing in Room No. 13 of Hemant Chawl at Nalasopara, which fact is otherwise not disputed by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC.PW-1 who is a resident of Room No.1 of Hemant Patil Chawl at Nalasopara, is an independent as well as a natural witness.The testimony of this witness proves that on 28.07.2011, he had seen blood outside the room of the accused.He informed the police about the same and upon receiving suchUday S. Jagtap 22 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc information; the police head constable PW-5 visited the Chawl.The evidence of PW-5, which is on the same lines as that of PW-1, substantially proves that there were bloodstains outside the room of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::The evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 reveals that the door and the window of the said room was closed from inside and when they had called out to the accused to open the door; the accused had refused to open the door untill his parents were called.The accused had opened the door only after PW-5 had threatened to break open the window.The evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 further reveals that they had entered the Room No.13 and had seen beheaded bodies of Sanchita and Vaishnavi lying on the mat inside the room in a pool of blood with their severed heads placed aside the bodies.A knife and a stone, both stained with blood, were lying on the floor of the said room.The CA Report at Exh.48 to 53 also establishes that mat, pillows, which were seized from the scene of offence, were stained with human blood.The evidence of PW-1 and, PW-5, was not seriously contested and we have no reason to disbelieve their evidence in this regard.Therefore, on reappraisal of the evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the incident had occurred inside Room No.13 of Hemant Patil Chawl, which was occupied by the accused and his wife.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::The evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 further finds corroboration in medical evidence, which confirms that the death of Sanchita and Vaishnavi was homicidal, caused within 36 hours.PW-4 has also confirmed that the injuries inflicted on Sanchita and Vaishnavi could be caused by the knife at Art.A and the stone at Art. B, which were seized from the scene of offence.The testimony PW-1 and PW-5 proves that when the accused had opened the door, the accused was alone present in the said room while the beheaded bodies of his wife and daughter were lying in the room in the pool of blood.The testimony of PW-1 is consistent with the FIR at Exh. 14, which was lodged promptly, on the same day.They have given a consistent account of events.PW-1 as well as PW-5 are independent witnesses who had no animosity towards the accused and had no plausible reason to falselyUday S. Jagtap 24 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc implicate the accused.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::The evidence of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-8 establishes that there were injuries on the person of the accused and his clothes were soaked with blood.The medical evidence also substantiates that the accused had sustained injuries on his person and that these injuries were self-inflicted and could be caused by the knife and the stone, which were recovered from the scene of offence.The C.A. report also reveals that the clothes of the accused, which were attached under panchanama at Exh.20, were stained with human blood.These circumstances fortify the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 and prove the presence of the accused in the Room No.13 of Hemant Patil Chawl.The evidence adduced by the prosecution, therefore, proves that the incident had occurred in a closed room and that apart from the accused no other person was present in the said room.It was said:spired on that fateful night and who had caused the injuries to Sanchita and Vaishnavi or the circumstances in which they had died.The accused has also not raised a defence that he was not present in the room or that any oth-er person had entered the room and caused the death of his wife and daugh-The accused was in the room wherein the beheaded bodies of his wife and minor daughter were lying.He did not raise an alarm.He did not seek help from the neighbours.tor of his complicity in the crime.The evidence of PW-1 proves that the accused used to quarrel with his wife.PW-1 has categorically stated that they had advised the accused to behave properly.The testimony PW-7 also substantiates that the accused was suspecting the character of his wife and that he was ill-treating his wife Sanchita.The evidence of these witnesses therefore proves the motive to commit the crime.We are therefore, satisfied, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prosecution has established the circumstances, which takenUday S. Jagtap 30 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc cumulatively are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the ac-::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::" ...in Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs.State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56, wherein, having taken into consideration earlier judgments, this court delineated the circumstances in which the death penalty could be imposed.Reliance was placed on the following observations recorded therein:-(ii) Before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration alongwith the circumstances of the 'crime'.Uday S. Jagtap 31 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::ted the crime for lust, greed, or gain.On the contrary, the evidence on record indicates that the accused was suspecting the character of his wife and he had committed murder of his wife and daughter and furthermore he had attempted to commit suicide and in this attempt, he had inflicted seriousUday S. Jagtap 43 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 01-2014-Confirmation case-Judgment.doc injuries on the vital parts of his body.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::In the result, we pass the following order :-(a) Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai is rejected.The accused is also liable to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one year.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::(e) The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2015 23:59:16 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(DALESHRAO MORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 15-10-2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri M.K. Jha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.None for the victim.Case diary is available.T his is first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicant is in custody since 27.05.2019 in connection with Crime No.72/19 registered at Police Station Hatta District Damoh for the offence under Sections 376 (2) (N) and 506-II of IPC and under Sections 5 (j) (ii) of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.He has no committed any offence.Charge sheet has been filed before the trial Court.None of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The petitioners are employees of a Public Limited Company.The other accused are also similarly placed.The allegations made in the complaint can be narrated in short as under :-Complainant was an employee of a company by name Webel as Company Secretary and Accounts Manager.In 2004, he got transferred to Real Estate Division as General Manager Commercial etc.While working as General Manager, he noticed several malpractices taking place in the department.Accused no.6 is superior officer of the complainant.He asked him to meet him.He suggested to the complainant that the complainant should start working in Corporate Finance Department.The complainant then started working in Corporate Finance Department, but the senior of the department did not like the complainant's returning to Finance Department and started harassing him.The complainant alleged that his superior officer purposely denied him several service benefits.The complainant raised an issue about this harassment and denial of service benefits with his superior officers, but in-vain.The complainant asserted that he was entitled to higher pay and salary but same was denied to him.He also demanded arrears etc. In 2009 or so, he received a suggestion from accused nos. 1 and 5 that he should resign from service.In turn they agreed to him a compensation of Rs.35 lac.Ultimately, on 26th February, 2010, the accused prepared a letter of resignation and under a pretext of having a meeting, accused no.5 called the complainant to his room where accused nos. 1 and 2 were already present.These petitions are challenging the order dated 21 st November, 2012, passed by the the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 62 nd Court, Dadar, Mumbai in Criminal Complaint No. 51/SW/2011 qua the petitioners.The petitioners suggested that on perusal of the complaint, no offence whatever would be attributed to them.In order to appreciate the submissions at the bar, one has to read the complaint.Respondent no.2 is the complainant.The compensation subsequently was raised to Rs.45 Lac and also payment of arrears of salary etc. The complainant resisted this offer and thereafter continued in dialogue with superior officer on this issue.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:36:17 :::All three accused then kept the complainant in confinement.They threatened him that they would terminate his service and thereby tarnish the complainant's image and reputation if he refused to put his signature on the resignation letter which was already prepared before hand.They did not allow the complainant to go to bathroom and to have a lunch or to speak to his wife on telephone.Then they forced him to ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:36:17 ::: 5 CriWP 766,767/2013 put his signature on letter of resignation.The complainant faced terrible shock and unable to several physical and mental pressure, under which he succumbed and signed the letter of resignation.On the same day, accused no.5 promised the complainant that the Company would pay compensation of Rs.60 Lacs and settled all other legal dues.the complainant then sent a letter on 19th April, 2010 to accused no.8 setting out details of his claim.The Company suggested to him unless he fulfills all the obligations he would not be paid his dues.According to the complainant, he took these steps only in order to secure payment from the Company as per his demand.On 31st May, 2010, Company paid him a sum of Rs.43.18 Lacs and also promised to settle the balance dues.The Company did not honour the commitment thereafter.The complainant alleged that as per computation statement of outstanding claims, the Company of the accused owed him a sum over Rs.1.96 Crore etc. Since this was not paid to him, the complainant made complaint to police, but in-vain.The impugned order reads as under :-::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:36:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:36:17 :::6 CriWP 766,767/2013 "Read complaint, verified statement and the report.The complainant in his statement has stated that accused No.1, 2 and 5 did not allow him to excess answer natures call.It prima facie speaks that there is material for proceeding against them for an offence under Section 342 of I.P.C.Similarly they have threatened him, which prima facie makes out an offence under Section 506 of the I.P.Code.He has further stated that the accused had forged some documents in respect of fixation of his salary.But those documents have been placed on record.Therefore no case is made out in respect of offence under Section 468 and 471 of the I.P.Code.The Complainant has further stated that on the inducement of the accused No.1 to 4 and 8 he had handed over the room to the company on the premise that he would get the amount of dues.But the same has not been paid.Hence issue process against accused No. 1, 2 and 5 for an offence under Section 342 and 506 of the I.P.Code and accused No.1 to 4 and 8 for an offence under section 420 read with 120 of the I.P.Code.Complainant against accused No.6 and 9, 10 stands dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C."On perusal of the complaint, I have no doubt in my mind that this is a spiteful action, an utterly false complaint.The incident of 26 th February, 2010, happened long back.At that time, the complainant was ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:36:17 ::: 7 CriWP 766,767/2013 allegedly confined and wrongfully restrained.Thereafter, several events took place including signing of other two letters, out of which one was quite vital.Through this letter, the complainant agreed to vacate the Company's flat.Around that, within few days he received a large sum from the company.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:36:17 :::In this background there could be a legitimate grievance of the complainant that the amount was not as per his demands and claims.By no stretch of imagination it can be made a subject matter of a criminal case.Filing of this complaint thus apparently amounted to a arm twisting.The impugned order on facts is grossly erroneous.The learned Magistrate ought not to have passed this order.This court opined that the complaint was filed rather belatedly after expiry of period of one year from the cause of action.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:36:17 :::These submissions were in my view not useful to the Court.I am holding on facts that the complaint deserves to be quashed.

['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP CRL.A. 1095/2013 MANOJ SIROHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Adv.On the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, ("Cr.P.C.") submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 21/2005 of police station Bawana, the two appellants were put to trial (with two others) on the charge of they Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 1 of 37 having entered into a criminal conspiracy on or about 12.1.2005 and, in furtherance of the common object thereof, having abducted Yogender Kumar son of Baljit Singh sometime around 6.30 p.m. on the said day from Bawana along with motor vehicle used as taxi make Tata sumo bearing registration No.DL 3C W 1174 ("the taxi") with the intention of causing him (Yogender) to be secretly and wrongly confined and thereafter committing his murder near village Ahmednagar, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Bulandshahr (UP), on the same night, causing disappearance of the evidence of the said offences by throwing the dead body in the fields of wheat and selling off the taxi for consideration and thereby having committed offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Sections 365/302/201 IPC.By judgment dated 2 nd March, 2013 in Sessions Case No.307/2006 they were held guilty and convicted as charged.By order dated 11th April, 2013, the trial court awarded imprisonment for life with fine of 3,000 each for offences under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 2 of 37The first information report ("FIR") (Ex.at 4.45 p.m. in police station Bawana on the basis of rukka sent by Inspector (then SI) Satya Prakash (PW-24) through head constable Surender Kumar (PW-1), containing his endorsement (Ex.PW-24/A) appended to the statement (Ex.PW-7/A) of Devender Kumar (PW-7), brother of the victim Yogender Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the victim").The victim then aged 24 years was his elder brother living with him as part of the family under the same roof.He would ply the said motor vehicle on hire, operating from Bawana.As per the unchallenged testimony of Devender Kumar (PW-7), the victim was in possession and use of mobile telephone instrument containing SIM No. 9312300702 (hereinafter referred to as "the mobile phone of the victim").The evidence of Sanjeev Lakra (PW-18), Nodal officer of Reliance Communication Ltd. shows that this phone (9312300702) is actually registered in the name of Devender Kumar (PW-7), the SIM card having been issued against Customer Application Form (CAF) proved (vide Ex.PW18/A) by the witness.Deposing on the strength of certificate (Ex.PW-18/D), under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 ("the Evidence Act"), the Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 3 of 37 witness (PW-18) proved call detail record (CDR) for the period 1.1.2005 to 31.1.2005 (collectively Ex.PW-18/C) in respect of the mobile phone of the victim.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 3 of 37Devender Kumar (PW-7) had reported (vide Ex.On 15.1.20015 at 10 a.m. Devender Kumar (PW-7) came to the police station Bawana and lodged missing report in respect of his brother ("the victim") which was recorded vide DD No. 11A (Ex.PW- 24/A).According to the said missing report, the victim had left for Garh Ganga around 6.30 p.m. on 12.1.2005 with certain acquaintances, driving the taxi.Devender Kumar (PW-7) informed the police in the missing report that he had made a call on the mobile phone of the victim thereby contacting him using his own mobile phone at about 7.15 p.m. on 12.1.2005 to be told by the latter (the victim) that he was going to Garh Ganga with some acquaintances and had reached at Samaipur Bye-pass.This was reiterated by Devender Kumar (PW-7) in his statement (Ex.PW-7/A) made on 16.1.2005, whereby the FIR was registered later, though he would mention the time of the said telephonic contact as about 7.30 p.m..A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 4 of 37This explains why the brother (PW-7) would call him back at 09:55:23, the last morning call lasting 32 seconds.According to the version of Devender Kumar (PW-7) in the court, as indeed in the missing report (Ex.PW-24/A) and the rukka (Ex.PW-7/A), after telephonic conversation at 19:33:45 hours on 12.1.2005, no further telephonic contact could be established by the family with him.The CDRs (collectively Ex.PW-17/D) of the mobile Crl.PW-7/A) in the evening of 16.1.2005 expressing suspicion that his brother Yogender Kumar (the victim) may have been abducted by someone as his vehicle (the taxi) was also not traceable.The investigation was taken over by Inspector Satya Prakash (PW-24) who went to Kanjhawla Bawana road.During the said investigation, he came across Rajender @Lilu (PW-8), a relative of the victim, who also worked as a driver on private taxi attached to the taxi stand at Kanjhawala crossing Bawana.He (PW-8) informed Inspector Satya Prakash (PW-24) on 16.1.2005 that the taxi of the victim had been taken on hire at about 5.30 p.m. on 12.01.2005 for journey to Garh Ganga by a person named Pappu who had come to the taxi stand at Kanjhawala Crossing Bawana accompanied by a person named Manoj.He stated that the person named Pappu was known to him he being a nephew (Bhanja) of the village.According to him, the said Pappu and Manoj had settled the fare at 1600 with the victim telling him that their family would also be travelling upto Prahaladpur.PW-16/A) on 18.1.2005 to PW-24, in the presence of PW- 16, led to the revelation as to the full identity and particulars of co- participants in the crime including that of appellant Manoj, Pappu @ Dharmesh (absconder) and a woman named Renu Tomar (since acquitted) wife of Susheel Kumar as also the involvement of one Inderjeet Singh (since convicted) son of Narain Singh, resident of Morvan, PS Ghonda, District Aligarh (UP), the last named being the person to whom the taxi of the victim had been sold off for consideration post his murder after abduction, one from whom the taxi was actually recovered.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 10 of 37 5,000 from her house (in the form of 50 currency notes of the denomination of 100 each) which were seized (vide Ex.PW-12/C) it being allegedly her share in the proceeds from the sale of the taxi of the victim to Inderjeet Singh.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 11 of 37 denomination of 100 each) from the house of appellant Rakesh, at his instance, vide formal pointing out cum seizure memo (Ex.PW-16/D).The circumstance of recovery of cash 5,000, in our view, is too insignificant to be incriminating, least of all clinching.By the very nature of the recovery effected, it cannot be said with certainty that the money (currency notes) would be part of proceeds of a crime of this magnitude.Except for the word attributed to the appellant, there is nothing to show that these currency notes were handed over by convict Inderjeet Singh to appellant Rakesh as consideration for sale of the taxi of the victim.A.No.1096/2013& conn.The Investigating officer (PW-24) recorded formal proceedings (Ex.PW-10/B) in this regard and then made a contact with the local police.SI Brij Mohan Singh (PW-20) affirmed and corroborated the testimony of PW-24 in this regard.It is this input which led to the discovery of the fact that the victim had actually died and his dead body had been found and seized by officials of police station BB Nagar, Bulandshahr (UP) on 13.1.2005 in which regard FIR (Crime) No. 2/2005 under Sections 302/201 IPC had also Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.He testified that on the morning of 13th (he would not recall the exact month or year), while going to his agriculture fields, he had come across dead body of a male person lying partly on the path and partly towards the fields of his co-villager Parmatma Sharan.He had noticed a muffler around the dead body and blood on the nostrils.He informed the Pradhan of the village and then the police.Kunwar Pal (PW-5) and Naval Kishore (PW-6) are similarly placed villagers of Ahmednagar.Both of them also affirmed similar facts about they having come across the dead body.They are witnesses to the police proceedings (Ex.PW-5/A) concerning the seizure of blood stained earth and earth control by SI Brij Mohan Singh (PW-20), the station officer (SO) of police station BB Nagar, Bulandshahr (UP).PW-20, in fact, also proved the seizure memo (Panchnama) of the dead body recovered during investigation beginning 2 p.m., upon receipt of the information at 12.10 p.m. on 13.1.2005 and DD No. 14 (mark Ex.Since the circumstances in which the dead body was found indicated it to be a case of murder and destruction of evidence, Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.The evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-20 collectively proves that UP police, after registering the aforementioned FIR on 13.1.2005, conducted the requisite inquest proceedings (vide Ex.PW20-D) and preserving the photograph of the dead body (vide Ex.PW-4/A) and shifting it to the mortuary of BBD Hospital, Bulandshahr with formal requests (vide Ex.PW-20/C and Ex.PW-20/E) for post-mortem examination to be conducted.It is clear from the evidence that the dead body at that stage was unclaimed and unidentified.He proved his report (Ex.PW-11/A), inter alia, noting that the dead body was in a state of decomposition with post mortem staining present, its face swollen and congested and the abdomen distended, its lower part greenish in colour.The autopsy doctor recorded, inter alia, the following observations in his report:-"Ligature mark 3 cm in width present all around the neck which is horizontal and continuous below the thyroid, base of the ligature mark was brown in colour and soft, subcutaneous tissue under ligature was found ecchymosed on exploration of the neck.Both carotids found ruptured, there was a congestion and fracture of the thyroid and trachea found fractured, there was also right side of the cornu of hyoid bones of right side fractured".A.No.1096/2013& conn.In the opinion of the autopsy doctor, death had occurred due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation, the time of death being approximately two and half days before the post mortem examination.The evidence of PW-20 confirms that UP police had not been able to make any progress in the investigation of FIR No.2/2005 which had been registered on 13.1.2005 in the wake of seizure of the dead body in the aforementioned circumstances.The local (UP) police took note of the information gathered after the visit of Delhi police vide DD Nos. 10 and 12 (mark 20/C and 20/D).Devender Kumar (PW-7) (brother of the victim) identified the dead body from its photographs (Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-7/B) preserved by police station BB Nagar of District Bulandshahr (UP) to be that of his missing brother Yogender (the victim) also identifying his clothes i.e. trousers (Ex.P-1), belt (Ex.P-2), shirt (Ex.P-3), sweater (Ex.P-4) and muffler (Ex.P-5), which had also been preserved at the time of post-mortem examination.From the above evidence of unimpeachable character, we have no hesitation in concluding that the victim had died homicidal death around the midnight of 12-13.1.2005 in the area of agriculture fields Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 15 of 37 along the highway near village Ahmednagar within the jurisdiction of police station BB Nagar of district Bulandshahr (UP).The injuries on the dead body clearly revealed he was strangulated with intent to cause death.Though a case (FIR No. 2/2005) had been formally registered by UP police in this regard on the same date, it could not establish the identity of the deceased.The dead body was identified to be that of the victim Yogender Kumar only on 20.1.2005, when this fact was confirmed by his brother Devender Kumar (PW-7) who had accompanied the Investigating Officer (PW-24) to the said area, in the wake of disclosure made by appellant Rakesh.On 28.1.2005, the Investigating Officer (PW-24), assisted by Head Constable Dharampal (PW-15), took the taxi that had been seized from the possession of convict Inderjeet, at the instance of appellant Rakesh, to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) where it was examined by Naresh Kumar (PW-9), Sr.Scientific Assistant (Biology).The witness (PW-9) found blood stains on the seat cover of the front passenger seat and near the front door on the left side.Four pieces of the blood stained seat cover were cut out, and the blood stains on the door also lifted with gauze pieces, and formally taken over vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-15/A).The UP police also handed over the blood stained earth and earth control with the clothes of the deceased which had been preserved during autopsy, to the Investigating Officer (PW-A.No.1096/2013& conn.PW-21/A).All the said exhibits, duly received in the malkhana of police station Bawana against entries in register No.19 (Ex.PW-14/A) were sent by ASI Mohinder Singh (PW-14), the Malkhana Mohrararr to the FSL on 23.2.2005 against road certificate No. 18/21 (Ex.PW-14/C) through Inspector Satya Prakash (PW-24), as per acknowledgement (Ex.PW-14/D).The exhibits were examined in the FSL by PW-9 who proved his reports (Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW- 9/B) at the trial.The FSL Reports (Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B) show that blood of human origin was found, inter alia, on the clothes of the deceased and the pieces of the seat cover of the taxi, the last being found to be of group B. The blood group of the deceased, however, could not be detected as the other exhibits would evince no reaction during serological examination.According to the prosecution case, in the wake of disclosures made by appellant Rakesh and the evidence gathered thereafter, efforts were made to trace out appellant Manoj Sirohi and the person named Dharmesh @ Pappu.The factual background in Mehboob Ali (supra) was that one Puran Mal had been found in Jaipur, Rajasthan to be in possession of fake currency notes.On interrogation, he revealed having received the fake currency from certain set of persons including Mehboob and Firoz.When Mehboob and Firoz were apprehended they were interrogated and disclosed that they, in turn, had obtained the fake currency notes from one Anju Ali.It was the prosecutions case that Anju Ali named certain other persons from whom he had procured the fake currency which led to certain other arrests and recoveries.A.No.1096/2013& conn.As per information furnished by accused Mehboob and Firoz vide memos P41 and P42, the fact has been discovered by Police as to the involvement of accused Anju Ali which was not to the knowledge of the Police.Police was not aware of accused Anju Ali as well as the fact that he was dealing with fake currency notes which were recovered from him.These facts are highly incriminating as the appellant (Rakesh) has not offered any explanation on these aspects.As in the case Damu Gopinath Shinde and others (supra), the case at hand is not one where only the facts regarding earlier recovery of the dead body and police proceedings connected thereto were discovered in the wake of disclosures made by appellant Rakesh.As noted at length earlier, it is he who led the Investigating Officer to the door of Inderjeet Singh (since convicted) leading to recovery of the Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.The appellants be informed about the result of their respective appeal by a copy of this judgment to be supplied to each of them through Superintendent jail.R. K. GAUBA (JUDGE) SANJIV KHANNA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 21, 2015 nk/ss Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 37 of 37In addition, rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively with fine of 2,000 each was also awarded for offences under Sections 365 and 201 IPC.The trial court directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellants would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, three months, two months and two months respectively on each count.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 1 of 37Aggrieved with the judgment convicting them and the order awarding the sentences, these appeals have been preferred by the appellants seeking to assail the conclusions reached by the trial court.It is apparent that the said phone calls were made by the victim, one after other, perhaps on account of call drops, to give some information to the brother (PW-7).A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 5 of 37 phone of the victim, though issued by the service provider for the period 1.1.2005 to 31.1.2005 show the said mobile phone to be in use only till 13.1.2005, the last being an outgoing call made at 00:12:09 hours of the said date.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 5 of 37While on the subject, we may note that the CDRs further show that, after the last call (at 19:33:45 hours) on 12.1.2005 received by the victim from his brother (PW-7), the mobile phone of the victim was used for seven outgoing calls.Thereafter, the mobile phone of the victim went into disuse.The landline phone number 55182706 is proved by M.N.Vijayan (PW-17) nodal officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd. to be in the name of one Kanhaiya, installed at A-721, Begumpur, Delhi-41 with billing address given as House No. 307, Rajiv Nagar Extension near Masjid Wali Gali.The prosecution case has been that the mobile phone of the victim, after abduction and murder had come to be in possession and use of an accomplice (Pappu @ Dharmesh) of the appellants.Since the person named Pappu @ Dharmesh was not traced or arrested and there is no other evidence adduced in support, the prosecution is not in a position to prove as to what happened to the mobile phone of the victim after his death.It also be noted here that nothing could be brought out from Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 6 of 37The prosecution case is that having first lodged the missing report (Ex.PW-24/A) on 15.1.2005, Devender Kumar (PW-7) got the FIR registered on the basis of his statement (Ex.Rajender (PW-8) affirmed on oath at the trial the aforesaid facts identifying appellant Manoj Sirohi as one of the two persons who had taken the taxi of the victim on hire for journey to Garh Ganga and he Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 7 of 37The evidence adduced by the prosecution reveals that no headway could be achieved immediately on the basis of input received on 16.01.2005 from Rajender @ Lilu (PW-8).The testimony of Inspector Satya Prakash (PW-24) reveals that during the investigation, secret information was developed on 18.1.2005 regarding the associates of the person named Pappu (who with Manoj had statedly taken the taxi on hire on 12.1.2005) and this led to the arrest of appellant Rakesh from the area of Jain Nagar, Begumpur when his presence on the street was pointed out by the secret informer.PW-24, whose word is corroborated by Head Constable (since ASI) Ram Phal Singh (PW-16) testified that, on being apprehended, appellant Rakesh was interrogated leading to certain disclosures being made which were reduced into writing (vide Ex.PW-16/A), indicating his complicity in the crime, on account of which he was formally arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.There is no discrepancy in the statements of PW-16 and PW-24 about the circumstances leading to the arrest of appellant Rakesh at 7.30 p.m. on 18.1.2005 from the area of Begumpur, Delhi.In fact, the material on record confirms that this appellant is a local resident of Jain Nagar, Begumpur, Delhi.In the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he (appellant Rakesh) vaguely denied his arrest on Crl.Page 8 of 37 the said date and time from that area.There is, however, no reason why the prosecution evidence in this regard should be disbelieved.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 8 of 37The appellant (Rakesh) does dispute the disclosures (Ex.PW- 16/A) attributed to him.It is trite that the information claimed to have been gathered from appellant Rakesh (vide Ex.PW-16/A) being a statement made to a police officer, it being hit by the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act except to the extent it can be shown to have led to the discovery of a fact in its wake within the meaning of the provision contained in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In given cases, Section 8 of the Evidence Act, can and could apply.It has been the case for prosecution that the disclosure made by appellant Rakesh (Ex.PW-16 and PW-24 have deposed about appellant Rakesh having led them to village Morvan on 19.1.2005 in the territorial jurisdiction of PS Ghonda (UP), in the presence of SI BP Singh (PW-23) of the local police station who had been joined in the proceedings and getting Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 9 of 37 the taxi of the victim recovered from the courtyard of the house of Inderjeet Singh.The seizure of the taxi in the said circumstances, at the instance of appellant Rakesh, was made subject-matter of formal proceedings (Ex.These witnesses also proved the formal arrest (vide arrest memo Ex.PW-16/F) of Inderjeet Singh after personal search (vide Ex.PW-16/G).It may be noted here that Inderjeet Singh, from whose possession the taxi of the victim was recovered, also stood trial as a co- accused in these very proceedings on the charge for the offence under Section 411 IPC.By the impugned judgment dated 2nd March, 2013, he was held guilty as charged and by impugned order dated 11 th April, 2013, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period of detention already undergone with fine of 3,000, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months.Inderjeet Singh did not challenge his conviction or the sentence by any appeal.The said result of trial against him has, thus, attained finality.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 9 of 37As indicated earlier, in the disclosure (Ex.PW-16/A) attributed to appellant Rakesh, reference had been made to the role of Renu Tomar wife of Susheel Kumar.According to the prosecution case, appellant Rakesh had led to she being arrested at 3.40 p.m. on 19.1.2005, from road in front of her house in Naveen Vihar, Begumpur, Delhi, vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-12/A) after personal search (Ex.PW-12/B), by PW-24, in the presence of Head Constable Ram Phal (PW-16) and lady constable Manju (PW-12).It was further the case of the prosecution that Renu Tomar had got recovered cash Crl.Page 10 of 37Renu Tomar was also sent up for trial with the two appellants (and Inderjeet Singh).In the charge framed by the trial court on 5.12.2005, she was accused to be a co-conspirator and, thus, party to the offences under Sections 365/302/201 IPC committed pursuant thereto.The learned trial court, however, found these circumstances insufficient to reach conclusions affirming her complicity in the crime.Thus, by judgment dated 2nd March, 2013 she was acquitted.No appeal has been preferred against the said result of the trial against Renu Tomar which has also attained finality.Page 11 of 37The evidence of Inspector Satya Prakash (PW-24), corroborated by the testimonies of Devender Kumar (PW-7), ASI Asha Devi (PW-10), ASI Ramphal Singh (PW-16) and Constable Sanjeev Kumar (PW-19), however, proved that on 20.1.2005, appellant Rakesh made a disclosure (Ex.Page 12 of 37 been registered (vide Ex.PW-20/C).At this stage, we may take note of the prosecution evidence concerning seizure of the dead body of the victim by the local (UP) police and proceedings recorded in such context.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 12 of 37Anil (PW-4) was a resident of village Ahmednagar, which falls within the jurisdiction of police station BB Nagar of district Bulandshahr (UP).Page 13 of 37 the crime registered by UP police was meant to investigate from the perspective of offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 13 of 37Page 14 of 37The place where the dead body had been dumped leaves no room for doubt that the perpetrator (s) intended to destroy evidence.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 15 of 37Page 16 of 3724) through Head Constable Ajit Singh (PW-2) on 9.2.2005 vide seizure memo (Ex.Since they could not be located, after efforts to execute non-bailable warrants against them had failed to bear fruit, orders were obtained from the magisterial court for processes under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C to be initiated qua them.The IO thereafter obtained his custody and transit remand for he to be produced before the competent court in Delhi in connection with the case at hand.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 17 of 37According to the evidence of PW-24, appellant Manoj Sirohi was produced in muffled face before the jurisdictional magistrate at Delhi on 16.3.2005 and a request was made for test identification parade ("TIP") to be arranged in his respect but on the date fixed for the purpose, he refused to join such proceedings.After refusal of appellant Manoj Sirohi for joining TIP, on the application of the IO (PW-24), he was produced again in the court on 24.03.2005 and police remand for two days was granted.It is the case of the prosecution that follow up was necessary on the disclosures made by appellant Manoj Sirohi (vide Ex.PW16/J) that had been made on 16.03.2005 during his interrogation in the presence of HC Ramphal Singh (PW16).Per the evidence of the IO (PW-24), corroborated by Constable Vijay Kumar (PW22) appellant Manoj Sirohi led the police team to village Ahmednagar from where he got recovered a polythene bag kept concealed in a room housing tube-well in agricultural fields.The bag contained the laminated copy of the registration certificate (Ex.P-6) of the taxi of the victim, a driving licence (Ex.P-8) issued by Transport Department of Government of NCT Delhi on 28.03.2000 (valid upto Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 18 of 37 27.03.2020) in the name of the victim bearing his photograph and an electricity bill (Ex.P-7) issued on 18.12.2004 by North Delhi Power Limited again in the name of the victim respecting house no.702, Bawana, Delhi, all of which were seized vide formal memo (Ex.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 18 of 37Though the chargesheet submitted in the court on 02.04.2005 was accompanied by the record of proceedings of TIP, presided over by Ms. Archana Sinha, the then Metropolitan Magistrate, at Tihar Jail, New Delhi on 22.03.2005 in respect of appellant Manoj Sirohi containing his statement of refusal, inter-alia, for the reason the vehicle in which he was brought to Delhi may have been driven by the brother of the complainant, formal proof of the said record of TIP was not adduced as the concerned judicial officer was not examined during trial.But then, this should not affect the prosecution case in this regard in as much as the testimony of PW24 affirming the same very facts was not challenged during his cross-examination.For these reasons, we do not read anything against the prosecution version into the testimony of PW24 that appellant Manoj Sirohi was confronted with the witness (PW-8) pertaining to "last seen" circumstance on 26.03.2005 to be positively identified by the latter as the person who had accompanied Pappu on 12.01.2005 for taking on hire the taxi of the victim for journey with family to Garh Ganga and leaving for the said destination from the taxi stand at Kanjhawala crossing, Bawana.PW-8, on his part, confirmed at the trial the said role of appellant Manoj Sirohi, positively identifying him as the companion (named Crl.Stray lapse of this nature in correctly naming of a small hamlet in a district of another State cannot belie the contents of a document contemporaneously prepared, executed and attested.Registration book is an important document, which is required to be available in the vehicle when driven.Similarly, the driver must possess and have the original driving license.The learned counsel for both the appellants argued that the disclosures attributed to them cannot be acted upon as they have not Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.The main thrust of these submissions was that the dead body had already been recovered by UP police on 13.1.2005 and that the revelation statedly made by appellant Rakesh under interrogation had not uncovered anything new on 18/20.1.2005 so as to treat it something discovered in consequence of "information received" from him.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 20 of 37Page 26 of 37The case reported as Ranjeet Kumar Ram @ Ranjeet Kumar Das vs. State of Bihar 2015 SCC Online SC 500; AIR 2015 SC (supp.) 1374 was founded on facts and circumstances bearing substantial similarity to the one at hand.His father Sunil Kumar Singh lodged a missing report on 28.2.2006 with the police.After 5-6 days, two accused persons (Ranjeet Kumar Ram and Sanjay) told him that his son would come back if he paid money.On 23.6.2006, he received a phone call demanding ransom of 4,00,000 for return of the child.After a series of such calls, the ransom was settled at 1,05,000/-.On 1.7.2006, the ransom callers instructed him to come with the above mentioned two accused for passing on the money.It appears that besides the above mentioned two accused, another accused (Sanjeet) also accompanied the complainant leading him to the house of fourth accused (Birendra Bhagat) where money was paid.Birendra Bhagat was found to be associated with fifth accused (Chintoo Singh).The child was not restored to the father inspite of payment of ransom money and he reported these developments to the police.This led to the arrest of the five above mentioned persons and recovery of some currency notes (forming part of the ransom amount earlier paid) from the house of the first accused (Ranjeet Kumar Ram).The interrogation of two of the said arrestees (Chintoo Singh and Birendra Bhagat), upon follow up, led to revelation that the dead body of the kidnapped child had been Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.The Investigating Officer of the local police of the area, where the dead body was found lying, registered a case under Sections 302/201 IPC, and during investigation seized the clothes of the deceased and also preserved the photograph of the dead body.The first informant identified the dead body of the child from the photograph as also the clothes that had been recovered to be that of his missing (since deceased) child.The arguments raised against the above backdrop and the view taken thereupon by the Supreme Court may be quoted thus:-Learned counsel for the accused Chintoo Singh (A-It was submitted that the link to connect the accused with the murder of deceased boy Vicky is missing and that the confession statement of accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) recorded by police is not admissible in evidence which was not kept in view by the courts below.So far as the recovery of dead body of boy under the culvert between Bhagwanpur and Bahadarpur road is concerned, as noticed earlier, a F.I.R. was registered in (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No. 128/2006 dated 22.4.2006 under Sections 302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.Though the statement recorded from the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) did not lead to Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.If no statement was recorded from the accused, place of the dead body of deceased boy would have remained unknown".No recovery was made from them or at their instance.Against this backdrop, it was argued that the statements attributed to them in the police custody were not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The argument was rejected with the following observations:-The disclosure statement (Ex.It led to not only the awareness of facts pertaining to the crime registered by UP police but also the proceedings recorded and evidence preserved in such context, particularly the photograph of the dead body and the clothes of the victim recovered by autopsy doctor, in addition, of course, to the proof about the death being homicidal in nature.Identity of the unknown body was ascertained and established.The special knowledge on the part of appellant Rakesh as demonstrated by the facts proved is a clear pointer to his involvement in the offences of murder and destruction of evidence.Appellant Manoj Sirohi was not personally known to any of the prosecution witnesses.He (PW-8) had seen both the said persons, including appellant Manoj, leaving the taxi stand travelling as passengers in the taxi of the victim for journey with family to Garh Ganga.The full particulars of Manoj were brought to light only when appellant Rakesh was apprehended on the basis of leads concerning Pappu @ Dharmesh (absconding).The disclosures made by appellant Manoj (vide Ex.PW-16/J) eventually led to the recovery of the registration certificate of the taxi of the deceased and his personal papers including driving license.Page 35 of 37 the appellant Manoj Sirohi was holding on to the said papers, having kept them concealed at a place specially known to him, provides the requisite confirmation of his involvement.It is not difficult to imagine as to why he would have retained the said documents with him.After all, the taxi which had been taken away from the victim around the time of his murder would need to be arranged to be formally transferred to the person to whom it had been sold off.For such purposes, the documents in the nature of registration certificate of the vehicle and proof of identity of its registered owner (the victim) would have come handy.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 35 of 37The confirmation of the identity of the appellant Manoj Sirohi by Rajender @Lilu (PW-8) as the person who was accompanying Pappu @ Dharmesh (absconder) at the time of the taxi being taken on hire for the purported journey to Garh Ganga seals the chain of circumstances adding the element of "last seen" concerning him (appellant Manoj Sirohi).Since he has not offered any explanation and since the victim was subjected to homicidal death on the same night soon after being hired with his taxi, we unhesitatingly uphold the view taken by the trial court that the prosecution has proved beyond all doubts that appellant Manoj Sirohi was party to the criminal conspiracy and was complicit with appellant Rakesh in commission of the offences of kidnapping and murder of the victim.In the given facts and circumstances, the above conclusions further lead to the irresistible interference that the dead body of Yogender Kumar was disposed of in the agricultural fields of wheat Crl.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 36 of 37 close to the highway along village Ahmednagar within the jurisdiction of police station BB Nagar of District Bullandshahr (UP) and the taxi sold off with the intention of causing disappearance of the evidence by the appellants and their associates so as to screen themselves.A.No.1096/2013& conn.Page 36 of 37For the foregoing reasons, and in the circumstances, we find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment.The punishment awarded for the offences for which the appellants have been convicted cannot be said to be disproportionate or duly unharsh.Thus, these appeals are unmerited and dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The petitioner as a Shiksha Swayamsevak shall render physical and financial assistance to government primary school situated nearest to residence of petitioner for ensuring hygiene and sanitation and for removing deficiencies of infrastructural amenities in the said school from the skill/resources of the petitioner.[;kfpdkdrkkz ,d f'k{kk lo;alsod ds :i esa vius fuokl ds fudV vofLFkr ljdkjh izkFkfed fo|ky; esa lopnrk vksj vkjksx; dks lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, 'kkjhfjd ,oa forrh; lgk;rk iznku djsxk rFkk vius dks'ky o lalk/kuksa ls mDr fo|ky; esa volajpukred lqfo/kkvksa dh dfe;ksa dks nwj djsxka] The petitioner after selecting a particular Govt. Primary School shall inform about the same to the office of Gram Panchayat (in case of rural area) and/or Ward Officer of the concerned ward (in case of urban area), within whose territorial jurisdiction the said school is situated.[;kfpdkdrkZ ,d fof'k"V ljdkjh Ldwy dk p;u djus ds i'pkr~ blds ckjs esa xzke iapk;r ds dk;kZy; xzkeh.k {ks= ds ekeys esa vkSj@;k lEcaf/kr okMZ ds okMZ vf/kdkjh 'kgjh {ks= ds ekeys esa ftlds {ks=kf/kdkj esa mDr Ldwy vofLFkr gS] dks lwfpr djsxkA] It will be joint responsibility of Sarpanch and Secretary of said Gram Panchayat (in case of rural area) and/or Ward Officer of the concerned ward (in case of urban area) to preserve the said information 5 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-38431-2020 (Sawan Kumar Pachoriya Vs State of M.P.) provided by the petitioner.The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The petitioner will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-38431-2020 (Sawan Kumar Pachoriya Vs State of M.P.)The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;[;g lEcaf/kr okMZ ds okMZ vf/kdkjh 'kgjh {ks= ds ekeys esa vkSj@;k mDr xzke iapk;r ds ljiap vkSj lfpo xzkeh.k {ks= ds ekeys esa dh la;qDr ftEesnkjh gksxh fd] ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk iznRr lwpuk dks lajf{kr djsA] The registry of this Court shall communicate this order through Legal Aid Officer, SALSA, Gwalior to the Collector, District Education Officer, Block Education Officer of the district/block concerned for information and compliance.A copy of this order be supplied to the Legal Aid Officer, SALSA, Gwalior who is directed to communicate this order to the District Education Officer, Block Education Officer of the district/block concerned to verify as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.7 or not and submit report once every month.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information.2.5.4.20=70c6eef55d043fbd523acacb7d1ef4b060 Tiwari 9a37510b8e1527bc41da9009c41f72, postalCode=474011, st=MADHYA PRADESH, cn=Aman Tiwari Date: 2020.11.08 18:30:28 -08'00'

['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The facts of the case are as follows:Subbulakshmi, W/o.Subburaman of Tirunelveli, who was the victim in thealleged rape committed by A1 viz., Mangalam Dhanaraj, formerly DeputySuperintendent of Police, PCR Unit, Madurai, which case was pending trial atthat time against A1 on the file of the learned Assistant sessions Judge,Tenkasi in S.C.No.407 of 1993, brought to the notice of this Court that A1 whowas kept in Central Prison, Palayamkottai from 16.06.1996 on the execution ofthe NBW issued against him, came out on bail on 16.07.1996 by producing bogusHigh Court bail order in Crl.O.P.No.4915 of 1996 dated 15.07.1996 before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam.The matter was taken up by thisCourt in Crl.O.P.No.5968 of 1996 and an order was passed on 29.08.1996,directing the Registrar, High Court, Chennai to lodge complaint with the CrimeBranch CID, Chennai against A1 and others for the offences under Sections120(b), 468, 471 and 476 I.P.C. Accordingly, the Additional Registrar(Judicial), High Court, Chennai lodged a complaint with the Crime Branch CID,Chennai on 02.09.1996, which was registered in CB CID Headquarters as CrimeNo.31 of 1996 and subsequently the case was transferred to CB CID, ThoothukudiUnit on the question of jurisdiction.The same was registered in Thoothukudi CBCID Crime No.1 of 1996 and investigation had been taken up as per orders.(ii) On completion of procedure contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.charges were framed against the accused as follows:(iii) The prosecution examined twenty six witnesses and marked fourteenexhibits and fourteen material objects towards proving the guilt of the accused.(iv) On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied theirinvolvement and A1 and A3 wished to examine witnesses on their side.On theside of A1, two witnesses were examined and ten exhibits were marked.(v) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam on completion of trialconvicted A1 and A3 to A6 as follows:However, A2 and A7 were acquitted and hence this appeal.A7 is an Advocate, who moved bail applicationbefore the concerned Court on the strength of the forged bail orders.A2 was charged with offences under Sections 120(b), 476 r/w 109, 471r/w 468, 109 and 420 r/w 109 I.P.C. and A7 was charged with offecnes underSections 471 r/w 468 and 420 I.P.C.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) contends that P.W.7,the Prison Officer at the Palayamkottai Central Prison, deposed that on09.07.1996, during the prison visit of A2, son of A1 and one Suresh, another sonof A1, A1 sent the other son viz., Suresh out and asked A2 to bring oneAashirkovilpitchai to Tenkasi Court towards obtaining bail for himself.Afterthe visit, A2 and A3, who stand convicted by the lower Court, had conspired toprepare the fake bail order.The evidence ofP.W.23 is that A2 and A3 were talking at the corner of the road, when A1 told A3that his bail ought to be obtained, somehow or other.A3 said that Rs.15,000/-would be required.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also seeks support inthe evidence of P.W.24, which is that A3 had represented himself to be anAdvocate Clerk and stated that if bail was not obtained before the lower Court,the same could be obtained at Chennai through engaging a reputed counsel andthat the same would cost Rs.15,000/-.Having referred to the evidence availableas above, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) contended that thesame was sufficient to bring home the guilt against A2, the lower Court ought tohave convicted him on the strength thereof and hence the acquittal of A2 has tobe set aside.As regards A7, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) reliedon Exs.The learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) refers to Ex.P18 and submits that when the defecttherein viz., the name of the respondent being reflected as Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Cheranmahadevi instead of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, waspointed out, A7 had made bold to swear to an affidavit, Ex.P19, asserting thatthe same was merely an error.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)also states that whereas the concluding portion of such affidavit has beencorrected to show the seeking of an order of bail, the actual wording in suchportion in Ex.P19 was an undertaking by A7 to produce the corrected order copyin relation to Ex.This, according to the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) reflected the complicity of A7 in the crime and given the same,the trial Court ought to have found A7 guilty in the case.The learned senior counselstressed that the copy marked as Ex.P4 had not been so much attested.The learned senior counselalso informed that the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.23, who haddeposed that he had seen A2 and A3 talking to each other when A1 made therequest to A3 for arrangement of bail.Added tothis, P.Ws.22 and 23 had already been examined in the case and no occasion forthem to meet arose.Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the allegedconspiracy between A1, A2 and A3 sought to be made out through the evidence ofP.W.23 would fall to the ground on a careful appreciation of the prosecutionevidence.As regards the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Criminalside) on the involvement of A7, the learned senior counsel would submit that A7being an Advocate has conducted himself in such manner as any Advocate would andthat the very fact of swearing to an affidavit to the effect that therespondents' names had been wrongly typed in Ex.As regards the contention of Ex.P19 having beenclandestinely corrected by A7, the learned senior counsel drew the attention ofthis Court to the evidence of P.W.18, the learned Judicial Magistrate,Thiruchendur, who had stated that he had noticed the struck out portion inEx.P19 and when asked A7 had said that if necessary the corrected copy would besubmitted.P.19 as corrected, which wassubmitted before the Court and there was nothing hanky-panky about it.This Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal would be veryslow to interfere and would in fact interfere only if the reasoning of the lowerCourt was totally unfounded or was not supported by the material on record orotherwise perverse or illegal.None of these defects could be attributed to thefinding of the trial Court, which on a proper appreciation of the evidence,while arriving at the finding of guilt of the other accused had thought it fitand proper to acquit the respondents herein.The lucid explanation of the circumstances relied upon by theprosecution towards implicating A2 and A7 in the case and on how, on thematerial and evidence on record it totally would be unjust to infer theinvolvement of these two respondents, call for immediate acceptance.The lowerCourt, has on proper appreciation, acquitted the respondents herein.2.The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., C.N.R. Unit.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

1. Leave granted.By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, in Sessions Case No. 490 of 2006, by convicting the first respondent- herein (R-1) under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “IPC” for short).However, taking into consideration the plea of the learned Counsel for the R-1, as to the juvenility of R-1 on the date of the commission of the offence, i.e., 06.09.2005, the High Court, while sustaining the conviction passed by the Trial Court, has granted R-1 the benefits under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (the “Act” for short).Aggrieved by the latter part of the judgment with respect to the benefits conferred upon R-1 under the Act, the Complainant- herein, who was not a party before the High Court, is before us with permission to file the Special Leave Petition.This Court, while issuing notice on 10.09.2010, had granted permission to the Complainant to file the Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order passed by the High Court, insofar as the latter portion of the judgment and order passed by the High Court is concerned.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant brings to our notice that he had approached the competent authority, i.e., the Public Information Officer, O/o.Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh.The concerned authority has furnished the required information.We request the High Court to decide and complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.(H.L. DATTU) .......................(CHANDRAMAULI KR.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on I.A. No.5048/2019, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.Appellants stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 03 months with fine of Rs.1000/- each with default stipulation, under Section 323 read with Section 34 (two counts) of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 06 months with fine of Rs.1000/-each with default stipulations and under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years with fine of Rs.1000/-each with default stipulation.He also submits that there are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses.He further submits that there are fair chances to succeed in the case.The final hearing of this appeal will take time.If the appellants are not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be futile.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellants may be allowed and the period of their remaining jail sentence may be suspended and they may be released on bail.List the matter after four weeks.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 20/03/2019 18:07:50

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE SS/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2018.07.20 16:38:08 +05'30' HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE ..9...(Passed on 19th July, 2018) By this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') the applicants are praying for quashment of the proceedings initiated and for quashment of cognizance dated 20th June, 2016, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua, in Criminal Case No.1056 of 2016 and the complaint.The facts of the case are that on 14.10.2014, a private complaint was filed by the respondent -HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE ..2...C.No.5317/2018 complainant against the applicants.In the present case, the contents of the complaint can certainly be taken into account.Admittedly, the complaint at least for eight years from the date of incident did not even bother to take effective step to file a complaint within 3 years.Having regard to the nature of allegations and entirety of circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to permit the respondent to proceed with a complaint filed 8 (eight) years after the incident against the applicants.Hence, the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 20.6.2016 is set aside and proceedings in the aforesaid complaint are quashed.Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.5317 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of.C.No.5317/2018 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH (Single Bench.:Hon'ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal, J) M.Cr.C.No.5317/2018 SACHIN YADAV & ORS.Versus RAJENDRA KUMAR ******* Post for _ 19/7/2018 (P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE 19/7/2018 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE ..10...C.No.5317/2018 Indore, Dated :-13.7.2018 Shri S. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.Shri S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for respondent.Heard finally.Reserved for Order.(P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE 19.7.2018 Order passed separately, signed and dated.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The appellants Wazid Ali Ansari (A-1) and Mumtaz Ali Ansari (A-2) impugn a judgment dated 27.06.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case no.138/11 arising out of FIR No.245/11 registered at Police Station Govindpuri by which they were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 376 (2)(f) and 506 IPC.By an order dated 22.07.2014, they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `60,000/- each under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine `5,000/- each under Section 506 IPC.The sentences were to operate concurrently.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that in the month of May/June 2011 at House No.C-116, Bhumiheen Camp, Govind Puri, New Delhi, the appellants committed rape upon the Crl.A.1338/2014 Page 1 of 7 prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around 11 years and criminally intimidated her.Police machinery was set into motion when information about the incident was reported on 24.07.2011 at around 12.35 noon vide DD No.12A (Ex.PW-9/A).The investigation was assigned to SI Sahiram who with Ct.Deep Chand went to the spot.After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.The accused persons were arrested and medically examined.She was threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone.Thereafter, A-2 established physical relations with her against her wishes 3 or 4 times.When A-1 came to know about it, finding her alone, he, in June 2011 also took her inside the room and committed rape upon her.On 12.07.2011, A-1 again took her to his room to have physical relation but on her raising alarm, she was released.On enquiry by her mother, about her sadness, she apprised her about the entire incident.She disclosed that during summer vacation in June, the appellants had arrived from their village.They used to visit their house to watch T.V. Her mother had informed that they were her 'uncles'.After coming from their village, they started living upstairs.She further deposed that one day A-2 called her in the room.When she went there, she found him alone.He committed rape upon her; she started bleeding.She is consistent throughout.Firstly, A-2 committed rape upon her.When A-1 got inkling about it, he took advantage of the situation and established physical relations with her.Her consent to have physical relations with the appellant was of no consequence, she being Crl.A.1338/2014 Page 4 of 7 below 16 years of age.She was not aware as to what were the consequences of the act of having physical relations with the appellants.They did not anticipate that both the appellants would come to stay in their house.It has come on record that they had permitted both of them to stay in the upper room of the premises and the accused persons used to visit their house to watch T.V. No history of previous hostile relations has emerged.Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to FSL for examination.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the court.The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to establish its case.In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.A.1338/2014 Page 1 of 7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.At the outset, it may be mentioned that A-2's counsel on instructions did not opt to challenge the findings on conviction.He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order considering the mitigating circumstances.For A-1, learned counsel urged that delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained.Both the appellants are brothers.A-1's MLC reveals that he was not physically capable to perform physical relation.Material contradictions have been emerged in the statements of prosecution witnesses.A-1 was falsely implicated due to a dispute over a piece of land Crl.A.1338/2014 Page 2 of 7 in the village in U.P. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons exist to disbelieve the prosecutrix aged around 11 years.A.1338/2014 Page 2 of 7They were acquainted with the victim's parents before the occurrence.In her complaint 'X' gave graphic account as to how and in what manner, the appellants used to sexually abuse her.She informed that she was a student of 7th standard.Her cousin Rajesh lived on the upper floor of the house.The appellants also used to live with him.In May/June, 2011 when she had gone upstairs to pick clothes, A-2 dragged her inside the room and committed rape upon her.In 164 Cr.P.C.statement (Ex.PW-3/A), she implicated both the accused persons for committing rape upon her.When she raised alarm, her mouth was gagged.When she narrated the occurrence to A-2's brother, he sent him somewhere else.After 5 or six days, A-1 called her inside the room and committed rape upon her.A.1338/2014 Page 3 of 7She was criminally intimidated by him.A-1 established physical relations four times with her.Finally fed up with all that, she informed her brother who in turn narrated the incident to her parents.In her Court statement as PW-3, she proved the version given to the police and before the magistrate without any variation.She implicated both the accused persons for committing rape upon her in May/June 2011 during summer vacation when she used to go upstairs to pick clothes lying on the terrace.She further disclosed that on 12.07.2011, A-1 had caught hold of her and took her to his room.He started compelling her for sexual intercourse.When she raised alarm, he let her go.In the evening when her mother enquired as to why she was depressed, she told the incident to her.In the cross-examination, she denied that the accused persons did not stay in the room upstairs of their house and they were falsely implicated over a dispute regarding a piece of land in the village.On scrutinizing the testimony of the child witness, it reveals that despite indepth cross-examination, no infirmity could be elicited to suspect her version.This child witness had no extraneous consideration to make a false statement against the appellants who were from their village and were distantly related to them.No adverse inference can be drawn against the child witness for not raising alarm as she, aged about 11 years, was under the influence and pressure of the appellants who were distantly related to them.A.1338/2014 Page 4 of 79. PW-5 (Sunita) and PW-7 (Surender Nath Sharma), the victim's parents, have corroborated her version in entirety.They denied to have any dispute over a piece of land with the appellants or with their relatives in the village.In 313 statement, the appellants did not furnish any plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against them.No evidence has surfaced to show if there is any dispute over any plot of land in the village and it was the reason to falsely implicate the accused persons.Moreover, the child aged around 11 years was not expected to make serious allegations of rape to falsely implicate the appellants over a trivial dispute for a piece of land that occurred before her birth.Victim's parents were not expected to use their tiny child to settle the score.Appellants had sexually abused the child on many occasions.Finally the child fed up with these activities spilled the beans and informed her parents.A.1338/2014 Page 5 of 7The accused persons have not denied the age of the prosecutrix to be below 16 years.The prosecution has examined PW-2 (R.S.Rana), Sub-Registrar, Birth and Death, Central Zone, MCD, New Delhi, who has proved the birth certificate (Ex.PW-2/A).This witness was not cross-examined.The genuineness and correctness of the birth certificate has not been suspected.Submission that A-1 was not capable to perform physical relations is devoid of merit.PW-4 Dr.Shashank Pooniya had medically examined A-1 vide MLC (Ex.PW-4/A).He categorically stated that after examination, he was of the opinion that there was nothing to suggest that A- 1 was not capable of performing sexual intercourse under normal circumstances.PW-10 (Dr.Sumita Agarwal) has proved the MLC (Ex.PW-10/A) whereby Dr.Meenakshi Maurya examined the prosecutrix on 24.07.2011 at around 7 P.M. Hymen of the prosecutrix was found torn; vagina admitted one finger with ease.The Trial Court has discussed all the relevant facts.The impugned judgment based upon fair appreciation of evidence needs no intervention.Considering the gravity of the offence whereby a child aged around 11 years was sexually assaulted and abused for number of times by the appellants who were quite grown up and were well aware of the consequences of their acts, sentence order based upon fair reasoning deserves no modification or alteration.The appeal lacks merits and is dismissed.A.1338/2014 Page 6 of 7Trial Court record along with the copy of the order be sent back forthwith.Information be also sent to Superintendent Jail.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JULY 12, 2016/sa Crl.A.1338/2014 Page 7 of 7A.1338/2014 Page 7 of 7

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andLearned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this Third application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail after rejection of second bail application vide order dated 08/09/2015 passed in MCRC No. 8644/2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat his prayer for bail after conclusion of investigation.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Padav, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 406/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Istagasa No. 3/15 offence u/S. 41 (1-4), 102 of Cr.P.C. and section 379 of IPC.C. No. 10103/2015 custody since 12/06/2015 and the charge sheet has since been filed on 14/09/2015 which is not disputed by State counsel and the applicant has certain criminal antecedents but considering the fact that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary and trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court though is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant, but with certain stringent conditions, in view of the nature of offence and antecedents.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ConvictionUnder Section Sentence 1465 r/w 109 I.P.C.1 Year R.I + Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default 6 Months S.I.3 Years R.I + Fine of Rs.3000/-, in default 6 Months S.I.3.468 r/w 109 I.P.C.3 Years R.I + Fine of Rs.2000/-, in default 6 Months S.I.4.471 r/w 109 I.P.C.1 Year R.I + Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default 6 Months S.I.During thependency of the revision, the first petitioner / A7 died and now, the secondpetitioner / A8 alone is before this Court.Baskara Nadar / P.W.1 owns five cents ofland in Survey No.265/5 situate in Ezhuthesam Village in Kanyakumari Districtin Tamil Nadu.A1 with the intention of usurping the said property of hisbrother, conspired with 9 others and in pursuance of the said conspiracy,prepared a sale deed / Ex.P7 as if Baskara Nadar / P.W.1 has sold the saidland to A1 for valuable consideration and had the sale deed registered asdocument No.470 of 1994, on 04.04.1994, in the Sub-Registrar's Office atOttasekaramangalam in the adjoining Kerala State.One Kunju Perumal (who was shown as A6 but he had died during trial) impersonated as Baskara Nadarbefore the Sub Registrar for registration of the document.Thereafter, on16.12.1994 it is alleged by the complainant / P.W.1 that Gopalan / A1, hisson Suresh Kumar / A9, Kesavan / A2, Seriyan / A3, Lakshmanan / A4, Thangappan / A5, Kunju Perumal (deceased) entered into the said land andstarted laying the foundation.When the complainant knew about it, he wentto the land and when he asked them to stop the work, the accused intimidatedthe complainant and chased him away.The complainant went to the localpolice station and lodged a complaint.Initially, no F.I.R. was registeredby the police, and only an enquiry was conducted.During the course ofpolice enquiry, A1 came to the police station and produced a photocopy of thesale deed dated 04.04.1994 purported to have been executed by the complainant in his favour and claimed that the land belongs to him.Only then, thecomplainant knew about this fact.Ultimately on 09.01.1995, Baskara Nadar /P.W.1 gave a written complainant to the Superintendent of Police, KanyakumariDistrict narrating the incident.On the directions of the Superintendent ofPolice, the District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, registered a case on 01.04.1995in Crime No.9 of 1995 under Sections 423, 467 and 468 I.P.C., against GopalanNadar / A1 and six others.The police took up investigation and examined theSub Registrar of Ottasekaramangalam and collected copies of the sale deed.The police obtained the fingerprints of allthe accused, specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused, fingerprintsof the complainant Baskara Nadar / P.W.1 and his signature also.The policesent the signature obtained from the accused and P.W.1 along with thesignature found in the photocopy of the sale deed to the handwriting expertfor comparison and report.The police obtained the fingerprint register fromthe office of the Sub Registrar, Ottasekaramangalam and sent the same, alongwith the fingerprints of the accused and Baskaran / P.W.1 to the fingerprintexpert / P.W.14 for comparison and report.The report of the handwritingexpert disclosed that the signature in the copy of the sale deed is not thatof P.W.1 but is that of Kunju Perumal.Similarly, the fingerprint Expert /P.W.14 has stated in his evidence as well in his report that the fingerprintfound in the fingerprint register maintained in the office of the SubRegistrar, Ottasekaramangalam, relating to the registration of DocumentNo.470 of 1994 does not tally with the fingerprint of Baskara Nadar / P.W.1but tallies with the fingerprint of Kunju Perumal.The criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners / accused 7 and 9challenging the Judgment, dated 05.06.2009, made in C.A.No.105 of 2004, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, confirming theJudgment, dated 29.04.2004, made in C.C.No.146 of 2003, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, convicting and sentencing the each ofthe petitioners / accused 7 and 8 as follows:2.467 r/w 109 I.P.C.5.423 r/w 109 I.P.C.1 Year R.I + Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default 6 Months S.I.6.420 r/w 109 I.P.C.3 Years R.I + Fine of Rs.2000/-, in default 6 Months S.I.Further, the Trial Court had directed the sentences to run concurrently.On appeal, the First Appellate Court had confirmed the conviction andsentence imposed by the Trial Court, aggrieved by which Thangappan / A7 and Muthunayagam / A8 have filed this criminal revision petition.The police was not able to recover the original sale deed dated 04.04.1994which was naturally in the custody of A1 as he is the beneficiary.Thepolice had only a photocopy of the said sale deed which was produced by A1during the course of enquiry.The police examined otherwitnesses.Kunju Perumalwas also arrayed as one of the accused in the police report but during thetrial he had died.Theaccused involved in the fabrication of the sale deed were charged foroffences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 423, 420 and 471 I.P.C. and theaccused, who were involved in the incident on 16.12.1994, were charged by thepolice for offence under Sections 447, 352, 506(ii) r/w. 148 I.P.C.The Trial Court framed charges for all the offences against all theaccused.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 16were examined and Exs.P1 to P59 were marked.After completing the examination of witnesses, when the incriminatingmaterials and circumstances were put to the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the evidence of the prosecution side as false andexamined D.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.D1 to D8 to prove their defence.Coming to the registration of bogussale deed on 04.04.1994, the Trial Court convicted the petitioners / A7 andA8 as stated above.The first accused ? Gopalan had filed Crl.R.C.(MD) No.212 of 2009 and thisCourt by order, dated 17.06.2014, had dismissed the revision and confirmedthe Judgment of the Appellate Court, which confirmed the Judgment of theTrial Court, however, had modified the sentence of imprisonment.Though several grounds have been raised in this revision, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner / A8 contended that though A8 has been arrayed asaccused in this case, the role attributed to him is that he stood as awitness to the sale deed, which was marked as Ex.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.In the result, the conviction imposed on the second petitioner / A8 isconfirmed.But, the sentence imposed on him alone is set aside.The secondpetitioner / A8 is released on probation of good conduct on entering into abond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five only) with one surety tothe satisfaction of the Trial Court and also to appear and receive thesentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantimeto keep the peace and be of good behaviour.The fine amount paid by thesecond petitioner / A8 shall be treated as compensation and costs as providedunder Section 5 of the Probation of OffendersExcept the above modification, the criminal revision is dismissed..1.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:Deceased Usha was the wife of the Appellant and at the relevant time she was residing with him at village Talepada, Chhoti Desai.On 05.08.2003 the Appellant went to the police station and informed that on 04.08.2003 at about 8 to 9 p.m. when he came back from his job, quarrel took place between him and deceased Usha in respect of the food prepared by deceased and therefore, deceased went to sleep without taking food.In the morning of 05.08.2003 when the Appellant woke up, he noticed that his wife deceased Usha was lying motion less and therefore, he tried to wake her up.However, there was no movement and therefore, the Appellant thought that deceased ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 3 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc was dead, hence, went to the Dombivli police station and gave information about the death of deceased Usha.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::Complainant P.S.I. Thorve was on duty at Mumbra police station.He received telephone call at 3.50 a.m. On 06.08.2003 from P.S.I. Patil of Dombivli police station that the Appellant informed about the death of his wife.P.S.I. of Dombivli police station sent the Appellant along with constable on duty and P.S.I. Gaikwad to the spot and after some time he also went there.Mumbra Police Station Officer initially registered accidental death and started investigation.Inquest panchanama of the dead body was drawn, at that time police noticed injuries on the person of deceased including burn injuries on her back.Dead body was sent to Chatrapati Shivaji Hospital, Kalwa for post-mortem examination.As per the post-mortem report death was caused due to injury on the head.During the course of investigation, it was transpired that Appellant assaulted deceased with kicks and fist blows and also with utensil holder (sanchi).The Appellant also pushed her on the hot plate with the result deceased Usha suffered burn injuries.Police recorded statements of witnesses (neighbourers and parents of the deceased).DATE: 16TH JUNE, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER D.D.SINHA,J.)1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP for Respondent/State.This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.05.2004 passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 2 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc Thane, whereby the Appellant-Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.The Appellant-Accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Police collected post-mortem report, C.A.Report and after completion of the investigation filed the charge-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::4 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc sheet against the Appellant for the offences punishable under section 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the instant case, prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses, out of which PW1 Machindra, PW5 Dattatray, PW8 Bhagwan and PW10 Deshpande are police officers, PW9 Pathak is the panch witness.The prosecution case, therefore, primarily based on the evidence of PW2 Ananta, PW3 Deepak, PW6 Padmini (mother of deceased) and PW7 Maroti (father of the deceased) as well as evidence of PW4 Dr. Mangesh R Ghadge who has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Usha.The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that deceased Usha was the wife of the Appellant.PW2 Ananta was the landlord of the Appellant and PW3 Deepak is the son of the said landlord.It is submitted that the evidence of these two witnesses only shows that they have heard some quarrel which alleged to have taken place in the room which was in the possession of Appellant and deceased Usha at the relevant time.The Appellant was the tenant of PW2 Ananta.It is submitted that both these witnesses have neither seen ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 5 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc the Appellant nor the deceased Usha while quarrelling in the said room.They have only heard some voice coming from the room where the Appellant and deceased were residing at the relevant time.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::It is therefore, contended that it will be highly unsafe to place reliance on the testimonies of these two witnesses.The learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that so far as the evidence of PW6 Padmini and PW7 Maroti is concerned, both the witnesses have stated about ill-treatment alleged to have been given by the Appellant to deceased Usha on account of failure to satisfy the demand made by the Appellant for payment of Rs.50,000/-.It is contended that evidence of both these witnesses i.e. PW6 Padmini and PW7 Maroti is in respect of ill-treatment alleged to have been given by the Appellant and therefore, so far as the aspect of murder of deceased Usha is concerned the testimony of these witnesses are not relevant.The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that so far as the evidence of these witnesses pertaining to ill-treatment given by the Appellant to deceased is concerned except the solitary statement that the Appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- about 10 days prior to the incident in question and Rs.10,000/- was alleged to have been paid to the Appellant pursuant to the said demand, there is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 6 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc absolutely nothing in their testimony to establish and prove the charge for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.It is further contended that the Appellant was married to deceased Usha for more than ten years and there is no evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution to demonstrate that the Appellant after marriage either physically or mentally ill-treated his wife.It is further contended that PW6 Padmini being mother of deceased, PW7 Maroti being father of the deceased were highly interested witnesses in the prosecution and therefore, their evidence being of a interested witnesses should not be relied upon.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::The learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that the evidence of PW4 Dr. Mangesh Ghadge shows that he had performed postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Usha and found some injuries on dead body of deceased Usha.PW4 Dr. Ghadge opined that probable cause of death of deceased Usha was the head injury.It is contended that the medical evidence by itself is wholly inadequate to establish who was the author of the injury and therefore, the solitary testimony of PW4 Dr. Ghadge can never be the basis for convicting the accused.It is submitted that in the instant case, the Medical Officer has not stated in his evidence whether the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 7 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc injuries individually or collectively were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::The learned counsel for the Appellant, therefore, contended that the evidence of the above referred prosecution witnesses does not prove the offence punishable under sections 302 nor 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the impugned judgment and order liable to be quashed and set aside.10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however, contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution of PW2 Ananta and PW3 Deepak coupled with the medical evidence of PW4 Dr. Mangesh Ghadge clearly establishes that on the day of the incident and at the relevant time the Appellant and deceased Usha were present in their house, there was a quarrel which had taken place between them.There was no other person present in the said house and on the next day i.e. on 05.08.2003 the dead body of deceased Usha was found in the said house.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused himself went to the police station and informed the police about the death of his wife deceased Usha and also informed that her dead body is lying on the floor of his house.It ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 8 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc is submitted that the Appellant has not given any explanation when his statement was recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to show that the Appellant was not present in the house at the relevant time and in absence thereof, in view of the evidence of PW2 Ananta and PW3 Deepak, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that quarrel took place between the Appellant and deceased Usha on the day of incidence, coupled with the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as other attaining circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, prosecution succeeded in proving the offences of murder as well as ill-treatment meted out to the deceased Usha by the Appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::Apte, the learned counsel for the Appellant alternatively contended that even if we presume that though the evidence adduced by the prosecution proves the complicity of the accused in the crime ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 9 213 cr. appeal 1178.04.doc in question however, the evidence on record does not prove the charge of murder and ill-treatment beyond the reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction awarded by the trial court for the offences of murder and ill-treatment cannot be sustained in law.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that considering the nature of injuries as well as absence of opinion of the Medical Officer whether those injuries either individually or collectively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence committed by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 10 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc the Appellant would fall within the ambit of provisions of section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, since the injuries were inflicted by the Appellant only with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, however, without intending to cause death.The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that even as per the opinion of the Medical officer the probable cause of death is only one injury i.e. injury no.1 and there is nothing on record to show that same was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the finding of the conviction recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::It is also not disputed by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the Medical Officer has not stated in his substantive evidence, whether the injuries sustained by the deceased, individually or cumulatively were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 11 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.However, it is contended that considering the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution coupled with the medical evidence, the prosecution in-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::fact succeeded in proving the charges of murder as well as ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the Appellant-Accused and therefore, the conviction awarded by the trial court for the offences of murder and ill-treatment punishable under sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law.16.We have given our anxious thought to the contentions passed by the respective counsel and considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as perused the judgment of the trial court.In the instant case though the prosecution has examined in all ten prosecution witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences of murder and cruelty by husband to his wife.However, the case of the prosecution is based on evidence of PW2 Ananta, PW3 Deepak, PW6 Padmini (mother of deceased) and PW7 Maroti (father of deceased) as well as medical evidence of PW4 Dr. Ghadge.The evidence of PW2 Ananta - the landlord of the Appellant shows that the Appellant and his wife deceased Usha were his tenants and residing in the house owned by this witness.There used to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 12 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc frequent quarrels between husband and wife.However, this witness was not aware about the reason for quarrel.On 04.08.2003 quarrel took place between the Appellant and his wife at about 4 p.m. The house of this witness is in the neighbourhood of the Appellant, he heard the noise of quarrel.The deceased Usha was telling Appellant not to assault her.The evidence of PW2 Ananta further shows that after some time the quarrel stop.On 06.08.2003 in the morning at about 6 a.m. police showed him the dead body of deceased Usha lying in the room of their house.There were injuries on the head and back of the deceased Usha seen by this witness.The statement made by the Appellant-Accused in the presence of police mentioned by this witness in his evidence is not admissible and therefore, not considered, and that portion of the evidence is discarded being inadmissible.In the cross-examination, PW2 Ananta has admitted that he did not seen the Appellant and his wife when they were quarrelling he also did not intervened in the quarrel.This witness did not go to the police station to lodge the report.Similarly, PW3 Deepak is the son of PW2 Ananta and his evidence reveals that on 04.08.2003 he also heard the quarrel which took place between the Appellant and deceased Usha.This witness heard deceased Usha telling Appellant not to assault her, deceased was weeping.After ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 13 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc some time the quarrel stop.On 06.08.2003 in the morning, police had come to the house of the accused.This witness went there and saw wife of the Appellant was lying there and police told this witness that she was dead.Nothing has come in the cross-examination of this witness so as to affect to the material particulars stated by this witness in examination-in-chief.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::18.The Medical Officer has opined that all injuries were anti-mortem and probable cause of death was the head injury sustained by the deceased Usha.He has also opined that the head injury was possible by hard and blunt object like the one used in the crime in question.19.In the instant case, the trial court relied upon the prosecution evidence regarding production of weapon of offence by the accused as well as seizure of shirt and pant of the accused.As per the C.A.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::14 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc Report, clothes of the accused and the weapon of offence had blood stains of human origin and therefore, the trial court has held that this part of the prosecution evidence is incriminating and establishes complexity of the Appellant in the crime in question.It is also not in dispute that both were together through out the night and at no point of time parted company of each other.Dead body of the deceased was found on the next day morning lying on the floor of the house of the Appellant.Since the deceased was in the company of accused through out the night and therefore, the burden of proving the fact how the deceased received injuries or sustained injuries was specially within the knowledge of the Appellant and therefore, as per the provisions of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden was on the Appellant to prove this fact.In the instant case, in view of section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act only the conduct of the accused going to the police station is relevant fact coupled with the other evidence of PW2 Ananta, PW3 Deepak, medical evidence as well as other attaining circumstances, the prosecution in our view has succeeded in proving complexity of the accused in crime in question.However, whether the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 15 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc offence committed by the accused is punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or under section 304 Part I or Part II needs to be considered.Similarly, whether the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code also requires to be considered.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::21.In the instant case, though the deceased had sustained in all nine injuries.However, in the instant case, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is difficult for us to hold that the offence committed by the Appellant is punishable under section 302 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 ::: 16 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc of the Indian Penal Code and the offence committed by the Appellant falls within the ambit of section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code since the injury caused by the Appellant on the head was likely to cause death.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::22.So far as the conviction under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish that the deceased was subject to harassment with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.In the instant case, except the bare statements made by the parents of the deceased that the accused once demanded Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.10,000/- was already paid to him, there is no other evidence to show that since the date of marriage, the accused was either ill-treating his wife or subjecting her to harassment and in absence thereof, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.23.For the reasons stated herein above, the conviction of the Appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::17 213 cr.appeal 1178.04.doc The Appellant now is convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years.The sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court in addition to the sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to Rs.500/-, in default the Appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.24.Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.(D.D. SINHA, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:33 :::

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(Delivered on this the 13th day of April, 2018) This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29/3/2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur District Hoshangabad in ST No.100/1996, whereby the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:147 of IPC to appellants RI for one year with SI for one month A1 Hakke, A Ramma fine of Rs.100/-and A Palla 148 of IPC to appellants RI for two years with RI for three months A/Nanja and AKalpa fine of Rs.200/-In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.1995 a report was lodged by PW-1 Omprakash at around 5:00 PM to the effect that when he was coming back to home at Anhai Village on a tractor-trolley along with other villagers, at that time when he reached near a garden, he was met with appellant No.2-Nanja, appellant No.4-Kalpa, appellant No.1-Hakke, appellant No.5-Palla and their father Appellant No.3 Ramma armed with lathis, ballam and farsa.They stopped the tractor and shouted that they would kill all the persons.On seeing the accused persons, PW-1 Omprakash jumped from the tractor and tried to run away from the spot, but accused-Appellant No.2 Nanja went after him and inflicted gadasiya (a sharp edged weapon) blow on his head, accused- Aappellant No.4 Kalpa also hit him with ballam, although he tried to save himself from the said assault, but he fell down and became unconscious.Accused-Appellant No.5 Palla also hit him with lathi, and accused-Appellant No.3 Ramma shouted that no one should escape today.The incident has been seen by many persons.After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court and the charges under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149 and 323 of IPC were framed against the appellants and after the evidence was led before the trial Court, they were convicted as aforesaid.Shri DD Bhargawa and Shri Chetan Jaggi, learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter as the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt against the appellants.It is submitted that no case for unlawful assembly is made out against the appellants as there is nothing on record to show the accused persons had come along with a solitiary purpose in their mind.It is further submitted that the weapons like gandasi and ballam could not be recovered from the accused persons namely Nanja and Kalpa, although they have been specifically named.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there was a dispute between the appellant Nanja and the complainant's side which has led to filing of this false complaint against the appellants.On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the present appellants for the alleged offence, which took place in broad day light.It is further submitted that the presence of injured eye witness is sufficient to bring home the charges under Section 307 of IPC,6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereas no witness has been examined by the defence.Omprakash (PW-1) is the star witness, who has also lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1).He has specifically named each of the accused persons and has attributed the specific overt-act against them.The incident took place at around 2 pm on 10.03.1995 and the FIR was lodged at around 5 pm.Omprakash (PW-1) who is also the injured witness, has narrated the incident wherein he has stated that on the said fateful day when he was coming with a 'Barat' on a Tractor, at that time the accused persons armed with various weapons stopped the Tractor and started assaulting him.First injury was inflicted on his head by Appellant No.2 Nanja by Gandasi, second injury on his right hand was caused by Appellant No.4 Kalpa with the aid of Ballam, Appellant No.5 Palla also hit him on his right hand with lathi and Appellant No.3 Ramma exhorted them to finish him off.So far as Appellant No.1 Hakka is concerned, the allegation against him is that he caused injury to PW-2 Badelal, the nephew of PW-1 Omprakash who had come to rescue him.PW-3 Rachhpal, the brother of PW-1 Omprakash had also come on the spot who was also assaulted by either Kalpa or Hakka as PW-1 and PW-2 has given contradictory statements so far as Richhpal's injury is concerned.PW-3 Rachhpal on the other hand has stated that he was 5 assaulted by Kalpa with lathi on the head and he became unconscious.In view of the aforesaid depositions, it would now be relevant to see what the doctor PW-11 Dr.M.K.Chandel has to say about the injuries.According to PW-11 Dr.Chandel, vide Ex.P13, Pw2 Badilal had received two injures viz. One bruise on the left forehand and one swelling on the same hand.Both these injuries were simple in nature.Similarly, vide Ex.P14, PW-1 Omprakash had received 7 injuries out of which injury no.1 was lacerated wound 9x1x5 cm.on the franto parietal region which was caused by a sharp edged weapon and all the other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.So far as the nature of this head injury is concerned, PW-14 Dr.A.K.Tondar has stated that it was grievous in nature and was dangerous to life.So far as PW-3 Richhpal is concerned, vide Ex.P-15, he had received three injuries, two lacerated wounds on the left and right parietal regions of his head caused by hard and blunt object and one abrasion on the right shoulder but doctor PW-11 Dr. M.K.Chandel has also stated that he had not found these injuries to be grievous in nature.No other weapons like Gandasa or any other Ballam has been seized from any other accused persons and for that no reasons for the same have been assigned by the prosecution.Taking into stock the aforesaid evidence on record, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the accused persons did form an unlawful assembly and caused the aforesaid injuries to Omprakash, Badelal and Richhpal, as is also apparent that the injury caused to Omprakash was dangerous to life, thus, no interference is required so far as their conviction is concerned.Now coming to the sentence part, the record also shows that appellant No.2 Nanja who had caused to sole grievous injury, has already undergone the sentence so awarded to him hence his appeal is dismissed as infructuous.So far as the other accused persons are concerned, Appellant No.4 Kalpa who had assaulted with Ballam has already undergone around 2 and a half years of incarceration, Appellant No.1 Hakka, Appellant No.3 Ramma and Appellant No.5 Palla have undergone around 3 months in incarceration, hence in the considered opinion of this Court, taking note of the fact that the incident took place on 10.03.1995 i.e. around 23 years ago and also that they have already undergone the sufficient incarceration 7 commensurate to their overt acts and hence are hereby sentenced to the sentences already undergone by them.With the aforesaid, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent as above.The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby discharged.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge 13/04/2018 Ansari Digitally signed by MANZOOR AHMED Date: 2018.04.16 13:49:14 +05'30'

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.2575 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2019, when the second respondent was on duty, the petitioners who belong to DMK political party unlawfully gathered and made slogans against the State Government, when Section 30(2) of the Police Act is on force.On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C in S.T.C.No.2575 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are social activist and has been raising voice for the public cause and public welfare, whenever injustice and inaction of the government machineries.In order to draw the attention of the State Government, the unlawfully gathered there and made slogans against the State Government, when Section 30(2) of the Police Act is on force .Further he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C as against the petitioners.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.More over, the petitioners are habitual offenders by committing this kind of crimes.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.6.On perusal of the charge, it is seen that on 13.03.2019, when the second respondent was on duty, the petitioners who belong to DMK political party unlawfully gathered and made slogans against the State Government, when Section 30(2) of the Police Act is on force.Therefore the respondent police levelled the chargeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C., as against the petitioners.(i) of Cr.P.C.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 6th March, 2014 in connection with Dhantala P. S. Case No. 24 of 2014 dated 21.01.2014 for committing offence under Sections 498A/313 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Smt. Chayna Paul & Ors.... Petitioners.Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee.....For the Petitioners.Ms. Pushpita Saha.....For the State.We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.It is submitted by the petitioner that they are the in- laws of the victim housewife and have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials in the case diary and in view of the general and omnibus nature of allegations and the fact that the allegations relating to Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code are neither attributable to the petitioner nor are they supported by adequate medical evidence, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.)

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The respondent 1 Ramniwas Poddar and the respondent 2 Keshar Dev Sharaf carry on business under the name and style of Poddar and Sharaf, the respondent 3 herein and are the owners of the premises No. 1 Belvedere Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the "said premises").Under a scheme of amalgamation duly approved by this Court as well as by the Bombay High Court, the Indian Tube Company Limited was amalgamated with the petitioner as a result whereof all the assets and liabilities, rights and obligations of the Indian Tube Company Ltd. were taken over by the petitioner and the same stood transferred, merged and vested in the petitioner.The Indian Tube Company had entered into four agreements with Poddar and Sharof, the respondent 3 herein, for purchasing four flats in the said premises being Flats Nos. 5E, 9E, 12A and 14A. These agreements contained arbitration clauses for resolving the disputes arising out of these contracts.Subsequently, disputes and differences arose between the parties and the respondents 1 to 3 tried to wriggle out of the said contracts.It is alleged that the Indian Tube Company was always ready and willing to perform its part of the said contracts.The Special Suit No. 33 of 1980 related to the agreement for purpose of the Flat No. 12A mentioned above.No one was in actual occupation of the Flats Nos. 12 A and 14A. These reports are Annexures 'B' and 'C to the present petition.The said four special suits appeared in my list on 10-1-85 and an order was made as follows : --"By consent of the parties, interim orders passed in all the matters shall continue until further order of this Court.Cost cost in the arbitration proceeding."It is alleged in para 18 of the present petition that on 28-5-1987 one of the representatives of the petitioner went to inspect the condition of the said premises and found that Flat No. 12A, the subject-matter of the Special Suit No. 33 of 1980, was in occupation of one Peria Malai Tea and Rubber Co.. the respondent 6 herein.Immediately thereafter, four applications under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act were taken out for appointment of Receivers over those flats and for other orders.By an ad interim order dated 12-5-80, Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. (as he then was) restrained the respondents 1, 2 and 3, their agents and assignees from transferring, assigning, alienating, disposing of, letting out or dealing with the said flats concerned in any manner whatsoever until further orders.All these applications were pending when the petitioner was amalgamated with Indian Tube Company and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to continue these proceedings.The respondents do not dispute these facts.Two orders were passed by Deb, J. (as he then was) subsequently on 22-6-82 and 23-6-82 whereby a Special Officer was appointed with directions, inter alia, to inspect the four flats and the counsel for the respondent i appearing before Justice Deb assured the Court to render all assistance to the Special Officer.The Special Officer submitted his two reports both dt. 28-6-82 recording that flat No. 5E was occupied by Damodar Valley Corporation, Flat No. 9E was incomplete and lying vacant, the Flat No. 12A (which was to be on the 12th floor) and the Flat No. 14A (which was to be on the 14th floor) were incomplete as both the floors were under construction.The respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint affidavit in opposition alleging that when the ad interim order was passed on 12-5-80 the building had been completed up to the 5th floor only.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In a nutshell, the prosecution case may be stated thus:(a) Appellant Baboolal had married deceased Leela Bai about 6-7 years before the date of the incident.Appellant Durga Prasad is father of appellant Baboolal and appellant Kanchhedilal is brother-in-law (sister's husband) of appellant Baboolal.Deceased Leela Bai had instituted proceedings against the appellant Baboolal and his mother under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.During the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, an attempt was made at reconciliation.As a result, on 30.07.2003, learned Magistrate directed Leela Bai to live with appellant Baboolal on an experimental basis.Since, deceased Leela Bai expressed willingness to live with her husband Baboolal, learned Magistrate directed the parties on 01.09.2003, to live together.On that day, appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal had attended the Court.Deceased Leela Bai and her father Phool Singh (PW/5) had also appeared before the Court.Appellant Baboolal accompanied by appellant Kanchhedilal, lodged a report on 02.09.2003 (Ex.P/1) at police out-post Singhpur, P.S.-Narsinghpur to the effect that while he was returning along with his wife deceased Leela Bai and his 3 years daughter from the Court on 1.09.2003, just outside his village Rani Pipariya, Leela Bai told him that she wanted to answer call of nature.Thereafter, Leela Bai went inside the fields for aforesaid purpose.When she did not return for 15-20 minutes, appellant Baboolal searched for her but she could not be located.Since, there was no claimant of the dead body, it was buried.On 10.09.2003, pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the appellant Baboolal under section 27 of the Evidence Act, a skin and fleshless human skull and hair were discovered from inside the Soybean crop in Sunil Darda's field, which is located along side railway track from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered.JUDGMENT For consideration {C.V. Sirpurkar} JUDGE /05/2017 Hon'ble The Chief Justice {Hemant Gupta} Chief Justice Post for: /05/2017 {C.V. Sirpurkar} JUDGE(Delivered on this 25th day of May, 2017) Per C.V. Sirpurkar, J.Criminal Appeal Nos. 1276 and 1199 of 2004 arose from the same judgment dated 07.07.2004 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No. 01/2004 (State of M.P. Vs.Baboolal and 4 others), whereby the appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal have been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:So Name of the Provision Sentence of Fine Default .Appellant of I.P.C. Imprisonment in Rs. Sentence N o.3 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004All substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.Co-accused persons Ramsingh and Ginda @ Gendlal have been acquitted of the charges under Section 302, 302 read with section 149 and 201 of the I.P.C. Since, both of these appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise from the same judgment, they have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.On the same day, on the disclosure statements made by the appellant Kanchhedilal, the Tawal (a sharp edged implement with a wooden butt used for digging the earth) with blood like stains, was recovered from his father-in-law's house.4 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004(c) During investigation, it was learnt that on 1.9.2003, Subhash (PW/9) had seen deceased Leela Bai in the company of the present appellants and co-accused persons Ramsingh and Gendlal.Durga Prasad had told him that they had entered into a compromise with their daughter-in-law and they were taking her to Dulha Dev Temple for Darshan.During investigation, it was also learnt that on the day next to the date of the incident, appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal had visited Tarachand (PW/10) and had confessed that they had killed Leela Bai and her dead body was lying on the railway track near Khamtara Gate.5 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004After trial, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:(i) the deceased Leela Bai had dragged the family of appellant Baboolal in the Court; therefore, they had a strong motive to kill her;(ii) the headless headless body of a female recovered from the railway track near Khamtara Gate, belonged to deceased Leela Bai;(iii) her skin, fleshless skull and hair were discovered upon the disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the appellant Baboolal;(iv) a blood-stained Tawal was seized upon the disclosure statements made by the appellant Kanchhedilal;(v) appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal were last seen in the company of the deceased and they had taken her from the Court;On the basis of aforesaid chain of circumstances, appellants Baboolal and Kanchhedilal were convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. and appellant Durga Prasad was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. Since Subhash (PW/9) had turned hostile and there was no evidence that co-accused persons Ram Singh and Gendlal were also seen in the company of deceased Leela Bai and there was no other evidence against them, they were acquitted of all charges.Learned Senior counsel for the appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal has challenged the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court mainly on the grounds that the headless headless body found lying on the railway track near Khamtara Gate was not shown to and identified by the parents of the deceased.Thus, there was no sufficient basis for presumption that it belonged to deceased Leela Bai.Likewise, there was no sufficient ground to 6 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 presume that the skull said to have been recovered from the Soybean field belonged to the deceased.In any case, the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case; therefore, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the skull was recovered at the instance of the appellant Baboolal.Likewise, the panch witnesses had also not supported the fact that on the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellant Kanchhedilal, a blood stained Tawal was recovered from his father-in-law's house.In any case, the prosecution had failed to file the Serologist's report to establish that there indeed was blood on the Tawal so seized.Thus, there was no link to connect the Tawal allegedly seized at the instance of the appellant Kanchhedilal, to the crime.It has further been contended that the last seen together is a very weak piece of evidence and even that circumstance was not properly established because appellants Baboolal, Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal had merely left the Court premises together with the deceased, it does not mean that they were last seen in the company of the deceased.As such, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt; therefore, it has been prayed that the appellants be acquitted.6 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment.On perusal of the record and due consideration of the rival contentions, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of circumstantial evidence that the appellant Baboolal had committed murder of deceased Leela Bai, had caused disappearance of evidence of their crime and had lodged a false lost person report in respect of deceased Leelabai; therefore, his appeal must fail.However, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal were also complicit in the murder; therefore, they deserves to be acquitted extending them the benefit of doubt.The reasons for our conclusions are as follows:7 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004First of all, we shall consider whether the trial Court was justified in concluding that the dead body found on the railway track and the skull found in the adjacent field belonged to deceased Leela Bai.The headless body was found on the railway track at about 09.00 p.m.- 09.15 p.m. On 01.09.2003, the date on which deceased Leela Bai was last seen alive.It is true that the headless body was not shown to her parents Phool Singh (PW/5) and Sukhwati Bai (PW/8); however, Phool Singh (PW/5) has stated that when he learnt that a dead body was recovered near Village Khamtara, he had gone to the police and reported that his daughter was also missing.He had also told the police that she was wearing red bangles and red Saree with golden brocade; whereon, the police had shown him the clothes and broken pieces of bangles found on the dead body.He had identified the articles as those belonging to his daughter.Since, Phool Singh (PW/5) had seen his daughter deceased Leela Bai on 01.09.2003 in the Court, it would not have been difficult for him to identify the Saree, blouse and bangles belonging to his daughter and which were found on the dead body.The identification memo (Ex.P/9) was prepared by the Investigating Officer in that behalf.It bears the signature of Phool Singh (PW/5).Sukhwati Bai (PW/8) has also supported the statements of her husband Phool Singh.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of Phool Singh sounds natural and there is no reason to suspect its veracity on this point.One is that he himself would have concealed it.Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it, and the third is that he would have been told by another person that 8 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 it was concealed there.But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself.This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well-justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by him.(ii) he had seen someone else concealing the skull at that place and;(iii) someone had told him that a human skull has been concealed at that place.In the process, her head was severed from the body and rolled down in the Soybean crop planted in the adjacent field.However, this theory has several flaws and needs to be rejected outright.First of all, the deceased was sent to live with her husband for about a month on an experimental basis.The skull was seized from the field, which was on the other side of the track for up trains.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 premises along with the deceased Leela Bai does not mean that they were last seen together with the deceased.In the opinion of this Court, aforesaid argument needs to be separately considered in respect of Baboolal on one hand and Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal on the other.13 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004Baboolal was husband of the deceased and Durga Prasad was her father-in-law.Both of them lived together at Rani Pipariya.Deceased Leela Bai was also to be taken to her matrimonial home at Rani Pipariya; therefore, it is natural to assume that at least Baboolal and Durga Prasad must have accompanied the deceased to Rani Pipariya.In case, Baboolal or Durga Prasad had parted company with deceased, the burden was upon them to explain under what circumstance, they got separated from the deceased.An explanation is forthcomming from the appellant Baboolal, who had lodged the report of "Lost Person" (Ex.P/1), wherein he had stated that while he was returning from the Court, just outside the village, the deceased told him that she wanted to answer the call of nature and had gone into the fields, never to return.In that report, the presence of appellant Durga Prasad has not been shown.In view of recovery of skull belonged to the deceased at the instance of the appellant Baboolal, the explanation given by him in the lost person report is not acceptable.However, it can be used to exonerate appellant Durga Prasad.In any case, there is no circumstance other than the so called last seen together against him on record.He lived in a different village 14 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 i.e. Jhirri Khurd, which fell under a different police station namely Themi.Thus, even if it is assumed that he had left the Court premises along with other appellants and deceased Leela Bai, he may have parted their company and left for his own village.Therefore, merely on the basis of circumstance that he had left the Court premises along with other co-appellants, it cannot be concluded that he was responsible for the murder of the deceased.It is also worth mentioning that the Tawal seized at the instance of the appellant Kanchhedilal was found to contain blood like stains.It was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for serological examination; however, no report of the Serologist has either been produced or proved.Thus, it is not proved that the Tawal was stained with blood.Hence, there is no link to connect it with the crime.Subhash (PW/9) has turned hostile; therefore, it is not proved that he saw the five accused persons including the appellant Kanchhedilal taking deceased Leela Bai to Dulha Dev Temple for Darshan on the date of the incident.Likewise, Tarachandra (PW/10) has also turned hostile.14 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004Coming to the offence under Section 182 of the I.P.C., it may be noted that though the appellant Kanchhedilal was present when the false report of lost person (Ex.P/1) was lodged with the police by Baboolal; however, he may have been acting on the basis of the information received by him from the appellant Baboolal.As such, he cannot be held guilty of furnishing false information to a public servant either.On the basis of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant Baboolal under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C.. However, it 15 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004 was not justified in convicting the appellant Durga Prasad under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and appellant Kanchhedilal of the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. Thus, the appellants Durga Prasad and Kanchhedilal deserve the benefit of doubt in respect of the aforesaid offences and are liable to be acquitted.15 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.1276/2004 is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of appellant Baboolal under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. and the sentence imposed therefor by the trial Court is affirmed.The conviction of appellant Durga Prasad under section 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentence imposed therefore is set aside and he is acquitted of aforesaid offences.The Criminal Appeal No. 1199/2004 is allowed.The conviction of the appellant Kanchhedilal under Sections 302, 201 and 182 of the I.P.C. and the sentence imposed therefor by the trial Court is set-aside and he is acquitted of aforesaid offences.Certified copy as per rules.16 Cr.A.Nos.1199 & 1276 of 2004{Division Bench:Hon'ble Shri Hemant Gupta, The Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri C.V. Sirpurkar, Judge} Criminal Appeal No. 1276/2004 Baboolal Yadav & Anr.State of Madhya Pradesh & Criminal Appeal No. 1199/2004 Kanchhedilal Vs.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(2) The petitioner is a citizen of India who was in February, 1977 working as a Director in the Planning Commission.An F.I.R. bearing No. 26 of 1977 was lodged in Police Station, Srinivaspuri, NewDelhi, to the effect that the petitioner had committed the offencepostulated by Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Indian Official Secrets Actread with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.During this period, IT is alleged by the petitioner, he was subjected to continuous and intense interrogation, sometimes the interrogation lasting for asmuchas 12 hours at a stretch.It is alleged that he was denied food andfluids at one stage for 72 hours.It is further alleged that he wassubjected to mental torture, threats and intimidation like his familymembers being arrested and he himself being detained under the Actindefinitely if he refused to make a confessional statement.Thirddegree methods were used for extracting various statements of factsof which, the petitioner says, he had no knowledge.Thoroughlybroken down both physically and mentally and from a sheer senseof survival, the petitioner agreed to make a confessional statementas dictated by the Police.On 18/02/1977, it is alleged, the petitioner was visitedby two plain clothes men from the Police and handed over a prepared statement which he was directed to memorise for being givenas confessional statement before a Metropolitan Magistrate.On 19/02/1977 a confessional statement purported to have beenmade by the petitioner was recorded by Shri D. R. Jain, MetropolitanMagistrate.Thereafter he was brought back and on 20/02/1977 an order of detention under the Act dated 11-2-1977 andmade by the first respondent was served on the petitioner.Thisorder stated that with a view to preventing the petitioner from actingin any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of India itwas necessary to make an order directing that he be detained and,therefore, an order to that effect is made in exercise of the powersconferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner states that along with the said order ofdetention he was served with a cyclostyled declaration under Section 16A of the Act made by the first respondent.This order andthe grounds of detention both signed by the first respondent wereserved on the petitioner.Inasmuch as sixty days had elapsed since the-petitioner was arrested in connection with F. I. R. 26 of 1977, PoliceStation Srinivaspuri, a bail application was moved and he was orderedto be enlarged on bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.Thebail bond and surety was given and the same was accepted.(3) The petitioner's contention was that the successive orders ofdetention as well as the grounds of detention dated 21/03/1977and 21/04/1977 were issued not on the subjective satisfaction of thefirst respondent but under dictate from superior or other authorities.It was further contended that the orders of detention and the groundsof detention were illegal, mala fide and were issued in abuse of thepowers conferred by the Act. The further contention was that the petitioner's detention was not ordered to effectuate the purposescontemplated by the Act but for ulterior motives.The validity of thegrounds of detention and the order of detention was also challengedfor non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and as being violative of Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.Byway of return both the respondents filed their respective affidavits.The petitioner filed rejoinders to both the counter-affidavits.Therespondents have denied the allegations of the petitioner and havesubmitted that the detention of the petitioner was valid and legal.For obvious reasons it will not be possible to disclose thegrounds of detention and hence Section 16-A of the Actwill have to be invoked.We may be informed after theaction is taken."(9) According to the nothings on the file the first respondent carefully perused the above letter of 11/02/1977 and recorded that shewas satisfied that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to themaintenance of security of India and, therefore, ordered his detention.She has also recorded :-On a perusal of the grounds of detention we find that they are almosta copy of the grounds of detention which were sent to the DistrictMagistrate, Delhi, for being served on various persons including the petitioner with a communication No. 905/Z dated 22/03/1977signed by Shri K. S. Bajwa, Superintendent of Police, Cid, S.D. Delhi.The letter of 22/03/1977 from the Superintendent of Police, interalia, reads as under :- "THE following 8 accused persons were arrested in case FIRNo.This note reads as under :-JUDGMENT Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioner, K. K. Sarin, filed thispetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatinasmuch as he has been illegally detained, a writ in the nature ofhabeas corpus be issued and it be ordered that he be set at liberty.Briefly, the contention was that the petitioner was being detained bythe second respondent, Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, NewDelhi, by virtue of an illegal and invalid order passed by the firstrespondent, Mrs. Meenakshi Datta Ghosh, Additional District Magistrate (New Delhi) Delhi, under the Maintenance of Internal SecurityAct, 1971, hereinafter called the Act. It was prayed that the saidorder of detention be quashed and the petitioner be set at liberty.We accepted this petition and directed the release of the petitioner.We now proceed to record our reasons for our decision.On February, 1977 the petitioner states that he retracted his confession by sending throughthe jail a letter of that date addressed to the Secretary, Planning Commission, New Delhi.On 21/03/1977the order of detention dated 11/02/1977 was revoked by thefirst respondent.She, however, passed another order of detention in respect of the petitioner on the same day directing that he be detainedwith a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicialto the maintenance of security of India.Thefirst respondent has further submitted in her affidavit that she had passedthe various orders from time to time on full consideration of the reportssubmitted to her by responsible officers and on being satisfied thatthe detention of the petitioner was essential in order to prevent himfrom acting in any manner prejudicial to the activity mentioned in therespective detention orders.She admits that she received a D.O. letter of the Director (IS).Government of India.Ministry of HomeAffairs dated 11/02/1977 and states that she had no reason todisbelieve that letter and after giving earnest thoughts to the allegationsmade in it, she issued the detention order.She filed a copy of theD.O. letter, which is Annexure R-11 to the affidavit.the first respondent hasstated in her affidavit: "As per Section 16A, 6(b) of MISA(Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, it was not necessary to disclose toany person detained under Misa under the provisions of Section 16A(3) the grounds of detention.The petitioner, was, however, servedwith a declaration as required under the provisions of the Act." Shehas not said anything about the petitioner's contention that Along with the detention order of 11/02/1977 he was served with acyclostyled declaration under Section 16A of the Act. Another notable feature in the affidavit of the first respondent is her averment."THE detention orders dated 21-3-1977 were revoked on 21-4-1977on the advice of the Home Department of Delhi Administration.Thedetention orders dated 21-3-1977 were revoked purely on technicalpoint." She has not explained what was the technical point.In paragraph 170 of the petition the petitioner states :(A) that the grounds of detention supplied to him were wholly irrelevant to the alleged purpose of the petitioner's detention, namely, the maintenance ofsecurity of India; (b) that the grounds did not indicate how theinformation and confidential documents alleged to have been passedon by the petitioner to the foreign agent were connected with India'ssecurity; (c) that the grounds did not even state that the disclosure ofthe secret information and passing of the confidential documents waslikely to affect India's security; (d) that as to what were the groundsfor holding that the disclosure of secret information and passing ofconfidential documents affected the security of India; or (e) what were those documents.The reply of the first respondent is as follows :-It is also deniedthat it has not been stated in the grounds that the disclosure of the secret information and passing of the confidentialential documents affected the security of the country.Inpara 1 of the grounds of detention, dated 21-4-77 it isclearly mentioned that: 'ON perusal of the record of activities of Shri K. K. Sarin,Director, Planning Commission, New Delhi, I am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to '.he security ofIndia'."This can hardly be regarded as a reply to the contentions.Why wesay this would be apparent from a discussion of the various aspectshereafter.In reply to the allegations in paragraph 17 (D) of the petitionthat the impugned orders were passed without application of mind andthe grounds do not disclose how any or every confidential documentcould affect the security of India or that a document may be secretwithin the meaning of the Official Secrets Act but may not jeopardisethe security of India or that the first respondent failed to consider thatthe petitioner could not in future be expected to indulge in the activitieswhich he allegedly indulged in earlier on account of his being suspendedfrom service, the first respondent has merely made a denial that shehas not passed the orders carelessly and without application of mind.In paragrph 17(F) of the petition the petitioner has mentioned aboutthe retraction of the confession and has alleged that the grounds ofdetention were supplied without any application of mind.In reply thefirst respondent has stated as under :- "IT is denied that respondent No. 1 acted in a casual and careless manner and that the detention order is mala fide orillegal.The grounds of detention had been furnished to meby the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India andby the S.P. C.I.D.(S.B.).Since these were conveyed to meby responsible authorities.I had no reason to disbelievethe grounds of detention."It is worth-noting that the first respondent has made no reply withregard to the retraction of the confession.Respondent No. 1 has deniedthat the order is mala fide and illegal but has not explained the circumstances which led to successive detention orders being passed byrevoking the earlier detention orders.In paragraph 17(1) of the petitionthe petitioner alleged that he was in-charge of prospective planning inthe Planning Commission and he had no access to confidential information and documents.He has further alleged that the documents to whichhe had access were normally made public in a short time from ; theirbeing known to the petitioner.In reply to this allegation the first respondent says: "As per the grounds of detention furnished to me bythe Ministry of Home Affairs and S.P. CID(SB), the petitioner hadaccess to confidential information.We need not set out the allegations in the petition and thereplies any further.He has denied the allegations of solitary confinement or the visit by anybody while the petitioner was in jail.(6) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:-Respondent No. 1 has given no reasonwhy the detention order dated 21-3-1977 (Annexure P-4)was revoked and replaced by another detention order dated21-4-1977 (Annexure P-7, the impugned order), just beforethe lapse of the period of 30 days.The grounds of detention are wholly irrelevant because theydo not show that the documents alleged to have beenpassed by the petitioner to a foreigner agent or agents hadany bearing on India's security.V. The grounds of detention are vague and insufficient foreffective representation as they do not furnish any particulars such as the names of the agents, names of the foreigncountries, the nature and number of documents passed bythe petitioner, the dates and places where they werepassed the amounts for which they were passed etc."Certain salient features from this record may be noticedbefore we go on to comment upon the contentions put forth on behalfof the petitioner.(8) Prior to the issue of the detention order dated 11/02/1977 the first respondent admits that she received copy of a letter dated 11/02/1977 written by Shri S. C. Vaish, Director (IS) in theMinistry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, to ShriSushil Kumar, then Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration.Indeed, sheherself filed a copy of this letter along with her counter-affidavit.Para 2 of this letter reads as under :-(III)...(IV)K. K. Sarin, Director, Planning Commission.(V)...According to the record shown to us the first respondent has made a noting that as the emergency proclaimed had beenrevoked by the President of India, therefore Section 16A of the Acthad lapsed.She directed issue of revocation order and release of thedetenu.The following note was also recorded by her: "HOWEVER, it is still considered necessary to redetain the saidShri K. K. Sarin under the normal provisions of MISAwith a view to preventing him from acting in any mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of security of India.Issuefresh detention order and a copy thereof be sent to DelhiAdministration, Delhi for the approval of the Administrator or as required u/s 3(3) of the MISA."(11) Inasmuch as grounds of detention had to be communicatedalong with the order of detention dated 21/03/1977, we find from the file, that grounds of detention had also been drawn up and issued.26 dated 26-1-77 u/s 3, 4, 5, 9 Ios Acts and 120-B IPC of Police Station S. N. Puri, South District, New Delhi.They were also detained under MISA.Therefore, detailed notes giving groundsof detention of each (in triplicate) are enclosed herewithtor issue of their detention orders afresh :-. . ."(12) As noticed earlier, the detention orders dated 21/03/1977 were revoked and fresh detention orders dated 21/04/1977 wereissued.The relevant file in this behalf has a very interesting note on it,recorded by the first respondent.Since the detention order dated 21-3-1977 has not beenapproved by the Administrator, Delhi so far, issue therevocation order directing Supdt.Jail to release thedetenu.However, on consideration of the material before me, suppliedby Superintendent of Police, Cid (SB) it is considerednecessary to redetain the said Shri K. K. Sarin under section 3(l)(a)(i) of Misa with a view to preventing himfrom acting in any manner prejudicial to the security ofIndia.Issue fresh detention order and a copy of the saiddetention order be sent to Delhi Administration, Delhi forthe approval of the Administrator, Delhi as required u/s3(3) of the Misa, 1971."As noticed earlier, these grounds hadbeen supplied to the respondent by the Superintendent of Police.U.O.I., 2nd 1975(11) Delhi 820](l).On the date,they filed the bail application in which they alleged that they were tortured and their statements had been obtained from them by coercion.In other words, these persons had retracted their statements at the earliestopportunity.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

He saw that his wife Smt. Kamlesh was not there.He then switched on the light of the room, on which he saw his wife hanging from the pipe attached to the ceiling of the room with a noose made of 'chunni' (a kind of scarf typically worn by Indian women).He got scared and immediately opened the noose from her neck and brought her down.He saw that she was dead.It was marked as Ex.On the basis of the aforesaid information, the police went to the place of occurrence (Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar, Quarter No. 67/05) and saw Smt. Kamlesh lying dead on the bed.Her body was covered by a bed sheet.Her both eyes and mouth were closed.Fists were semi-opened.She was wearing a red-coloured blouse and petticoat.On the nose, she was wearing a pearl made of yellowish substance.On both the wrists, she was wearing a pair of three red-coloured bangles.On both the legs, she was wearing a pair of 'bichhua' (toe ring) and one 'payal' (anklet) each.Wounds were seen on her neck.Inquest witnesses were selected.Inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted.In the opinion of inquest witnesses, death was caused due to hanging.Inquest report (panchayatnama) was prepared at about 01.30 P.M. and the same was marked as Ex.In the opinion of the inquest witnesses, it was thought proper to send the dead body for autopsy.In the process, relevant papers were prepared- letter for post mortem (Ex.Ka.3), photo lash (Ex.Ka.4).The dead body was sealed.Specimen seal was prepared and the same was marked as Ex.7. Post mortem on the cadaver of the deceased Smt. Kamlesh was conducted the same day, i.e. on 08.05.2007 at about 03.30 P.M. by Dr. Vipin Chandra Gupta (P.W.4), who noted eight ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased- (1) Ligature mark on the front and right side of neck above the thyroid cartilage.There was congestion in tissue.(2) Contused swelling starting from both sides of face up to chin (3) Contusion on both sides of chest (4) Contusion on the outer part of right arm (5) Contusion on the outer part of right side waist (6) Contusion on the front side of left shoulder (7) Contusion mark on the outer part of left side waist (8) Contusion mark on the rear portion of left thigh.Internal Examination:On internal examination, it was found that the brain and brain membrane, lungs and lung membranes, wind pipe, liver, spleen and kidney were congested.Digested food was found in the stomach as well as small intestine.In the opinion of doctor, death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.On dissection of the body, it was found that the deceased died about half day before.The post mortem report is on record and marked as Ex.On 08.05.2007, the police took the 'chunni' (scarf) from the spot of occurrence.But still the bridegroom and his family members, from the day of marriage started demanding Rs. 2 lakhs from the bride and they even assaulted her saying that they were not satisfied with the dowry given by her father.They also threatened to kill her if their dowry demand is not fulfilled by her father.Smt. Kamlesh then told her father about her being assaulted by the bridegroom and his family members when she refused to give them Rs. 2 lakhs.On this information, the informant (father of Smt. Kamlesh) and his family members went to the house of accused-appellant Narendra and said that they are unable to pay the money demanded by them due to poverty.The appellant and his family members then stopped harassing Smt. Kamlesh.In the meantime, Smt. Kamlesh was blessed with a daughter.On 08.05.2007 at about 02.30 A.M., the informant was telephonically informed by appellant Balram that his daughter is absconding from the house.On this information, the mother and the brother of Smt. Kamlesh reached her house, where they saw Smt. Kamlesh lying dead on the bed with wounds and contusions on her body.They were told that Smt. Kamlesh had committed suicide.The site plan is on record and marked as Ex.The Investigating Officer also took in his possession the wedding card of accused-appellant Narendra and his wife deceased Smt. Kamlesh and marked it as '8Ga'.The deceased was a lady.Her body was seen by Smt. Devaki Joshi.It may be possible that father of the deceased P.W.1 may have been convinced with the explanation of his son-in-law accused-appellant Narendra that his daughter died in accident, but after post mortem report, when he comes to know that his daughter was brutally killed, then he may have lodged F.I.R. In matrimonial cases, such delay in lodging F.I.R. is always possible.In such cases, the parents of the deceased always remain in various dilemmas.Inquest report has been prepared on information of applicant Narendra.These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 1050 of 2008 (State of U.P. v. Narendra & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 231 of 2007 whereby the accused-appellants Balram and Smt. Beerbala were convicted and sentenced as follows: (a) Seven years' imprisonment under Section 304B Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), (b) Two years' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 498A IPC, and (c) Fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'DP Act') and in case of default in payment of fine, additional imprisonment for six months each; whereas accused-appellant Narendra was convicted and sentenced as follows: (a) Ten years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304B IPC, (b) Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence under Section 498A IPC, and (c) Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 3/4 DP Act and in case of default in payment of fine, additional imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Brief facts of the case, as discernible from record, are that in the night intervening 07/08.05.2007 at about 01.00 A.M., the accused-appellant Narendra was awoken by weeping of his infant daughter.Recovery memo was prepared for it and the same was marked as Ex.On 12.05.2007, a written report (Ex.Ka.1) was filed by informant Prakash Singh (P.W.1), father of the deceased, contents whereof were taken down in the FIR at Police Station- Muradnagar on 12.05.2007 at 06.10 P.M. in Case Crime No. 231 of 2007 under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.The chik FIR is on record and marked as Ex.On the basis of entry so made in the chik FIR, relevant entry was made in the G.D. at serial no. 035 at 6.10 P.M. (18.10 hours) on 12.05.2007 at the same police station under aforesaid sections of IPC and a case was registered against the accused persons.The relevant G.D. entry is on record as marked as Ex.As per version of the F.I.R., marriage of Smt. Kamlesh with appellant Narendra s/o Murari Lal r/o Village Nangalia, District- Bulandshahrnhbg was solemnized on 28.11.2004, temporarily residing in Sector 67, Gali No. 3, near Shiv Mandir, Muradnagar, as per hindu rituals.The father of deceased fulfilled the demand of dowry so raised by the bridegroom side more than his capacity.After completion of investigation, in Investigating Officer filed two separate charge-sheets - one against Narendra and Beerbala (accused-appellants) (Ex.Ka.13) and other relatives and another against accused-appellant Balram (Ex.Ka.14) under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act.Thereafter, committal proceedings took place and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.As a sequel to that, the case was made over for trial and disposal to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad.Accused-appellants were heard on point of charge and the trial court was prima facie satisfied with the case against them.Therefore, it framed charge against them under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act. Charges were read over and explained to the accused, who abjured the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses, out of whom father of deceased informant Prakash Singh (P.W.1) and brother of deceased Udayveer Singh (P.W.2) were examined as witnesses of fact, while Sub-Inspector Madan Singh (P.W.3), Dr. Vipin Chandra Gupta (P.W.4), Sub-Inspector Brajpal Singh (P.W.5), Circle Officer (C.O.) Ram Singh (I.O.) (P.W.6) and C.O. Uday Shankar Singh (first I.O.) (P.W.7) were examined as formal witnesses.Except as above, no other testimony was adduced, therefore, evidence of the prosecution was closed and statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), wherein, they claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case.In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellants Narendra, Balram and Beerbala claimed that the prosecution evidence was false and stated as under:(a) Accused-appellant Narendra stated that his wife Smt. Kamlesh had gone on a scooter in search of tuition, where she met with an accident and had received wounds.The scooter was also damaged.Due to this incident, an altercation had taken place between him and his wife, due to which she committed suicide.(b) Accused-appellant Balram stated that in the intervening night of 07/08.05.2007 at the time of the incident, he had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of his friend Mahesh Bhati in Village Hasanpur, District- Bulandshahr and his wife had gone to her paternal home.(c) Accused-appellant Beerbala stated that on account of vacation of her children, she had gone to her paternal home ('maika') on 03.05.2007 and she was not present in the her home in the intervening night of 07/08.05.2007 when the incidence took place.In turn, the defence examined as many as eight defence witnesses- Shyoraj Singh (D.W.1), Smt. Usha (D.W.2), Mahesh (D.W.3), Dr. Alka Rastogi (D.W.4), Soran Singh (D.W.5), Deepa (D.W.6), Rajpal Singh (D.W.7) and Sachin Kumar (D.W.8).Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit returned aforesaid finding of conviction and passed the impugned judgment and order.Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that death of deceased Smt. Kamlesh was suicidal and not homicidal.From the prosecution evidence, demand of dowry is not proved.Inquest report has been prepared on the information of accused-appellant Narendra husband of Smt. Kamlesh.At the time of inquest report, mother and Udayveer, brother of deceased Smt. Kamlesh were present, even though they have not made any complaint about demand of dowry.First information report has been lodged after four days of the occurrence.Cause of delay in lodging the first information report is not explained by the prosecution.The prosecution has utterly failed to prove that just before her death, the deceased Smt. Kamlesh was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband in connection with demand of dowry.The prosecution version is not natural.The learned trial court has passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence.The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.Ka.9 and statement of P.W.4 Dr. Vipin Chandra Gupta, cause of death of deceased Smt. Kamlesh was asphyxia as a result of strangulation.She was not an expert and it was not possible for her to be aware about the fact that she must give special attention to the ante-mortem injuries on the dead body.For a layman, it is very common to ignore contusion on the dead body.The ante-mortem injuries caused to the deceased has been admitted by appellant Narendra in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.The size of contusions on the dead body were:- 19 cm.x 12 cm., 28 cm.x 19 cm., 14 cm.x 03 cm., 40 cm.10 cm., 25 cm.x 10 cm., 45 cm.x 20 cm.and 15 cm.x 10 cm.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this size of contusion may not have been caused by a blunt object such as a stick ('lathi') and 'danda'.From the prosecution side, no one has seen the occurrence, therefore, it was not possible for any witness of the prosecution to say that injury to Smt. Kamlesh have been caused by 'lathi' and 'danda'.It is possible that these injuries might have not been caused by 'lathi' and 'danda', but caused by some other blunt object of a considerably good width.Only because of this reason, it cannot be said that these injuries have not been caused to deceased Smt. Kamlesh before her death.Dr. Vipin Chandra Gupta had specifically stated that these injuries might have been caused to the deceased before half day of post mortem.In this particular case, from the evidence on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased was caused by strangulation after assaulting her.In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant Narendra stated that she (deceased) had committed suicide.The deceased died in the same room in which accused-appellant Narendra Singh was sleeping, then it was the duty of Narendra to explain how the deceased died.In such circumstances, adverse inference of guilt of accused Narendra shall be drawn.Prosecution witnesses admitted this fact that accused-appellant Narendra donated blood to the brother of the deceased when he was ill.After marriage of deceased Smt. Kamlesh with accused-appellant Narendra, cousin (sister) of the deceased Smt. Usha was married to appellant Narendra's brother Kamod.In that marriage, there was no demand of dowry.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no reason for demanding dowry by the appellant.In matrimonial relations, sometimes the relation between the couple becomes bitter and after sometime it comes back to normal and the relation becomes cordial.Appellant's brother Kamod was living happily with his wife.Only because Kamod has not harassed his wife for demand of dowry, it cannot be said that appellant had also not harassed his wife deceased Smt. Kamlesh for the same.Similarly, on the basis of donation of blood by the appellant Narendra to deceased's brother at the time of his illness, it cannot be said that the appellant had never demanded any dowry from the deceased.Smt. Kamlesh died on the intervening night of 07/08.05.2007, but the first information report has been lodged on 12.05.2007 with a delay of four days.The brother, mother and father of deceased were present at the time of inquest, even though they did not move any complaint to the police about the demand of dowry.P.W.1 Prakash Singh explained that the police was not lodging the first information report.The explanation of P.W.1 may be wrong.In this particular case, delay in lodging F.I.R. does not affect the prosecution case.On this basis, innocence of Narendra cannot be presumed.He informs the police about the death of his wife after 10 hours of the incident.However, as per chik F.I.R. Ex.Ka.10., Police Station- Muradnagar is at a distance of 2 km. from the spot.It is also an additional circumstance against him.Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that prosecution has failed to prove that soon before death of Smt. Kamlesh, there was demand of dowry by the accused.To convict an accused under Section 304B IPC, it is not necessary for prosecution to prove that soon before her death, there was demand of dowry.It will be sufficient for prosecution to prove that soon before death of deceased, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for any demand of dowry or in connection with any demand of dowry.In this particular case, deceased was brutally beaten soon before her death.This shows that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death.45. P.W.1 Prakash Singh admitted in his cross-examination that six months before the death of deceased Smt. Kamlesh, accused-appellant Narendra along with this wife was living in Muradnagar at Balram's residence.Appellant Balram was working in a factory at Muradnagar.That residence was allotted to him by the factory.P.W.1 Prakash Singh also admitted this fact that accused-appellant Narendra was living with his wife Smt. Kamlesh in a separate room that had a tin roof.Appellant Narendra and his wife Smt. Kamlesh were living separately in the quarter alloted to his brother Balram only before six months of the incident.In such circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant Balram and his wife Beerbala were also demanding dowry from deceased Smt. Kamlesh or harassing her for any demand of dowry.Since appellant Balram and his wife Beerbala were living in a separate room, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that death of deceased Smt. Kamlesh was in their special knowledge.Therefore, they are not bound to explain the death of Smt. Kamlesh.Appellants Balram and Beerbala are on bail.They need not surrender.Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.Appellant Narendra is also on bail.Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad for its compliance.Let the lower court record be remitted back to the court concerned.Order Date :- 05.12.2017 I. Batabyal [Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.]

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

But the 3 M.Cr.5. Heard both the parted and perused the case diary.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 17/08/2016 in connection with Crime No.207/2015 for offences registered under Sections 366Ka, 376- Dha of the IPC and under section 3/4 of POSCO police station Kymore, District Katni (M.P).Allegation against the applicant/accused is that he along with other co-accused person kidnapped the prosecutrix and other co- accused committed rape with her and at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor.Hence applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submission made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Twenty Five 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. C.C. as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ORDER G.L. Oza, J.This petition has been submitted by the wife of a prisoner who, according to this petition, is an under-trial prisoner detained in Thane Central Prison (Maharashtra State).This petition has been submitted under peculiar circumstances.It appears that one Kamalsingh s/o Ramsingh (for whom this petition is submitted) and two other persons, namely Shivgovind s/o Hargoyind and Punamchand s/o Bhuralal Verma, were convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment each under Section 366, I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge Indore.Shivgovind and Punam-chand were also convicted for offences under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment each.Both the sentences were to run concurrently,In this judgment, after notice for enhancement, the appeal filed by the appellants against their convictions was dismissed and their sentence was enhanced from one year's rigorous imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine.However the two others Kamalsingh and Punamchand did not file any appeal to the Supreme Court as they were then absconding.By this petition it is prayed that the sentence on Kamalsingh be also reduced from seven years to one year.When this petition was listed for hearing, learned Advocate General who was present, accepted to assist this Court on the question as to whether this Court can do anything in the matter.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

On 12-11-2014, the deceased went to the Parent's house of the co-accused Upasana for taking her back.There, the deceased found that the applicant was sitting in the house of the co-accused Upasana.The deceased was feeling insulted and humiliated.Heard on the question of admission This Criminal Revision under Section 397,401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 12-4-2017 passed by IVth A.S.J. Guna Distt.Guna in Sessions Trial No. 228/2016 by which the charge under Section 306/34 of I.P.C. has been framed against the applicant.The necessary fact for the disposal of this Criminal Revision in short are that the deceased Satendra Sharma and the co-accused Smt. Upasana were husband and wife.The co-accused Upasana had friendly relations with the applicant.They used to meet each other very frequently.The deceased Satendra Sharma was objecting to the friendly relations of his wife with the applicant.It is alleged that on this issue, the co-accused Upasana used to quarrel with the deceased and continued to have friendly relations with the applicant inspite of repeated objections taken by the deceased.Thus, if the entire allegations are considered in totality, then it would be clear that the applicant and the co-accused Upasana had created such a situation where, he was left with no other option but to put an end to his life, as on one hand the co-accused Upasana had relations with the applicant inspite of repeated objections raised by the deceased and at the same time, the co-accused Upasana in the presence of the applicant had extended the threat of falsely implicating him in the criminal case.Thus, prima facie, the abetment of suicide may be inferred.Accordingly, the order dated 12-4-2017 passed by IVth A.S.J. Guna Distt.Guna in Sessions Trial No. 17 Cr.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 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.

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.445/2018 registered at Police Station Rehli District Sagar for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, the applicant is the husband of Aasiya (since deceased).The allegations against the applicant, in substance, are that on 29.04.2018, the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance as a result of which she died.Consequently, Merg information was received by the police which was accordingly registered and investigation was initiated by the police.It is alleged that the applicant and the other co-accused had subjected Aasiya to cruelty and harassment to such an extent that she was left with no other option except to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance.Accordingly, FIR has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Hence, this application filed u/s 439 CrPC is hereby dismissed.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE vinod Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 19/03/2019 04:32:31

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

[a] The applicant shall not indulged into any act amounting to pressurising or tampering of prosecution witnesses.[b] After release on the bail, the applicant shall not enter into the village Kindgi (Kh), Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur till the conclusion of trial.Ahmedpur Police Station, District Latur for committing offences U/sec.376(I)(J), 506 r/w.Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3A and 4 of the POCSO Act be released on bail on his furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- [Rupees Fourty Thousand] with one or two sureties in like amount on following conditions.[c] Pending investigation and till filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant shall attend the Pachora Police Station on each alternate day in between 4.00 to 6.00 p.m. (except on 07.11.2018) to record his appearance before the officer in-charge of Police Station.[c] The applicant shall not indulged into any act amounting to pressurizing and tampering of the prosecution witnesses.[d] The applicant shall attend the Police Station Ahmedpur on last day of each month in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. to record his appearance before the officer in-charge of Police Station till conclusion of the trial.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 02:02:45 :::950-BA-1311-2018 6 [e] The applicant shall furnish the names and addresses of his three close relatives with their phone numbers.9. Bail to be furnished before the trial Court.The application is disposed of in above terms.( V.L. ACHLIYA ) JUDGE Sudhir Rane::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 02:02:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 02:02:45 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Dinesh Kumar (first informant) hails fromvillage Manjani, Tq.Atur, Dist.Selum (State of TamilNadu).He is a driver by profession.He was employedto drive truck, bearing registration No.TN-34-E-8071.One Punrasu Kannan (deceased) was the co-driver.Inthe last week of April, 2014, the first informant anddeceased Punrasu were carrying 324 bags of Sago, ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 6 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docworth Rs.10,00,000/-, from Selum to Bhilwada(Rajasthan).On 30.04.2014, they were passing throughMaharashtra.By 09.00 p.m. on 30.04.2014, the firstinformant and Punrasu took dinner at Solapur andstarted for onward journey.It was about 02.00 a.m.on 01.05.2014 they were travelling along Tuljapur -Osmanabad road.Near village Yedshi, one Scorpiovehicle overtook the truck and blocked its way.Fourpersons alighted from Scorpio vehicle.They enteredthe truck's cabin; two from driver's side and othersfrom cleaner's.Two of them were armed with woodenrods.The FIR contained their description.Two ofthem started assaulting the first informant and othertwo dealt with Punrasu.They tied their hands with aLungi.One of them took control of the truck andproceeded towards Kallam., they robbed two cell-phones of the firstinformant and Punrasu, besides Rs.15,000/-.Then,the four made the duo to get down from the truck and ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 7 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docboard Scorpio vehicle and proceeded towards Yermala.The first informant and Punrasu were severely beatenup and then dropped in a dry well behind Yedeshwaritemple.The first informant regained consciousness onthe next day by 12.00 noon.Punrasu was not around tobe seen.The first informant came up on the road andapproached Police Station, Yermala and lodged reportof the incident.Crime came to be registered for the offencespunishable under Sections 396, 397, 364, 412 and 201of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", for short).Onthe next day, the dead body of Punrasu was found neara pond behind Yedeshwari temple.On completion of investigation of the crimeregistered under Indian Penal Code, charge-sheet wasfiled.During further investigation, it was foundthat the offence was committed by an organised crimesyndicate headed by one Raja Pawar.Prior approval ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 8 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docfor registration of the offences under the M.C.O.C.Act was, therefore, granted by the competentauthority.The Deputy Superintendent of Police tookup the investigation.Some of the accused gaveconfessional statements.It was revealed that Punrasuwas murdered.Some of the stolen Sago bags were sold.Call Data Records (C.D.R.) indicate thatthey were in contact with each other and the gang-leader before and even after the offence in questionwas committed.Admittedly, there is nothing to indicatethe appellant's involvement in the main offence inquestion.The co-accused - Vinod Harbhare, therefore,took 60 bags of Sago to the house of the appellant.The appellant paid him Rs.25,000/- towards cost of 10bags of Sago.He allowed Vinod Harbhare to keep theremaining 50 bags in his house.As already observed herein above, theoffence of abetment can be committed by beingaccessory before, or at the most, during the offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 31 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt is reiterated that there is no material evenslightly to suggest the appellant to have been waryof the offence in question and he consciously boughtthe Sago bags.Shivaji Shinde)(iv) Appellant - Balaji Pawar is also discharged of the offence of abetment of the organised crime.2. Admit.Learned APP waives notice on behalfof the respondents.With the consent of learnedCounsel for the parties, appeals are heard finally.These appeals are directed against thejudgments and orders passed by the Special Court ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 5 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docconstituted for trial of the offences under theMaharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999(M.C.O.C. Act), rejecting discharge applicationsmoved by the appellants herein.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::5 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSince common questions of law and factsarise, the appeals were heard together and are beingdecided by this common judgment.Brief facts, giving rise to these appeals,are as follows :-After proceeding for about10-12 kms.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::6 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::7 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docOn completion of investigation and after obtainingsanction for prosecution, charge-sheet for theoffences punishable under the M.C.O.C. Act, came tobe submitted.The Special Court took cognizance ofthe offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::8 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe appellants herein moved the applicationsfor discharge.The Special Court rejected theapplications by separate orders.Mr.Kore and Mr.Gaikwad, learned Counselappearing for the appellants, would submit (averredin the appeal memos) that as the FIR was filedagainst five unknown persons only, how come ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 9 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docinvolvement of eighteen persons in the offences inquestion.The appellants were arrested on suspicion.A co-accused, who was similarly situated with most ofthe appellants herein, has been discharged from theoffence under M.C.O.C. Act. His case has beentransferred to the regular Court.As such, none ofthe appellants could be said to have committed anorganised crime.Learned Counsel referred to therelevant provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act. Accordingto learned Counsel, the Special Court, in the factsand circumstances of the case, should have dischargedthe appellants.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::9 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSome of them have been identified by ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 10 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe first informant in T.I. Parade.The appellantshave given confessional statements.All of them werein association with the gang-leader and facilitatedcommission of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 11 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 12 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc either singly of collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime;Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIn the first instance, it will be profitable to examine the scheme of MCOCA by making a cursory glance to the Objects and Reasons and thereafter to make an intensive reading of the above referred two provisions.When we peruse the Objects and Reasons, it discloses that organized crime has been posing very serious threat to our society for quite some years and it was also noted that organized crime syndicates had a common cause with terrorist gangs................................. ....................................... It was further found that the existing legal framework, that is the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 13 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc system, were found to be inadequate to curb or control the menace of 'organized crime'.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::13 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc14 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe mere indulgence in a violent activity etc. either for pecuniary gain or other advantage or for promoting insurgency as an individual, either singly or jointly as a member of 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of a such syndicate would be sufficient for bringing the said activity within the four corners of the definition of::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 16 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc 'organized crime'.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::15 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::16 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc43 to 55 ..... . . . . .::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe offence should alleged to have been committed either::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 18 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on its behalf.In so far as the offences are concerned, if the offence would attract a punishment of three years or more that would suffice for falling within the said definition.The charge-sheet should have been filed before a Competent Court with reference to such offence against the offenders.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::18 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAppeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::20 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::22 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::25 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docWe have, therefore, now to appreciate,whether the police papers, prima facie, make out a ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 26 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doccase of abetment of organised crime.We propose totake case of each of the appellants separately.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::26 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100 OF 2018 (Tanaji s/o.Narayan Sathe)The legal position regardingadmissibility of confessional statement would bestated lateron.The appellant was on the driver'sseat of Scorpio vehicle.It is he, who had blockedthe way of the truck driven by the first informant.We do not propose to reproduce the entireconfessional statement of the appellant, suffice itto say that the appellant has confessed hisinvolvement in the offence.He has been identified bythe first informant in his identification parade.There are C.D.Rs. to indicate the appellant to havebeen in continuous contact with the others involved ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 27 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docin the crime.The confessional statements of some ofthe co-accused further indicate involvement of thisappellant.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::27 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2018 (Sambhaji s/o.Pandurang Sathe)We have carefully perused theconfessional statement to find him to have been inthe company of the leader of the organised crimesyndicate and the co-accused during commission of thecrime.His confessional statement, however,undoubtedly, indicate him to have not made any overt-act.There is also nothing to suggest him to havedone anything to facilitate commission of theorganised crime.The confessional statement of someof the co-accused are on the lines of theconfessional statement of this appellant.Thisappellant has been identified by the first informant ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 28 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docin the test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::28 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSo far as regards this appellant isconcerned, we have before us his own confessionalstatement and the confessional statement of one VinodHarbhare.He came on the scene post commission of theoffence.The main offence is of road robbery,wherein one of the victims had been murdered.Therobbery is of 324 bags of Sago worth Rs.10,00,000/-.The appellant runs a grocery shop.It is, prima facie, evident from hisconfessional statement that two days after therobbery, accused Vinod Harbhare contacted him oncell-phone and inquired, whether he (appellant)would like to purchase Sago.The appellant readily ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 29 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docagreed.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::29 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docOn the same lines is the confessionalstatement of Vinod Harbhare.It is in his statementthat on the request of co-accused - Popat Pawar, hecontacted the appellant herein to see, whether he(appellant) would like to buy Sago.There is nomaterial to indicate the appellant to have been inthe know that the Sago bags were property derived orobtained from commission of an organised crime, beingan offence punishable under Section 3(5) of M.C.O.C.Act.In our view, the Special Court erred inobserving that the material creates strong and gravesuspicion leading to presume the appellant to be a ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 30 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docmember of the organised crime syndicate and hasinvolved in its continuous activities.The SpecialCourt also observed the appellant to have abettedunlawful activities of organised crime syndicate.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::30 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docHe could only be said to havecommitted the offence of dishonestly receiving thestolen property, punishable under Section 411 of theI.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::31 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2019 (Ganesh @ Prashant s/o.He was awarethat the gang-leader and other co-accused have beeninvolved in the offences of road-robbery, housebreaking, etc. The co-accused Tanaji Sathe (appellantin Crime No.100 of 2018) was employed by thisappellant as a driver on his Scorpio vehicle.Thevehicle involved in the crime belongs to thisappellant.He was, however, not in the know that hisvehicle was being used in commission of the offence. ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 32 Cri.The facts,however, indicate him to have consciously remained inthe company of the co-accused during commission ofthe offence.He allowed his place (brick-kiln) to beused to keep the victims thereat for a while.True,the material relied on against this appellant may beshaky.We are, however, considering his claim fordischarge.We only hope that the Trial Court wouldconsider his claim, if any, for bail.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::32 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.146 OF 2019 (Balaji s/o.Bishram Pawar)The police papers undoubtedly indicate theappellant to have not been involved in commission of ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 33 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe main offence.He appears to have not made anyconfessional statement.What is relied on against himis the confessional statement of co-accused - Govind@ Rama Pawar.The only incriminating material againstthis appellant is - "मम आमररई कडड न घररकडड परयम जरत असतरनर वरटडतबरलरजम बबसररम पवरर हर भडटलर व तयरनड पण मलर झरलडलर पकरर ककणरलर सरसगड नकक असडमहणडन चरपट मररलयर व धमकक बदलम."::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::33 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThis appellant can only be said to haveconcealed proof of the organised crime syndicate ofthe accused in this case.He could, at the most, besaid to have committed an offence punishable underSection 3(3) of the M.C.O.C. Act. We hope that theSpecial Court would consider his case for bail, ifany, uninfluenced by our observations herein.In our view, the Special Court erred inobserving the appellant to have been a member oforganised crime syndicate and involved in theorganised crime.This appellant even cannot be saidto have abetted the organised crime as he came at the ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 34 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docscene post commission of the offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::34 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2019 (Karan s/o.Bapurao Dongre)This appellant too, made a confessionalstatement on 14.08.2014 before S.P., Beed.Also,There are confessional statements of some of theaccused suggesting this appellant's involvement.Those confessional statements indicate the appellantto have been associated with the gang-leader andthree others since beginning.His role appears to beof the facilitator of the organised crime.He hasbeen identified by the first informant in the T.I.parade.As such, the appellant could not make out acase for discharge altogether.APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.36 OF 2019 (Ajit s/o.Laximan Sathe)This appellant too, has made confessionalstatement on 14.08.2014 before S.P., Beed.He was in ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 35 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe company of the gang-leader and others duringcommission of the main offence.He has beenidentified in the T.I. parade.True, the appellantappears to have not made any overt-act.No case for altogether discharge,thus, could be made out by him.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::35 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt has beenlodged by a Tamil Nadu based person, who did notunderstand Marathi.One may be amazed of the fact ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 36 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthat when the FIR was against five unknown person,how-come involvement of nine more.This could only bemade out due to the confessional statements.UnderSection 18 of the M.C.O.C. Act, confessions made tothe police officer are to be taken intoconsideration.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::36 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::37 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::38 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt would,however, be a question of appreciation of theevidence during trial of the case.A contemporaneousrecord about satisfaction of recording officer after ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 39 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docwriting of confession that confession was voluntarilymade may cure the defect.We have, therefore, lookedinto the confessional statements at this stage.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::39 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThis observation isrequired to be made because, in our opinion, accused ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 40 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::40 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAppeal No.100-18 and ors.docto try persons accused of different offencescommitted in the course of same transaction.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::42 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docFor the reasons given hereinabove, theAppeals partly succeed in terms of the followingorder :-O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeals No.100/2018, 101/2018, 170/2019, 37/2019, 146/2019, 35/2019 and 36/2019 are partly allowed.(ii) The appellants stand discharged of offences of organised crime and being members of the organised crime syndicate.(iii) The appellants namely - Tanaji Sathe, Sambhaji Sathe, Ganesh Shinde, Karan Dongre and Ajit Sathe shall be charged with the offence of abetment of organised crime.He shall, however, be charged with an offence ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 ::: 43 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc punishable under Section 3(3) of M.C.O.C. Act and any other offence as may be made out against him from the police papers.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::43 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc(v) Appellant - Sham Sachane stands discharged of offences punishable under M.C.O.C. Act. He shall, however, be charged and tried for offence punishable under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and/ or any other offence that may be made out against him.(vi) Rest of the appellants may also be charged and tried for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code or any other law, as may be made out against them from the police papers.[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]kbp ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:19 :::

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in C.M.P.No.6/goonda/C2/2017 dated 24.01.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Asai @ Asaithambi, aged 37 years, S/o.Palanisamy, residing at No.D-5, Gandhi Nagar Housing Board, Kalarampatty Main Road, Kitchipalayam, Salem Taluk, Salem District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Mallur Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :Veeranam Police Station Crime No.218/2010 registered under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code.Annadhanapatty Police Station Crime No.244/2013 registered under Sections 392 r/w 397, 511 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 30.11.2016, one Kumar, S/o.The Detaining Authority after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived to a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu as petitioner.In the counter filed on the side of the respondents, it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false.

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on admission.Learned Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State; as such, no further notice is required.Heard on I.A.No.14252/2017 under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants Prem Singh and Sitaram who stand convicted and sentenced as hereunder:All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during the trial and their sentences of imprisonment have been suspended by the learned trial Court under section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 11.09.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellants be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.Keeping in view the quantum of jail sentence imposed upon the appellants coupled with the fact that disposal of appeal is likely to take time, I.A.No.14252/2017 is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety each in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 02.04.2018 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellants shall stand suspended and they shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2. G. P. Pathak was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department.The applicant and co-accused Prashant Pathak are his sons On 21.1.1995 respondent, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, filed a charge sheet against G. P. Pathak under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short, "the Act").According to the respondent, during the check period from 1.1.1973 to 12.11.1995 G. P. Pathak accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.Ajit Singh, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.7.2012 passed in Special (Criminal) Case No.15/2005 by the Special Judge (Lokayukt), Jabalpur, whereby he has dismissed the applicant's application for discharge.The respondent thereafter on 8.7.2009 filed a supplementary charge sheet against the applicant and Prashant Pathak for offences under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act and section 471 of the 2 Indian Penal Code.The respondent has alleged that applicant and Prashant Pathak not only abetted G. P. Pathak to commit the offences but also submitted in different accounts fake vouchers and receipts of agricultural produce by using them as real.The trial court framed charges under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act against G. P. Pathak and charges under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act and section 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and Prashant Pathak.The trial court thereafter vide order dated 18.6.2012 has closed the prosecution case against him.It is at this stage the applicant and Prashant Pathak filed an application for their discharge on the ground that since the main accused has died they, being the alleged abettor, cannot be prosecuted and convicted.The application was opposed by the respondent.The trial court disagreed with the applicant and by the impugned order dated 10.7.2012 dismissed his application for discharge.

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.This revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated20.5.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in CaseNo.6083/09 relating to case Crime No. 885/09 under sections 337/338/308and 27/30 Arms Act P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Bulandshahr.It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that there was nosufficient material on record to justify the impugned order as from theevidence of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by theInvestigating Officer, no case u/s 308 I.P.C. was made out.Neither theevidence of injured himself nor her husband stated about any actual intentionof the accused to kill the injured nor there was any medical report to supportthat any internal part was damaged by the alleged injury.There was nojustification for the learned Magistrate to include section 308 I.P.C. againstthe accused.Moreover charge sheet was submitted u/s 337/338I.P.C. No application has been moved by the Public Prosecutor before thelearned Magistrate to commit the case u/s 308 I.P.C. to the court of Sessions.It was only on the application of the complainant the impugned order has beenpassed by the learned Magistrate.Accordingly the revision is allowed.

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

akd-1 & dc C.R.M. No. 7566 of 2013 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28/05/2013 in connection with Burrabazar P.S. Case No. 227 of 2013 dated 09.05.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Kaniz Fatma & Anr. ... Petitioners.Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty ... For the Petitioners.Ms. Kalyani Bhattacharya ... For the State.Mr. Ashfaque Anwar Sanwarwala ... For the Defacto Complainant.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and perused the case diary.The petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant.We direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) each 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, 1973 with the further condition that the petitioners shall surrender before the regular court within a week thereafter.The application for anticipatory bail is thus disposed of.( I. P. Mukerji, J.) ( Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J. )

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

C.R.M. 4908 of 2020 with CRAN 3119 of 2020 (via video conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.07.2020 in connection with Monteswar PS Case No. 67 of 2020 dated 27.02.2020 under Sections 147/148/149/186/188/325/326/307/332/333/353/354/427 of the IPC and Section 9 of Maintenance of Public Order Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act. In the matter of : Arup Bhattacharya @ Arup Bhattacharjee ... Petitioner Mr. Santanu Majhi ...for the Petitioner.Mr. Uday Shankar Chatterjee Mr. Nirupam Dhali .....for the State.Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.However the said co accused was standing on a different footing.Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.He admits that on two occasions this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the co accused but earlier application for anticipatory bail was refused to another co accused.It is surprising that while the applications being CRM 4624 of 2020 and CRM 4765 of 2020 were heard, no one seems to have indicated that the application for anticipatory bail of a co accused was rejected by this Court earlier.Be that as it may, considering the roles ascribed to the present petitioner and the fact that the other similarly circumstanced co accused were granted anticipatory bail in CRM 4624 of 2020 and CRM 4765 of 2020, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing security of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) together with personal release bond of equivalent value each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with a further condition that the 3 petitioner shall meet with the Investigating Officer once in a week or until further orders.The petitioner shall also comply with the conditions laid down in section 438(2) CrPC.The application for bail being CRM 4908 of 2020 along with CRAN 3119 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of.Photocopies of the orders dated 27.07.2020 in CRM 4765 of 2020 and 01.07.2020 in CRM 4624 of 2020 are kept with the record.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Samapti Chatterjee, J.) 4

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Crl .M.C. 5104/2018 Page 3 of 3

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

1. Heard Advocate for the appellant and A.P.P. Perused the impugned judgment and record.In all 13 accused persons were charged for various offences under sections 147,148, 307 read with 149, 120B of Indian Penal Code and under section section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.In the course of the incident Dilip Thongre (P.W.11) was assaulted and he suffered severe injuries.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::Considering the evidence led by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused no.1 for offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and acquitted all accused including appellant for all other remaining offences.In this appeal against conviction the ground put forward by appellant is summarised as below :-(a) The reasons due to which the accused nos.2 to 13 are acquitted in relation to all other charges the appellant no.1 as well is entitled for acquittal from all charges including for the offence under section 307 of IPC.(b) Since the victim who has proved the assault is liable to be believed since that principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus", is not applicable in India, however, in present case the victim did not restrict to singular lie and rather chose to tell one after other.(c) Had it been a case of an isolated and singular falsehood in the testimony of P.W.11, said testimony should not be discarded.In fact, major portion of testimony of P.W.11 consists lie or falsehood except the fact that he suffered injuries and that some one amongst the accused has assaulted him which caused the hurt.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::(d) The statement of P.W.1 that accused no.1 assaulted may also be regarded as truth, however, the manner in which the scuffel began is totally suppressed by the prosecution in the process of investigation and consequently before the court.In this manner, the truth is withheld from the court.(e) The prosecution has suppressed genesis of offence.Hence the appellant cannot be convicted.5. P.W.6 has deposed in relation to the incident and learned Judge has referred to version of P.W.6 in paragraph 119 as follows :-....... PW 6 Ajinath had stated that he saw accused no.1 Subhash Wagh, accused no.5 Ganpat Mali, accused no.2 Rajendra Ragade, accused no.9 Chandu Ragade, accused no.4 Dhanu Mali, with weapons in their hands and they were assaulting Dilip, he saw swords in the hands of accused no.1 Subhash accuse dno.4 Dhanuj Mali was having in his hand swords and others were having steel rod and flat axe, though he had stated about these accused, before the court, when this statement was recorded he had not stated the names except the accused no.1 and thus in court he had improved his story.The Investigation Officer had also stated that the said 3/9 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 ::: app620.94 witness had not stated the names of accused no.4 Dhanu Mali, the accused no.9 Chandu Ragade and the accused no.2 Rajendra Ragade, also he had not stated that the accused no,.4 Dhanu Mali was having sword in his hand.Thus the said witness had made improvement in respect of material piece of evidence.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::(quoted from page 450 of paperbook)P.W.13 is discarded as hearsay witness as seen in paragraph 122 as regards the investigation.(quoted from page 452 of paperbook)Perusal of the judgment reveals that the learned Judge has observed in various paragraphs of the judgment which needs reference by quotation as follows :-::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::Dhanaji Eknath Mali, the accused No.12 Dnyaneshwar Gore, the accused No.13 Madhav Gore and I find on this background, the prosecution could not establish their presence.Madhav Gore but the medical certificate do not shown any ig chain marks or no any chain is recovered, on this background the prosecution could not establish their presence.P.W.11 Dilip Thonge had stated that the accused No.1 - Subhash Yetal Wagh inflicted blow of sword on the lower portion of the right leg below knee.The accused No.4 Dhanaji Mali inflicted blow by his axe on his head.The accused no.2 Rajendra Ragade inflicted blows by sword on his right hand.The accused No.5 Ganpat Ganu Mali inflicted blows by sword on his left leg below knee.He also inflicted by sword on thumb of a left hand.The accused no.3 Dnyandev inflicted blows by iron bar on left side of my chest and other accused also assualted him with whatever weapons in their hands.Though the same theory of detailed version of attack do not find in FIR.But the names of the accused nos.1,2 and 5 are seen in ante timed FIR.If the accused nos. 3 and 4 had played such role in the attack, their names and their role must have 5/9 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 ::: app620.94 been find place even in the ante timed FIR.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::(quoted from page 447 & 448 of paperbook)The learned Sessions Judge has made very serious and grave observation as regards lapse in the investigation and while doing so recording the finding in paragraph 153 which reads thus :The station diary produced on record shown that some pages are torn from station diary, only at the relevant juncture on which station diary of 7.10.1991 is written and I have made observation about the same when station diary was produced and I have brought this fact to the notice of A.P.P. but there is no any explanation for that.There is no any investigation as regards doctor from Jawahar Hospital, Barsi where the injured was first admitted.As far as ante time F.I.R. Is concerned, I have already made observation.The Investigation Officer had not attended the Court properly and as per my observation on Exh.25 I find that the approach of the investigation officer must disgusting.The blood of the accused was not collected and sent to C.A. Pune.Another lapse on the part of investigation agency F.I.R. under section 154 of 6/9 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 ::: app620.94 Cr.P.C. Sent to the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Barsi with an inordinate delay, the case diary of 7.10.1991 is not recorded on that day."::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::(quoted from page 464 of paperbook)(iii) P.W.6 eye witness was declared hostile.(iv) P.W.13 was hearsay witness.(v) Original medical case papers where acussed no.1 was admitted were not traced and no effort was made to find out what was first and foremost version of the accused.In the background of voluminous reasons causing distrust on the entire prosecution case in view of observations referred by the learned Judge in Paragraph 153, the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied that it is a fit case for acquittal of accused nos.2 to 13, however, found the accused no.1 as guilty.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::He involves 13 accused persons in commission of assault.He attributes assault by various weapons other than sword.The medical evidence does not support assault by other persons.Medical evidence does not prove that internal organs in the abdomen were injured or damaged, which would led to the medical expert to form an opinion that cavity deep injury to abdomen was fatal, and hence section 307 would apply.It is not proved that what was period and what was the treatment given to the victim.The doctor has admitted that injury was possible if the victim falls down from a bicycle, and even according to the version of the prosecution, bicycle and falling were the facts of the incident.One thing is sure that not only P.W.11 but by everyone involved in the case including medical evidence, conscious effort is made to withheld the truth from the court.In this background, where entire incident is portrayed as 8/9 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 ::: app620.94 hazy and uncertain picture the conviction appears to be a gravely risky proposition.P.W.11 - injured witness cannot be believed to be statue of gospelity.On the other hand positive conclusion is propelled, namely, that conscious, deliberate and calculated effort is made by each and every person to withheld truth from the court.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::Now the question to be considered is as to whether a witness who has suppressed the genesis, and suggested untrue version, should be believed by the court to base the conviction.It turns out to be a case of "suppressious facto and suggestio veri".Thus the prosecution wants to prosecute an order of conviction by playing fraud on court.In this situation the only conclusion that can be emerged is that the appellant is entitled for relief as prayed for.The appeal is allowed.The order of conviction and sentence is set aside.The appellant is set at liberty forthwith.Fine amount if any paid be refunded.(A. H. JOSHI, J.) 9/9 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:22:49 :::

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

State of M.P. and its functionaries.With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.Petitioner takes exception to order-dated 29.10.2009 passed by Collector, Katni, rejecting the application for grant of arm licence on the ground that number of criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner.On being noticed, the respondents have filed return wherein it is stated that as many as 28 cases are registered against the petitioner.The cases are :No. Case No. Section 1 41/70 147, 294, 323 IPC 2 06/70 107, 116(3) Tkk-QkW- 3 61/77 107, 116(3) Tkk-QkW- 4 102/77 147, 149, 336, 294, 506, 452 IPC 5 52/78 107, 116 (3) Tkk-QkW- 6 76/79 107, 116 (3) Tkk-QkW- 7 103/79 341, 294, 323 Rkk-fg- 8 24/81 341, 294, 506, 323 Rkk-fg-No costs.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

1 .05.2013..aks In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.05.2013 in connection with Arambagh P.S. Case No. 84 of 2000 dated 17.04.2000 under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/307/380/427/436/506of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 9 (b) (ii) of the Explosive Act In the matter of : Srikanta Gayen ..Petitioner.The petitioner is in custody for 51 days.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 2 ( Subal Baidya, J. )

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Information regarding the same had already been given to the concerned police and administrative authorities of Etawah and Kanpur range- Kanpur but no worthy action has been taken so far.They (member of Fakkad gang) took hostage Gram Pradhan of village- Harauli and forced his younger brother- Satbir to call Adesh Tiwari from his home by telling him that Fakkad Baba is calling him.Informant's husband went to Pradhan's house out of fear.After about a week, a letter was received at the house of informant purportedly send by Fakkad Gang, whereby, a ransom for Rs. 5 lakh was demanded for release of Adesh Tiwari.After a few days, informant's brother-in-law and old father-in-law were send to jail in connection with murder of younger brother of Ram Karan Chaubey who had intimate link with Fakkad Gang.Both are still in jail.Time and again, the members of Fakkad Gang extended threat to the informant's family due to which informant left her house and has taken shelter in Kanpur.Because of abduction of her husband and considering vicissitudes and uncertainty of life of little children of the family disturbed and due to arrest of his brother-in-law and father-in-law her life has become hell.After the informant gave information to the concerned police station, the concerned Station Officer came to her expressing his inability to do anything in the case and advised the informant to pay the demanded ransom.Her brother-in-law (devar) Vinay Shukla, resident of 109/88 Jawahar Nagar went to Etawah for engaging counsel but no advocate came forward for help because of terror and direction of Fakkad Gang.After hectic efforts, service of an advocate was somehow availed when members of Fakkad Gang attacked both inside the Court campus and at the resident of Vinay Shukla, whereupon information was given to the concerned Police Station whereupon the Station Officer challaned both Ram Karan Chaubey and Vinay Shukla under Section 151 (of Criminal Procedure Code).Therefore, informant's case be considered sympathetically and her family be given protection of life and security and efforts be made for securing life and release of her husband from aforesaid gang so that informant's fundamental rights could be secured.This written application was purportedly signed by Heera Devi although no date has been mentioned in this report.But a carbon copy made in the same process of the concerned GD was proved, on the basis of which case was registered at aforesaid case crime number under aforesaid Section of IPC.He also took steps for attachment of property of accused persons.After completing investigation against Ramasrey @ Fakkad and Kusma Nain, charge-sheet was submitted against them in their abscondence.During the course of investigation, he also arrested another co-accused Sri Narain @ Gillu.He took stock of the proceeding of previous investigation and took note of contents of affidavit of Shiv Shankar.He inquired from witness Shiv Shankar about his previous statement given by him to the previous Investigating Officer, which he confirmed.We may proceed with scrutiny of facts from this point.He returned to his village then informed about the incident to Smt. Heera Devi.He also informed Heera Devi about murder of Adesh Tiwari by the members of Fakkad Gang including the appellants and a report in regard to these facts was given at the police station but no action was taken by the police.Here we may observe that this factual aspect of prior reporting to the police has its inkling in the first information report itself where it has been alleged that after the report was made, the concerned police station officer came to the village and advised informant Heera Devi to accede to the demand for payment of ransom.With that view in mind, it would be relevant to carefully scrutinize testimony of P.W.1 Shiv Shanker and particularly his testimony emerging in his cross-examination.As per his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 8.3.1998 it was around 7 p.m. Fakkad, Kusuma Nain and the entire gang were sitting at the door of Ex-Pradhan- Ram Babu.He was called by Satyabir and Manoj at that place.Later on Fakkad and Kusuma Nain directed Satyabir and Manoj to call Adesh Kumar.Both- the witness and Adesh Kumar were taken to forest by the gang along with two-three other hostages.After three weeks, Ram Karan Choubey, Bhagwan Das, Sri Narayan and Vishambher Singh also arrived around 8 or 9 a.m. At that point of time the gang had its location at the shore of river Quari within village- Vilourh.They all talked to Fakkad.Ram Asray showed the axe to Shiv Shanker and others and threatened that in case, they do not pay Rs.3 lacs they will also be dealt with in the same manner.Further on page-20 of the paper book, this witness has clarified that dead body of Adesh Kumar was thrown in river Quari by Sri Narayan, Ram Karan, Bhagwan Das and Vishambher after putting it in a gunny bag.Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.) By way of instant criminal appeals, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Special Judge (DAA) Etawah, in Special Sessions Trial No.93 of 2008 State of U.P. Vs.Shri Narain @ Gullu and others, arising out of Case Crime No.25 of 1998, under Sections 302, 201, 364A IPC, Police Station- Bhareh, District- Etawah, whereby the appellants Vishambhar Singh, Ram Karan Chaubey, Shri Narain @ Gillu, Ramasrey @ Fakkad and Kusma Nain have been sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.15,000/- with default stipulation for two years' additional rigorous imprisonment, under Section 302 IPC, seven years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 201 IPC, with default stipulation for one year's rigorous imprisonment.Appellants Ramasrey @ Fakkad and Kusma Nain have been further sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 364-A IPC, with default stipulation for one year rigorous imprisonment, whereas, appellants Shri Narain @ Gillu, Ram Karan Chaubey and Vishambhar Singh have been acquitted under Section 364A IPC.All sentences shall run concurrently.Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated 10.08.2011 passed by Special Judge (DAA), Etawah, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, Advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant nos.2 and 3, Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.5452 of 2011 and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned amicus curiae for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.5871 of 2011 and Sri J.K. Upadhyay and Sri N.K.S. Yadav, learned AGAs for the State, and perused the record.Stream of events pertaining to prosecution case in hand manifests itself in lodging of first information report by informant- Smt. Heera Devi PW-2 - wife of deceased- Adesh Tiwari regarding abduction of her husband for ransom by Fakkad Gang sometime on 8.3.1998 at village- Harauli within police circle- Bhareh, District- Etawah.Written report Exhibit Ka-2 was addressed to Commissioner of range Kanpur, District- Kanpur, wherein allegations were made to the effect that informant's husband was abducted on 8.3.1998 from village- Harauli within police circle- Bhareh of District- Etawah by notorious Fakkad Gang.Investigating Officer claims that he prepared map of the place in jungle where the deceased was murdered.He also searched for other co-accused, but did not succeed.Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions pursuant to committal proceeding from where the was transferred to the aforesaid Special Court (of Dacity Affected Areas Act) for conduction of trial and disposal of the case.Consequently, accused and the prosecution both were heard by the Trial Court on the point of charge and after hearing them, the Trial Court was prima facie satisfied with the case under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC.Accordingly, charges under aforesaid sections of IPC were framed against accused persons and the same were read over and explained to them, who abjured charges and opted for trial.Consequently, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony, whereupon, prosecution produced in all 8 witnesses.A brief sketch of the same is ut infra :-(1) Shiv Shankar PW-1 is stated to be witness of fact and he claims to have been present on the spot at the house of Gram Pradhan, Village- Harauli on 8.3.1998 at the time of abduction of Adesh Kumar Tiwari and also claims to have witnessed murder of Adesh Tiwari.She is witness of fact when her husband left home.She came to know about abduction of her son by members of Fakkad Gang and has testified about the same fact.(4) Satyaveer Singh PW-4 was claimed by the prosecution to have come to the house of deceased Adesh Tiwari on 8.3.1998 and told Adesh Tiwari that he has been called by Fakkad Baba.This witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version.He has detailed the various steps he took in completing his part of investigation.(7) Chand Hussain PW-7 is also one of the three Investigating Officers and he has also described details of process adopted by him for completing his part of investigation.Except as above, no other testimony whatsoever was adduced on behalf of the prosecution, therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, they claimed to have been falsely implicated on account of village 'partibandi' and enmity and their involvement was due to persisting rivalry among various groups of dacoit like Nirbhay Gang, Gujjar Gang, etc. The defence, in turn, did not lead any evidence.The learned trial court after hearing the case on its merit and after considering record and evaluating evidence and circumstances recorded conviction against the accused persons and passed sentence against them as aforesaid.One can hardly imagine such sketchy, inconsistent and contradictory testimony forthcoming in this case.FIR also does not specify as to against whom it has been lodged, it does not name any accused person.The Investigating Officers have conducted investigation in a sloppy and perfunctory manner.The first informant Heera Devi says that she has, prior to the lodging of the report, given- one report to the administrative and police authorities of the region and the concerned police station, but no action was taken on that report.But the claim of previously lodged report is merely an imagination for the reason that no Investigating Officer has confirmed to such claim instead he has denied any such application being made to the concerned police station or higher authorities.It was upto the prosecution to have come out with specific cogent testimony to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.However, nothing such has surfaced.The statement of prosecution witnesses of fact is full of embellishments, improvement and result of deliberation with the police.In fact, involvement of the appellants in this case was outcome of internecine struggle/dissension among rival gangs of dacoits operating in the area.Prosecution has failed to prove its charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The trial court overlooked the widespread evidenciary aspect to the ambit that it is full of contradictions, unworthy of credit and incongruous still recorded conviction for no obvious reasons.Finding of conviction is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is illegal and erroneous.Evidence regarding disappearance of Adesh Tiwari on aforesaid date from village- Harauli- is clinching, consistent and coherent with the prosecution story and once disappearance of the victim is proved, the other essential factors to be considered by the Court would be confined to the ambit of demand of ransom only.All the three Investigating Officers have duly investigated the case and have recorded statement of various witnesses including the accused persons and disclosure made in the statement of all the witnesses and accused persons were duly verified and connected with the incident, which on the whole proves and establishes culpability and involvement of the accused persons in the incident.Demand for ransom Rs.5 lakh has been specifically proved by the testimony of Shiv Shanker P.W.1 and Heera Devi P.W.2 and nothing more than that was required to be proved for offence of demand for ransom.We have also considered the rival submissions and also considered the various assertions and denials made pros and cons between the parties and after considering the entire record the moot point that arises for determinations of this appeal relates to fact whether the prosecution has been able to prove charges under various sections of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants?However, the three Investigating Officers of this case- to be specific- first Investigating Officer- Lallu Ram Tyagi, Second Investigating Officer- Chand Hussain and third Investigating Officer- Ram Nath Singh Yadav P.W.8, P.W.7 and P.W.6, respectively have denied fact of any such prior reporting at the police station and they have flatly denied the claim of prior information of the incident being made to the police station.Another vital aspect and circumstance of the case is that Shiv Shanker P.W.1 happens to be star witness, who claims to have witnessed murder of Adesh Tiwari by Fakkad Gang and he has been released from captivity of the gang in May, 1998 and he returned to his village then he told about the incident of abduction and murder of Adesh Tiwari to the informant Heera Devi, but we are taken aback and to our utter surprise the so called subsequent first information report lodged on 1.10.1998 does not contain even slightest hint touching on the claim made by Shiv Shanker that Adesh Tiwari was murdered by Fakkad Gang.The FIR does not mention name of even a single witness who witnessed incident of murder and the manner and style of causing murder of Adesh Tiwari by the offenders.It is beyond reason that such vital information if furnished to the informant in the month of May, 1998 skipped attention and mention in the first information report dated 1.10.1998 lodged by Heera Devi- wife of deceased Adesh Tiwari.We also come across testimony of the Investigating Officers of this case P.W.8 Lallu Ram Tyagi and P.W.7 Chand Hussain that they for the first time recorded statement of Shiv Shanker on 15.11.1998 and he (Shiv Shanker) for the first time disclosed fact of his own abduction and release.Record profusely indicates and establishes fact that after release of Shiv Shanker from the clutches of Fakkad Gang, no efforts, whatsoever, were made to lodge any report regarding his abduction and demand for ransom to any police station or to any higher authority.Act and instance of non-lodging of any report and refraining from taking any action, in the absence of any cogent adverse circumstance, would amount to fact that Shiv Shanker's testimony on this particular aspect of his abduction and demand for ransom for his release is an improvement with some ulterior motive but known to himself.Because the circumstance in which he maintained perennial silence regarding commission of crime of abduction and demand for ransom against him by the accused persons generates lot of suspicion about creditworthiness of this witness.Adesh Tiwari was tied in chain and was handed over to the aforesaid four persons.These four persons caused death of Adesh Kumar by axe.It has been specifically testified that Ram Karan gave axe blows while Vishambher, Bhagwan Das and Sri Narayan caught hold of Adesh Tiwari.After commission of murder the blood stained axe was given to Ram Asray @ Fakkad.He remained in captivity of the gang for about two months.He was released from captivity only after his family members paid Rs.2,75,000/- to the gang.He has been cross-examined, wherein, serious anomalies have emerged in his testimony.The first one is, as already observed, that he never reported incidence of his abduction to any police authority.His family members also did not give any information to the police after his abduction and prior to his release.These unexplained aspects carry with them element of mystery.Next, he gave affidavit to the S.S.P. Etwah after one year of his release.Bare perusal of the affidavit and its contents reveal that all the specific details regarding the incident and murder of Adesh Tiwari were well in the knowledge of Shiv Shanker P.W.1 and he claims that after his release he narrated the entire incident to the informant (P.W.-2), but the first information report is silent on any such detail or even names of the accused persons.Thus claim of Shiv Shanker becomes oblique and ulterior and it is hard to believe that he suffered captivity at the hands of Fakkad Gang and he was released only after two months of his abduction (8.3.1998).Further, on page-21 of the paper book, he says that he has no knowledge that Ram Ji- brother of Ram Karan Chowbey- was either murdered or not and he does not know, who is the accused in that case and just after such disclosure, he proceeds on to say that he went to meet the accused of Ram Ji case, Ram Bahadur and Awadhesh in jail.Awadhesh- is brother-in-law of Adesh Tiwari, whereas Ram Bahadur is father-in-law of Adesh Tiwari and he concedes to fact that case for murder of Ram Ji was lodged against Awadhesh and Ram Bahadur.He has been suggested whether Sri Narayan was a witness in that case of murder whereupon, this witness has expressed his ignorance.On the same page-21 of paper book, he claims that he had described the incident of murder to the mother and wife of Adesh Tiwari after his release and he says that he did not move any application for the offence of murder of Adesh Tiwari.He claims on the same page that he went to the police station- Bharray after his release along with Heera Devi- the informant and mother of Adesh Tiwari.He has been confronted with his statement regarding the aforesaid aspect as to whether he ever made any such statement to the Investigating Officer and his attention was also brought to those particular statements given before the trial court vis-à-vis the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he expressed his inability to show any plausible reason as to why these specific and particular statements have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer.He never stated to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he witnessed incident of murder of Adesh Tiwari, instead he gave statement to the Investigating Officer to the ambit that now he believes that Fakkad has killed Adesh Tiwari.He has also testified that Ram Karan, Sri Narayan and Vishambher were not involved in the commission of abduction.He also did not give any statement to the Investigating Officer that Satyaveer and Manoj came to call them.He has stated that some letter was sent at his home by Fakkad Gang demanding ransom but no such letter was seen by him when he returned home after his release and surprisingly in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer description of any such letter being sent at his home is altogether missing and he is unable to ascribe any cogent reason for the same.Can it be considered natural course of events in a situation when the entire incident of abduction and murder of Adesh Tiwari was narrated to the mother and wife of deceased- Adesh Tiwari by Shiv Shaker P.W.1 in the month of May 1998, the first information report though addressed to the Commissioner of Range- Etawah, which was finally registered on 1.10.1998, did not contain even minutest detail of any such abduction and murder given by Shiv Shanker to the informant.Suprisingly, the first information report does not even mention name of Shiv Shanker as the person who told about this incident.On 15.11.1998 fact of abduction of Shiv Shanker was disclosed for the first time.All these facts coupled with testimony so called star witness Shiv Shanker causes deep dent in the prosecution claim that abduction and murder of Adesh Tiwari was caused/committed by Ram Asrey @ Fakkad, Kusuma Nine and the other appellants.The other witnesses of fact- say- Heera Devi P.W.2 and Smt. Om Prabha P.W.3 are not the witnesses of last seen theory.Similarily, Smt. Om Prabha P.W.3 has stated on page-45 of the paper book that Fakkad and Kusuma Nain and his gang men did not take away his son before her and the person, who came to her house to call his son are not accused in this case.She has also stated that her statement was recorded by daroga ji after 7-8 months and surprisingly on the same page she has denied having made any statement to the Daroga Ji to the ambit that Sri Narayan and Ram Karan had secured release of her son from the gang.She cannot assign any worthy cause as to how such statement was recorded by the daroga ji.She has been suggested that she is testifying after being pressurized by relatives of Nirbhay Gurjer gang, although, she has denied the suggestion.First informant has expressed his inability to show any letter for ransom, which she claims to have been sent by Fakkad gang.Even the Investigating Officers have denied having received any such letter from Heera Devi.She has stated on page-39 of the paper book that she came to know about the offence only at the instance of Shiv Shanker.At this stage, we may switch over to the testimony of another important witness Satyabir Singh P.W.4, who is stated to have gone to the house of Adesh Tiwari on 8.3.1998 and said to the deceased that he has been called by Fakkad gang.He has testified to the effect that Ram Asray @ Fakkad, Kusuma Nain, Ram Karan Chowbey, Sri Narayan and Vishambher Singh were not involved in this case and they never came to his house and sat at the door of his house.He has been declared hostile and cross-examined, whereupon he has stated that he never gave any statement to daroga ji.When we look to the testimony of the Investigating Officers, then regard may be had to certain relevant aspects of the case.He has testified that he inspected spot where Adesh Tiwari was murdered.This spot map is Exhibit Ka-6, whereas, in the testimony of Shiv Shanker it has emerged on page-28 of his testimony that he never assisted the Investigating Officer for inspection of the spot and surprisingly the second I.O. Chand Hussain P.W.7 has stated on page No.-66 of the paper book in his cross-examination that he did not see the place where Adesh Tiwari was murdered.Another aspect of the case is that P.W.7 Chand Hussain- the Investigating Officer- has stated on page-67 of the paper book that he included name of other accused persons only after disclosure of names (of accused) was made by Sri Narayan, the accused.On page-67 of the paper book his testimony has come forth to the magnitude that he did not receive any letter meant for any demand for ransom for securing release of Adesh Tiwari.He also testifies on page-69 of the paper book that he took over investigation on 7.2.1999 and the informant did not tell him about murder of her husband.Name of Ram Asrey @ Fakkad and Kusuma Nain figured for the first time in the statement of Ram Bahadur on 27.10.1998 and it has been stated by P.W.8 particularly in the last portion of page-75 of the paper book that FIR does not mention presence of Ram Bahadur at his door when abduction took place and at the time of lodging of the report Ram Bahadur was in jail.Why Shiv Shanker moved affidavit before SSP Etawah after his so called release from captivity of Fakkad Gang and wherein also the details elaborated in various paragraphs were not stated to the Investigating Officers who recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Obviously, filing of affidavit appears to be an extraneous effort, which cannot be said to be genuine assertion of facts and cannot be believed to be true one.The testimony falls in disarray and lacks requisite coherence.The testimony of prosecution witnesses of facts and particularly that of Shiv Shanker P.W.1 does not inspire confidence, instead his testimony on the whole renders this witness unworthy of credit and as such not wholly reliable.It appears that circumstances indicate that Adesh Kumar disappeared mysterially and remained untraceable and the informant side favoured the Nirbhay Gurjer gang, therefore, in collusion with certain persons names of the accused persons were deliberately brought in picture and efforts were made to build up a castle in the sand, which efforts, despite hectic perseverance made by P.W.1 Shiv Shanker and P.W.2 Heera Devi remained unsuccessful for apparent reason that they introduced undigestible story of abduction and murder of Adesh Kumar with improved testimony and non-explanation of normal conduct expected of them sounds louder element of embellishments brought in, in their testimony, just to fill up various vital inconsistencies emerging from wholesome reading of their testimony.If the claim of the prosecution witness, particularly that of P.W.1, is sustained and believed to be truthful then such type of first information report can never be imagined and lodged.Moreover, Heera Devi is also faulting on point that she and Shiv Shanker lodged report at the police station prior in time sometime in May, 1998, therefore, her (PW-2) testimony is discovered to be tainted with bias and she too, cannot be believed to be truthful witness and her testimony is unworthy of credit.Even identification of members of Fakkad gang with its boss looms in darkness and one is not sure as to who is the person known by nick name ''Fakkad'.Proper traits or body figures of Kusuma Nain have not been spelt either in the FIR or in the ocular testimony of witnesses.The fact and circumstances are jumbled together and so interwined that they create deep and suspicious hole in the entire prosecution story.It is trite law and established principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution would have to stand on its own leg and would have to establish its charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt.In this case, the charges have not been proved beyond doubt.The trial court while appreciating evidence and appraising facts and circumstances of the case could not scrutinize them in true perspective but recorded erroneous finding of conviction based more on conjuncture and surmises than on law which finding of conviction pertaining to charges under Section 364A, 302 and 201 IPC in the absence of any cogent and clinching evidence is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside by us.Consequently, judgment and order of conviction dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Special Judge (DAA) Etawah, in Special Sessions Trial No.93 of 2008 State of U.P. Vs.Shri Narain @ Gullu and others, arising out of Case Crime No.25 of 1998, under Sections 302, 201, 364A IPC, Police Station- Bhareh, District- Etawah is hereby set aside and the aforesaid appeals are allowed.Order Date:- 9th January, 2017 Raj/Ishan

['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.

On 31st May 1992, the premises said to be those of a person named Niranjan Shah were searched by officers of the Income-tax Department.In the course of this search, the officers came across a large number of documents showing questionable deals by various persons.The last occasion when the petitioner was produced before the Special Court was on 17-7-1992 and the Judge presiding over the said Court is said to have given an indication that the petitioner's detention could not be continued idefinitely, for indefinite detention would amount to punishment even before the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner had been established.Petitioner has three brothers names Ashwin, Sudhir and Hitesh.The Financial Express, an organ of the Express Group of Newspapers, on July 2, 1992 came out with a write-up captioned "Dragging feet over probe on scam funds flight".Shortly stated, the write-up accused the Directorate of Enforcement of deliberately delaying investigation into FERA violations committed by the petitioner.The write up referred to certain statements made by Niranjan Shah.In that statement, certain names were mentioned and two of these were of "Bhai" and "Bindu".That night Ashwin, Hitesh and Sudhir, the brothers of the petitioner, were rounded up and interrogated.The next day, an Officer of the Directorate of Enforcement or Enforcement Directorate submitted an application to an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay.A copy of that application is at Ex. B. It speaks of the search carried out by the Income-tax Department at the residential and office premises of Niranjan Shah, the coming across of various documents including computer floppy discs and computer print-outs and the scrutiny of these showing foreign exchange transactions by Niranjan Shah and others.One of the names mentioned in the print-out was "Mehta H.".This according to the application, stood for the petitioner.The print-out indicated petitioner's having dollar and sterling accounts under the title of "Mehta H.".Niranjan Shah - it was said - had arranged funds abroad for several persons including Ashwin, Hitesh and Sudhir.Niranjan Shah was a close associate of the petitioner and other members of his family.Petitioner's brothers had acquired foreign exchange from time to time under arrangements made through Niranjan Shah.In these statements, the persons interrogated had chosen to come out with denials.Niranjan Shah could not be interrogated as he had decamped.The accounts discovered were in codes and could not be ascertained.The Magistrate has imposed certain conditions upon petitioner's brothers and one of them is that they will attend the office of the Enforcement Directorate daily from 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. until further orders.The said brothers have attended the office of the Enforcement Directorate and are being interogated.On 2nd July 1992 they had been so interrogated.It is said that the continued interrogation and investigation has led to traces of foreign accounts.It is said that all the Government agencies such as the RBI, the CBI and the Income-tax Department have been looking into the affairs of the petitioner and his family.No attempt had been made by the Enforcement Directorate to contact the petitioner.This was despite the fact that the Enforcement Directorate had in its custody documents purporting to show the part played by the petitioner's brothers in various foreign exchange deals.No search had been carried out at the residence and/or office of the petitioner.On 2nd July 1992, Ashwin and Hitesh had gone to the CBI office though no summons had been issued to either of them.Sudhir Mehta who was then suffering from high fever and mild typhoid was resting at home, but was taken by Officers of the Enforcement Directorate.Despite a lengthy questioning petitioner's brothers had denied any involvement in respect of offences punishable under the FERA.Till 13th July 1992 they were remanded to custody.The abrupt and unexpected action taken by the Enforcement Directorate was probably on account of the article appearing in the Financial Express mentioned above.The report is so named after the Deputy Governor of the RBI who was commissioned by the RBI to look into the financial bunglings referred to as the 'great scam'.The Jankiraman report was the basis for the CBI to take action to arrest and interrogate the petitioner.During the period the petitioner was in custody at the instance of the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate could not question him for the FERA violations.The CBI may have touched upon the FERA violations in the course of their questioning of the petitioner, but this was casually so.This was in the shape of the print-outs recovered from the premises of Niranjan Shah, enquiries made with one Java at Dubai and the statement of one Bindu, the sister of Niranjan Shah who was said to have stated in plain terms that she had passed on a sum of 8,500 Dollars to the petitioner while he was in London for and on behalf of Niranjan Shah.To extract more information pursuant to those leads, it was necessary to question the petitioner at length.On 6-7-1992, there was another application for an extension of 14 more days to facilitate further investigation.The last sentence of the application moved on 6-7-1992 recited :-"Also I pray that no bail may be granted to them at this juncture as they are likely to influence the witnesses and as such may hamper collection of further vital corroborative evidence." There was a second remand.On 14-7-1992, the petitioner's brothers were directed to be released on bail by the Magistrate.However, certain extracts from the proceedings pending against him before the Special Court have been available.These give the indication that some questioning of the petitioner vis-a-vis the FERA violations has taken place.The remand application moved on 3-7-1992 speaks of the investigation having made progress in tracking foreign accounts of the petitioner and his relations.Faced with this article, the Enforcement Directorate decided to demonstrate that they were not dragging their feet.This would be to continue his detention indefinitely.He was willing to subject himself to any reasonable terms and conditions so as to secure anticipatory bail.Application rejected.

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been filed for quashing FIR No.312/2020 dated 25.08.2020, under Sections 297, 337 IPC registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar.The respondent No.2 is the complainant.The allegation in the FIR is that on 21.08.2020, at about 7:30 P.M the complainant/respondent No.2 was hit by a black colour Mercedes Benz, bearing No. DL4CNA2796, which was being driven by the petitioner.The complainant states that he was taken to the AIMS Trauma.The FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant.The MLC report says that the complainant/respondent No.2 was hit in an accident and that he suffered grievous injuries.The investigation also revealed that the car was being driven by the petitioner CRL.M.C. 53/2021 Page 1 of 7 herein.CRL.M.C. 53/2021 Page 1 of 7The petitioner No.1 was arrested and was released on bail.The investigation revealed that the petitioner No.1 did not have a valid driving license, further the car was also not insured.Charge-sheet under Section 279/338 IPC read with Sections 3/181, 146/196 has been prepared and submitted to the court for trial.The present petition has been filed on the ground that the complainant and the accused have amicably settled the dispute.The compromise deed dated 20.10.2020, has been filed along with the paperbook.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

/506 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the opposite parties from the charge for the offences under Sections 148/436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code stands hereby affirmed.Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate had appeared on behalf of the State and his appointment so made be regularised by the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta on the merit of this case.

['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(4) The sum and substance of the other petition (Crl.relating: to acquisition of foreign exchange of Us $ 50 lakhs in association with one Shri K. L. Aggarwal.(5) It is not disputed that while granting permission to the applicant for going and stay abroad, one of the conditions was that in case the Cbi needs his presence in India on any date during the period of his stay abroad, the petitioner shall make himself available at New Delhi, provided he is given 10 days advance notice to that effect.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Sometime in the month of September, 1987, one Lakhubhai Pathak.a non-resident Indian, residing in London forwarded his complaint to the High Commissioner of India, against Shri Chandraswami and his associate/Secretary Shri K. L. Aggarwal .for dishonestly inducing him to part with two cheques totalling Us $ 1,00,000 in a New York hotel on January 4, 1984, as consideration for obtaining some contract for the complainant.The said complaint was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in or about October 1987 on the basis of which an Fir u/s 420 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. was registered.(2) Both the accused persons were arrested and later on granted bail by the court by the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 17-2-1988, with the condition that they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.Later on, they moved an application for modification of the order to the extent that they be permitted to go abroad for teaching the tenets of Hinduism and Indian cultural values in various countries.Thereafter, from time to time, the petitioners have been moving such like applications for the extension of their stay abroad on number of grounds which applications have been allowed.The last extension for a period of six months was given by order dated 3-1-1990 in Crl.(3) The applicant Chandraswami has moved the present petition seeking an extension of time for a period of one year from 2-8-1990 to remain abroad subject to any terms and conditions which this Court may like to impose.Though the respondent Cbi has not filed the reply, but Shri Rajiv Nayyar, Advocate, appearing for the respondent has strongly opposed the prayer.In the alternative, the Court may permit the applicant Enforcement Directorate, to serve the summons on Shri Chandraswami through his counsel.Shri Chandraswami has filed the reply to this petition praying for its straightway dismissal being not maintainable.The petitioner was also required to keep the Cbi informed of the addresses of the places where he proposes to go and stay during his visits abroad.The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that before the applicant asked for extension of his stay abroad, he must comply with the conditions which were imposed while granting him permission to remain abroad.According to the learned counsel, the applicant cannot refuse to acknowledge the notice summons for his presence and continue to flout the undertaking given by him to this Court.The submission is that during the course of further investigation, the Cbi, iff the month of February/March.1990, has come to know of the existence of certain documents for which the presence of the applicant has become necessary, to seek certain clarifications from him.With this end in view, the Deputy Superintendent of Police/CBI sent a letter to Shri Chandraswami through his counsel Shri Pinaki Misra.on 23-7-1990, requiring him to arrange the presence of Shri Chandraswami on the date, time and place mentioned in the notice.It is also mentioned that this communication has been issued in accordance with the directions passed by this Court while granting permission to Chandraswami for going abroad /to remain abroad.Another notice appears to have been sent to Chandraswami at his last known address at New Delhi, requiring his presence in connection with the investigation to another case (St. Kitts case).(6) It in true that the applicant Shri Chandraswami cannot be allowed to remain abroad for an indefinite period thereby frustrating the investigation of the present case.The respondents have nowhere been allowed to serve Shri Chandraswami through his Advocate.All along, the condition was that the applicant shall make himself available to the Cbi as and when he is served with a notice 10 day in advance.It appears that the respondents have not made any effort to send such a notice to Shri Chandraswami.Sending of the letter to his counsel is no service on Chandraswami in the eye of law or a per the undertaking.The respondent shall always be at liberty to summon Shri Chandraswami as and when his presence required for further interrogation.Thereafter, no attempt was made to secure his presence for Further interrogation for a period of two years except.During this interregnum period of 2 years, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that Shri Chandraswami has been visiting Delhi on number of occasions.His last stay at Delhi was for a period of four months from August, 1989 to November.During this period, the Cbi did not make any attempt to complete the investigation for reason's best known to them.They have woken up only after the applicant Chandraswami moved the present petition for extension of his stay abroad for which a notice was issued to them on 20th July.the respondents cannot be deprived of their discretion of requiring his presence as and when they so require, particularly, when new fact have come to their knowledge which require some clarification from Shri Chandraswarmi.but for that also.they have to serve the applicant personally with 10 days notice in advance, If in spite of service.the applicant does not.appear the respondent Cbi can take appropriate stems to force his presence in India.(8) I am afraid, no relief can be granted to the Enforcement Directorate in Cr.

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order ofdetention in C.M.P.No.30/2009 dated 02.08.2009, passed by the first respondentis quashed.1.The District Magistrate/Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In the 4th page of the issue of the magazine, the petitioner no.1 was declared as the Chief Editor thereof whereas, admittedly, the petitioner no.2, at the relevant point of time, was working as the Principal Correspondent to the magazine at Bhopal.The respondent no.2, a resident of Bhopal, is also a journalist by profession.The article, in essence, covered story of so-called harrowing experience of respondent no.3, a 29-year-old teacher, who was allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation and blackmail by the respondent no.2 and was also abused sexually by some of the bureaucrats.The corresponding averments made by the complainant/ respondent no.2 are to this effect that he was never interviewed by any correspondent of the magazine whereas an explanation purported to have been given by him at Bhopal was also published as an appendix to the :: 3 ::M.Cr.C. No.1506/2007 offending article and it was, therefore, evident that the local correspondent of the magazine viz. the petitioner no.2 and its Editor had taken active parts in the conspiracy hatched for bringing him to disrepute by concocting a completely false story.This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), has been filed for having the prosecution for the offence of defamation quashed.However, the proceedings as against the petitioner no.2 Deepak Tiwari shall continue in accordance with law.Petition partly allowed.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

She also told police that the BJP leader allegedly used to pass remarks at her and threatened her with dire consequences if she told anyone about the assault.The complainant said she quit her job in May, 2014, due to the continuous assaults and harassment by Vats."Police have registered a case against Vats and further investigation is on," said Deputy Commissioner of Police (north-west), N Gananasambandan.Vats, who was in Congress for several years, joined BJP in December last year and contested the recently-concluded elections from the Shakur Basti constituency.He was defeated by Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendra Jain.",% 31.01.2020 IA No.1456/2020 (for exemption)Allowed, subject to just exceptions.The application is disposed of.IA No.1454/2020 (under Section 148 CPC)The application is disposed of.CS(OS) 41/2020, IA No.1453/2020 (under Order XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.1455/2020 (under Order II Rule 2 CPC)The suit, on urgent mentioning, was ordered to be listed today itself for hearing.The plaintiff, a contestant for the Delhi Legislative Assembly Election, 2020 scheduled on 8th February, 2020, from Shakur Basti constituency, has CS(OS) 41/2020 Page 1 of 6 instituted this suit against defendants no.1 to 5 viz. (i) Shipra Singh, (ii) Hindustan Times, (iii) Google India Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Google Inc. and (v) Ashok Kumar, for (a) permanent injunction to restrain the known and unknown defendants from publishing or disseminating the defamatory material as specified in paragraphs 22,23 and 25 of the plaint or the material as detailed in the list of documents filed with the plaint; (b) mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.2 to take down the offending article / publication, titled "BJP Leader S.C. Vats booked for sexually assaulting a woman" available at URL www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/bjp-leader-sc- vats-booked-for-sexually-assaulting-a-woman/story-oVC0WUwHgSf7WO7 aRbDwOP.html; and, (c) mandatory injunction directing the defendants no.3 and 4 to remove the links to the offending articles detailed in paragraph 22 of the plaint.CS(OS) 41/2020 Page 1 of 6The senior counsel for the plaintiff has contended that, (i) the defendant no.1 had lodged a complaint against the plaintiff of the offences under Section 376 (2), 354, 354A,B&D, 201 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Act, 2000 and on which FIR No.149/2015 of Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi was registered against the plaintiff; (ii) the plaintiff, vide order dated 18th January, 2018 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Special Fast Track Court, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, was discharged of the offence of rape and the prosecution remitted to the Magistrate for trial of other offences; (iii) the plaintiff has not been charged as yet; (iv) however on the platform of defendant no.2, the following report dated 19th February, 2015 is still available:CS(OS) 41/2020 Page 2 of 6"BJP leader SC Vats booked for sexually assaulting a woman A BJP leader who unsuccessfully contested the recent Delhi Assembly elections from Shakur Basti has been booked for allegedly molesting and sexually assaulting a woman while she was attached with an institute in Delhi, police said on Wednesday.According to police, SC Vats, who is chairman of an institute in the Pitampura area of north-west Delhi, has been booked under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 376 (rape) of IPC.In her complaint lodged at Maurya Enclave police station on January 28, the 33-year-old victim has alleged that Vats raped her on several occasions while she was working at the institute.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The prosecution case was that on 3-1-1996 accused Rajesh committed murder of his wife Sukhvati and his daughter Rinki, aged about 3 years in his house in Village Chunni Chougan.According to the prosecution accused Anil Kumar (who has been acquitted) had engaged accused Rajesh as a servant in the field and accused Anil Kumar was having an evil eye upon the wife of accused Rajesh.On 3-1-1996 also accused Anil Kumar was found cutting filthy jokes with Sukhvati and it was not to the liking of accused Rajesh.Therefore, after accused Anil Kumar left that place accused Rajesh assaulted his wife and caused her death.The daughter of accused Rajesh was trampled under his feet and that of his wife when he was assaulting his wife.Appellant Rajesh has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing murder of his wife and daughter.The prosecution case was based on the alleged extra-judical confession of accused Rajesh to different persons.Information was given to M.M. Sharma (P.W. 8) who was Station Officer of Damua Police Station regarding this incident.Bodies of two dead persons were sent for post-mortem examination.Dr. R.K. Vishwakarma (P.W. 9) conducted the autopsy and in his opinion the death of Sukhvati and her daughter was homicidal.They have sustained a number of injuries as noted in the post-mortem reports Ex. P-13 and Ex. P-15, It was the prosecution case that accused Anil Kumar asked accused Rajesh that he should not report this incident to the police and he should cremate the dead bodies immediately.Accused Rajesh is also said to have purchased certain material for cremation purposes.Accused Rajesh pleaded not guilty.He has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence by the Trial Court.Accused Anil Kumar has been acquitted as there was no legal evidence against him.In this appeal it has been argued that the prosecution case was mainly based on the extra-judicial confession of accused Rajesh and that could not be proved as the witnesses to whom the extra-judicial confession was said to have been made have turned hostile during the trial.It is also pointed out that there is no incriminating material against the appellant on the basis of which it could be held that he is guilty for committing murder of his wife and his daughter.We have scanned the evidence on record.Sukhvati (P.W. 3), Dhanlal (P.W. 4), Vishnu (P.W. 6) and Ganpat (P.W. 7) are the persons before whom accused Rajesh was alleged to have confessed his guilt.But these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case on this point and they have been declared hostile.As already stated, the extra-judicial confession of accused Rajesh was the main plank of the prosecution case and that could not be established.It is not in dispute that dead bodies of Sukhvati and her daughter Rinki, aged about 3 years, were recovered from the house in the field in which accused Rajesh was living with them.The only point which deserves serious consideration is whether accused Rajesh is the person who caused their death.Sukhvati (P.W. 3) has deposed that she was crossing through the house of accused Rajesh and she saw him sitting in front of his house.She asked him about Sukhvati and he replied that she has died.She has further stated that she opened the door and then she found the dead bodies of Sukhvati and her daughter inside the room.There was blood around these dead bodies.She asked accused Rajesh how these two persons have died and then accused Rajesh replied that his wife was complaining that some evil spirit has engulfed her.She informed the Village Kotwar about this incicent.In cross-examination she has stated that accused Rajesh had also dislcosed to her that he had gone to the forest to fetch wood and when he returned he found his wife and daughter lying dead in the room.Ganpat (P.W. 7) is the Kotwar of the village.He has deposed that accused Rajesh himself came to him at about 7.00 P.M. and he was weeping.According to this witness, accused Rajesh told him that he had gone to the forest to bring wood and when he returned he found his wife and his daughter dead.In cross-examination he has stated that there is a forest at a distance of about 5-6 miles from the house where accused Rajesh was living.He has further clarified that accused Rajesh told him that he had gone to the forest at about 8-9 A.M. and when he returned in the evening he found the two dead bodies in his house.The extra-judicial confession not having been proved, the conviction of the appellant is based primarily on the basis of his conduct.So far as the conduct is concerned, it can not be said that accused Rajesh has suppressed this incident from anyone.According to the Village Kotwar, accused Rajesh was the first person who came to him and made complaint about the death of his wife and his daughter.Sukhvati (P.W. 3) has also made the same statement.The Trial Court has used one sentence from here and one sentence from there from the statements of the hostile witnesses and on that basis held accused Rajesh guilty.In the opinion of the Trial Court accused Rajesh was at his residence when his wife and his daughter were done to death.No one has seen him in the house when the death of these two persons took place or when the injuries were caused to them.The motive which was alleged by the prosecution has also not been proved at all.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Accused 1 Satyanathan is a bus operator in Salem.One Thambithurai was the son of accused l's brother.The petitioner and accused 3 are the cousins of the said Thambithurai.On 16.2.1964, Thambithurai married P.W. 1 Rajeswari, against whom the allegations in the question were made, as per Hindu rites and customs, after converting himself into Hinduism.ORDER Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.The revision petitioner, Chelliah, is accused 2 in C. C. No. 726 of 1964 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore.The petitioner was charged along with accused 1 and 3 originally under Section 500, I.P.C., but he alone was convicted under Section 500 I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate.On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.There are no merits in this revision petition.The only point that has been raised by the learned Counsel is that even assuming that the allegations made by the revision petitioner were per se defamatory, the lower Courts must have held that he made such allegations in good faith and in the interests of his sisters claiming the benefit of exception 9 to Section 499 I.P.C. Both the Courts below have negatived the contention of the petitioner.After the marriage, P.W. 1 and Thambithurai were living as husband and wife in Sankaridrug in Salem Dt. P.W. 1 conceived.On the night of 14.8.1964, about six months after the marriage, Thambithurai met with a car accident and died on the next day.Thambithurai was possessed of considerable properties, both moveables and immoyeables.He had a car which was involved in the accident.At the time of the accident, Thambithurai had a cash of Rs. 7000, diamond ring and other valuables P.W. 1 was having the keys for the Godrej safe and other admirals in which the valuables were kept.After the death of Thambithurai, accused 1 approached P.W. 1 and told her that it would not be proper for P.W. 1 to keep the keys as she was young.Saying that he would settle the matter in respect of the properties of Thambithurai, he took the keys from P.W. 1 and also took the cash, diamond ear ring and other valuables.As the sisters of Thabithurai began to give trouble to P.W. 1, she came away to Tier house in Coimbatore.She later approached accused 1 for settlement.But he did not care to take interest in the matter.On 19.10.1964, P.W. 1, Rajeswari caused a lawyer's notice to be issued to the three accused statins that they had misappropriated the valuables taken by them from her custody and that they had driven her out of the house in collusion with the sisters of Thambithurai, The petitioner and the other two accused sent a reply on 21.11.1964 through their counsel, which is the subject matter of the prosecution.In that notice, they denied that Rajeswari was the wife of Thambithurai and that the child in the womb of Rajeshwari was not conceived through Thambithurai.The notice received by her advocate was passed on to Rajeswari's (P.W. l's) brother Shanmugham.P.W. 1 approached P.W. 2 Vellingiri to translate the contents of the notice.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(a) It is alleged that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the petitioner (Cogent Silver Fiber Pte.Ltd.) and Noble Fiber Technologies Inc. (hereinafter referred to as 'Noble Fiber Technologies'), which is a company incorporated in U.S.A. The said purported MOU was signed allegedly by one Mr. N.S. Prasad, who is alleged to be the country manager in India of Noble Fiber Technologies.(b) It is alleged that under the MOU, the petitioner was to be appointed as the sole and exclusive agent/dealer for India in respect of the products of Noble Fiber Technologies marketed under the brand name 'X-Static'.The present petition would, perhaps, have been obviated had the learned Metropolitan Magistrate give his reasons, even briefly.The offence alleged to have been committed in the present case could be grouped into four categories.JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.By the impugned order, the petitioner's application for a direction/order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') was dismissed in the following words:In my considered opinion, the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and it does not disclose commission of any offence under the Penal Code for which either directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be passed or cognizance Under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. can be taken to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Further proceeding in the matter would only lead to wastage of valuable judicial time.The petition as well as complaint are dismissed.File be consigned to Record Room.The petitioner had made the application under Section 156(3) of the Code because the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Police Station Malviya Nagar, was not being registered as an FIR and the police was not investigating into the purported offences under Section 406/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC.A copy of the said complaint has been placed on record and the essential features of the complain are as follows:

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(i) Smt. Razia Sultana (PW No.1) in the year 1984 was residing with her mother Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3).She was married and her husband was doing embroidery work.She had two brothers namely Adil Rashid and Shaha Nawaz.Adil (deceased) was working as a welder and Shaha Nawaz was working as a carpenter.Her brother Adil Rashid was working with original accused no.4 Sayeed Ahmed Haji Abdul Razak Mistry.The original accused no.4 was her distant relative from her maternal side.Her ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 4/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt brother Adil wanted to set up his own business and in fact he started his business with a partner namely Sherekhan at Gilbert Road, Andheri, Mumbai.As the business of her brother was prospered, the original accused no.4 and his sons i.e. accused nos.1 and 2 developed jealousy.The original accused no.4 had told Smt. Razia Sultana to direct Adil Rashid (deceased) that he should not carry out the said business failing which, he will face serious consequences.Name of the fiancée of Adil with whom he was engaged was Ms. Rana Kaushal.She was residing in the area of Bombay Central.Adil Rashid used to keep the photograph of Rana Kaushal with him.On 15.11.1984 at about 11.30 a.m. her brother returned from bank with Rs.900/-.The accused no.2 was accompanying Adil at that relevant time.They were going to National Park by a car.The car was parked outside her house on the road.It was a chocolate colour Ambassador car.Adil did not return till the evening and therefore Smt. Razia (PW-1) and Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3) took his search with the near relative.They also asked the original accused no.4, however, he expressed ignorance about the ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 5/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt same and in turn told Smt. Khatunbi that not to worry about the same as they had gone for a picnic, they might come late.As Adil did not return upto 23.11.1984, Smt. Razia (PW-1) lodged a missing report on 23.11.1984 with the Kherwadi police station bearing no.51 of 1984 which is at Exhibit-::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::(ii) In the meanwhile, on 16.11.1984 at about 7.45 a.m., Pandu Parade (PW-14), a resident of the village Durvesh, Taluka-Palghar, District-Thane saw the dead body of a male person, when he went to attend the nature's call.He thereafter reported the said fact to the police patil of the village.The police patil in turn informed the said fact to Manor police station within whose jurisdiction the dead body was found.That Sayeed Ahmed Haji Abdul Razak Mistry was her distant relative from her mother's side.That Adil Rashid wanted to set up his own business.Adil started his business with a partner namely Shere Khan at Gilber Road, Andheri, Mumbai.That the business of her brother Adil was prospered in due course of time and therefore the original accused no.4 and his sons i.e. accused nos.1 and 2 developed jealousy.The original accused no.4 threatened Adil for the same and administered threats of dire consequences.PW-1 thereafter told accused no.4 that she will try to persuade her brother Adil to give up his work.That the name of fiancée of Adil was Rana Kaushal and Adil was engaged with her.Adil used to keep her photograph with him.Adil used to give his earnings to his mother Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3).That on 15.11.1984 at about 11.30 a.m., Adil came to home from the Bank with Rs.900/- Adil gave Rs.750/- to his mother (PW-3) and kept Rs.150/- for his pocket ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 11/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt expenses.He informed PW-1 and PW-3 that he was going to National Park for a picnic with accused persons.The said accused no.2 was accompanying Adil on that relevant time.They were going to National Park by a car.The car was parked outside her house on the road.The said car was of chocolate colour.That the accused nos.1 and 3 were also present there.At that time her mother Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3) also told Adil that she will also accompany him, however, accused no.2 Jamil told her that the car is not in proper condition.Adil was carrying money purse containing Rs.150/- and a photograph of his fiancée and also railway season ticket.On 22.11.1984 her mother met her sister Zarina (PW-2) in hospital, when her mother complained Zarina that Adil did not return home.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::On 24.11.1984 Zarina asked original accused no.4 Sayeed Mistry the whereabouts of Adil.She received anonymous telephone call that the accused nos.1 and 2 are at Meerut.She informed the said fact to the Missing Persons Bureau.Therefore the police officer sent one constable alongwith her husband to Meerut.She registered FIR (Exhibit-9) at Kherwadi police station, Bandra, Mumbai thereby expressing suspicion against the appellants being responsible for disappearance of her brother Adil Rashid.On 1.2.1985, she came to know that her brother Adil was killed and accused nos.1 to 3 were arrested by the police.She identified various articles belonging to deceased Adil in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that on 15.11.1984 when her brother Adil had gone with accused person and not returned home, her mother neither told her nor PW-1 suspected any foul-play in the same.7 PW-2 is Zarina Noor Mohd. She has deposed that PW-1 Razia was her distant relative.The original accused no.4 was husband of her sister.She has deposed that on 16.11.1984, late in the night, the accused nos. 1 and 2 had been to her house.They were wearing shirt and pant.As the accused nos.1 and 2 had been to her house late in the night, she asked about the same to which the accused no.2 Jamil replied that they had come in the area to recover money.They stayed at her house as usual and left in the morning.Again in the afternoon accused no.2 Jamil came to her house, took meals and left the place.Thereafter she contacted accused no.4 on phone and asked him whether he had driven out his children.Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3) informed her that her son Adil had gone with Jamil (accused no.2) and Zahir (accused no.1).8 PW-3 is Smt. Khatunbi Shaikh, the mother of deceased Adil Rashid.PW-3 has deposed that she was having six children.Out of them four were daughters and two were sons.Out of four daughters, three ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 15/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt daughters were residing with their respective husbands and fourth daughter namely Razia (PW-1) though married was residing with her along with family.The original accused no.4 was husband of her sister and he was distantly related to her.The accused no.4 was having welding factory at Jogeshwari (West).When her husband died, her son Adil was of 10 years of age.That the accused no.4 earlier used to pay Rs.20/- per day to Adil when he was working on probation and after Adil learnt the work, the accused no.4 and his sons were asking him to do any sort of work.Although Adil used to work for long time, he was being paid very less.Therefore her son Adil started his own business of welding in partnership at Gilbert Road, near Bhavans College, Andheri.Though her son started his business and had hardly completed one month, his business was lucrative.After Adil started his own business, a period of 15 days thereafter, the accused no.4 came to her house and threatened her son by asking him not to work in partnership but to work with him (accused no.4).::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::Her son Adil refused to do so.When her son came to know that his customer had given a cheque to accused no.4 for the work which he had done, he (Adil) went to accused ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 16/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt no.4 and collected it from him.Her deceased son went to bank to collect the said amount under the said cheque.He went to the bank at about 10 a.m. and returned at 11.00 a.m. After Adil brought back the said cheque, the accused no.4 visited her house and threatened her that she should warn Adil to behave properly otherwise its result will be unpalatable.PW-3 told accused no.4 that Adil was not interfering with his work and was doing his own work independently.On 15.11.1984 Adil came home alongwith accused no.2 Jamil from the bank.Thereafter accused no.2 Jamil told Adil to accompany him for an outing to National Park at Borivali.The accused no.1 Zahir and another friend were also with him.They were sitting in the car parked on the road.The said car was of chocolate colour.PW-3 also told them that she would accompany them, when accused no.1 said that he along with Adil and Jamil are going to National Park for outing and that the car is not in proper condition.Thereafter they went out of the house.After some time Adil (deceased) came and gave her Rs.900/- and said that if he carries the entire amount, the accused persons would spent all the money.He kept Rs.150/- out of Rs.900/- with him.10 PW-5 is Mr. Kishor Dadhich, a Travel Agent from whom the accused no.1 Zahir had taken Ambassador car, which was allegedly used in the present crime.At that time he owned a vehicle, an Ambassador car bearing no.It was cherry blossom (chocolate) in colour.He used to give the said car on hire basis.That on 12.11.1984 the accused nos.1 and 2 called upon him along with his mechanic Farooq at about 11.30 a.m. to 12 noon.Farooq informed PW-5 that accused nos.1 and 2 wanted his car on hire basis as the family members of the accused nos.1 and 2 wanted to go to Haji Malang.Farooq also informed that they do not want any driver.Farooq took the responsibility of ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 20/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt bringing back the said car.The accused nos.1 and 2 took the car on 13.11.1984 at about 9.00 a.m. PW-5 made necessary entry in the movement register.On 15.11.1984 also the said car did not return.On 16.11.1984 he received telephone call from accused no.1 to the effect that the car had gone out of order at Vapi and he should sent his mechanic to get it repaired.On 16.11.1984 at about 5 p.m. the accused nos.1 and 2 along with another person called upon him.They reported that "some problem had occurred at their hands and police are behind them".When he asked them what they mean by problem, to which they stated that "a murder had taken place at their hands and that he should not discuss the said fact to anybody else".Thereafter the accused nos.1 to 3 left his place by saying that his car was at Advent Pharma at Vapi and he should bring it back to Mumbai.That after half an hour, the accused no.1 again came to him and told him to give his mechanic so that he will get the said car repaired.After 15 minutes said Subash Singh returned and told him that Zahir had left him and was not traceable.PW-5 thereafter contacted Farooq and took the residential address of the accused persons.17 PW-10 is Bahadursingh Ramsingh, a peon who was working in the Advent Pharma Co. at GIDC, Vapi.That accused no.1 was one of the workers of Advent Pharma Co. and he was working in Fabrication department.That accused no.1 was working for 10-15 days in the fabrication department of Advent Pharma Co. That accused no.1 come one day in the company at about 10 a.m. in an Ambassador car of brown/chocolate colour bearing no.That accused no.1 wanted to meet Iqbal Bhai, Manager of the company.That Iqbal Bhai was not present on that day.At that time, Mr. Kavishwar (PW-11) the Plant Manager and Mr. Sudame the cashier were present.That he was called on 4.3.1985 at Kherwadi Police station and he identified the accused no.3 in the identification parade.APEAL.162-1995.odt 18 PW-11 is Jagannath Kavishwar, Officer of Advent Pharma Company.PW-14 in his testimony has stated that he was residing at Palghar since his childhood.On 16.11.1984 at about 7.45 a.m. in the morning while he was coming from Kharadpada Road to answer the nature's call, he saw the dead body of a male person.At that time one Ramji Waghan was with him.He told said Ramji to wait near the spot.PW-14 went to report about the dead body to the police patil of the village namely Janardhan Patil and Sarpanch Suresh Samre.He contacted them and reported the matter orally to them.The dead body was of a stranger.He saw tyre marks of a light motor vehicle towards the direction of Mumbai at the said spot.He alongwith other inspected the dead body and found black mark on his neck of strangulation by the string.20 PW-15 is Laxman Deshmukh, Police Sub Inspector then attached to Manor Police station.PW-15 has deposed that on 16.11.1984 at about 9.45 a.m. Police Patil Janardhan Patil of Durvesh village came to the police station and lodged his complaint.He recorded the statement and treated it as First Information Report and registered a crime bearing CR No.196 of 1984 under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (Exhibit-56).He conducted the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 52) and scene of ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 30/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt offence panchanama (Exhibit-53).He seized one stone and pieces of strings (Articles 11 and 12 respectively).He called a photographer and took photographs of the dead body and the spot.PW-15 sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre at Masvan, Taluka Palghar, District-Thane.He recorded the statements of Pandu Parade (PW-14) and other witnesses.After receipt of the postmortem notes, the dead body was disposed off on 19.11.1984 as per Muslim religious rites.The Police Constable brought the clothes of the deceased viz. full pant-white in colour, a full shirt with black and red lines and blood stains and an underwear white in colour.The said clothes were taken charge by the Head Constable Shri Patil by effecting seizure panchanama (Exhibit-57).That on 2.2.1985 Police Inspector Shri Khambe and PSI Shri Khan of Kherwadi police station came to Manor police station along with the arrested accused persons.The said accused persons were concerned with CR No.196/1984 registered at Manor Police station.PW-20 has deposed that on 16.11.1984 at about 2.30 p.m. the dead body of unknown person was brought from village Durvesh by the police from Manor Police station.He performed the postmortem on the said dead body between 3.00 and 5.00 p.m. on that date.That the dead body was of a male person of age 25 years and might be from Muslim community.The dead body was having full shirt with brown and chocolate colour strips and light green spots and also ash coloured full pant and a white brief underwear inside.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::The clothes were in dry condition.The shirt was having blood stains which was oozing from nostrils.The Rigor Mortis was absent.The tongue was inside the mouth and blood stained fluid oozing from nostrils.There were no external injuries to genitals and penis was circumcised.During the course of postmortem, he observed and noticed the following things:"All four limbs were in extended position.Fists were open and fingers partially flexedat the interphalyngeal joints.No sand or earth under the nails.23 PW-19 is Abdul Kadar A. Khan, PSI then attached to Kherwadi Police station.PW-19 has deposed that on 23.11.1984 at about 6.40 p.m. one Mrs. Razia Khan (PW-1) came to police station and lodged a missing complaint of her brother.The same was entered at serial no.51 of 1984 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 34/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt (Exhibit-8).On 27.11.1984 he received instructions from the Senior Inspector of Police to conduct detailed enquiry in the matter and accordingly he recorded statements of Razia (PW-1) and Zarina (PW-2) and accused no.4 and submitted a report to the Senior Inspector of Police.1 The appellants, original accused nos.1 to 3, have questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 31 st March 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No.264 of 1985 thereby convicting them, firstly under Section 120-B simplicitor and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and secondly under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life by each of the appellants and thirdly under Section 120-B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year each.The Trial Court has ordered that the sentence passed under Section 120-B simplicitor and under Section 120-B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence awarded under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.By the same judgment and order, the Trial Court has acquitted the appellants nos.1 to 3 from the charge under Section 120-B read with Section 364 of ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 3/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt the Indian Penal Code.The said judgment and order dated 31 st March 1995 is impugned herein.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::In view of the fact that the original accused no.4 Sayeed Ahmed Haji Abdul Razak Mistry is dead, the proceedings against him stood abated.For the sake of brevity, the appellants named hereinabove will be referred to with their original accused numbers, as they were before the Trial Court.2 The facts which enumerates from record and are necessary for deciding the present appeal can briefly be stated thus:Adil gave Rs.750/- to her mother Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3) and kept Rs.150/- for his pocket expenses.Adil told Razia and Smt. Khatunbi that he along with the appellants was going to National Park for a picnic.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::In pursuance of F.I.R. lodged by police patil Shri Janardhan Bhaskar Patil of Durvesh village, P.S.I. Shri Laxman Deshmukh (PW-15) registered a crime bearing CR No.196 of 1984 under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown person.PW-15 Shri Laxman Deshmukh drew inquest panchanama (Exhibit-52) and also scene of offence panchanama (Exhibit-53).From the scene of offence he also seized pieces of strings.He sent the dead body for conducting postmortem examination to the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre at Masvan, Taluka Palghar, District Thane.After conducting the postmortem examination, the body of ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 6/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt the said unknown person was buried as per Islam religion/ rites, as the police and the doctor who conducted autopsy formed the opinion that the deceased person was professing Islam religion.The pieces of strings (Article-11 Colly.) were preserved by PW-15 for the purpose of investigation.The clothes which were on the person of the deceased were taken charge by drawing a seizure panchanama (Exhibit 57).The said clothes were namely a full pant-white in colour, a full shirt with black and red lines and blood stains (Article-2) and underwear white in colour (Article-10).::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::(iii) On 18.1.1985, Smt. Razia Sultana (PW-1) registered First Information Report with the Kherwadi Police station, Bandra, Mumbai bearing CR No.33 of 1985 (Exhibit-9) thereby expressing suspicion against the appellant nos.1 and 2 being responsible for the disappearance of her brother Adil Rashid.The investigation of the said crime was handed over to P.S.I. Shri Abdul Kadar A. Khan (PW-19).The crime was initially registered under Sections 365 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.PW-19 PSI Shri Khan conducted investigation.PW-19 PSI Shri Khan assisted PW-21 Shri Bhimrao Khambe in the further investigation.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::(iv) That after receipt of necessary reports from various agencies and after completion of investigation, PW21 Shri Bhimrao Khambe submitted chargesheet in the Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 120-B read with Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.As the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Trial Court committed the said case to the Court of Sessions as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.The said charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they denied.The defence of the accused persons was of total denial.With a view to establish its case, the prosecution examined in all 21 witnesses.The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case, convicted and sentenced the accused persons by the impugned judgment and order dated 31st March 1995 as stated hereinabove.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::APEAL.162-1995.odt 3 Heard Ms. Prabha Mane the learned Counsel for the appellants and Smt. V.R. Bhonsale, the learned APP for the Respondent-State and with their assistance we have perused the entire record of the present case.4 The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the theory of 'last seen together' in view of the settled legal position.That the time when the appellants were last seen with the deceased Adil Rashid and the finding of the dead body of Adil by different police station on the next day is after substantial lapse of time.That the time gap between the last seen together and finding of the dead body is too large and the prosecution has failed to put forth the cogent evidence that there is nobody else who might be responsible for committing murder of Adil Rashid.She further submitted that Smt. Razia Sultana (PW-1) while filing the missing report on 23.11.1984 did not give any specific name of any of the accused persons and did not express any suspicion against the appellants.She further submitted that though PW-15 Police Officer Mr. Laxman Deshmukh from Manor Police station was examined by the prosecution, the photograph of the deceased Adil Rashid was not shown to him thereby proving the identity of the deceased Adil beyond reasonable doubt.She further contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is of such weak nature that the entire link of ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 9/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt circumstances is not established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the appellants cannot be held guilty for want of cogent and proper legal evidence.She therefore urged before us that the present appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted from all charges framed/levelled against them.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::Per contra, the learned APP submitted that though the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved the motive behind the present crime.She further submitted that the appellants were last seen together with the deceased Adil and thereafter deceased was not traceable for substantial period.She further submitted that the appellant nos.1 and 2 have gave extra judicial confession to PW-5 Kishor Dadhich.That the incriminating articles were discovered at the instance of accused nos.2 and 3 which were belonging to the deceased.She lastly contended that the prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances.She therefore prayed that the conviction and sentence of the appellants may be upheld and the present appeal may be dismissed.5 With a view to appreciate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State, it is necessary to advert in brief, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.6 PW-1 is Smt. Razia the elder sister of the deceased Adil Rashid.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::APEAL.162-1995.odt PW-1 has deposed that she was married and her husband was doing embroidery work.That in the year 1984 she was residing with her mother Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3).She had two brothers namely Adil Rashid (deceased) and Shaha Nawaz.Adil was working as a welder with the original accused no.4 Sayeed Ahmed Haji Abdul Razak Mistry.She has admitted that she had seen accused no.3 at Bandra Court for the first time.She has further admitted that in her statement dated 27.11.1984 (23.11.1984), she had neither given the names of the accused persons nor described them.That she did not disclose to the police the description of the car or its make and or its number or its colour as she was in disturbed state of mind on 27.11.1984 (23.11.1984).By this, the defence has in fact brought on record the improvement in the evidence of PW-1 Razia Khan.The further contradiction that she did not state in any ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 13/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt of her statements that Zarina told her mother that on 16.11.1984 the accused nos.1 and 2 and one more person had come to her house with torn clothes on their person has been brought on record.She has further admitted that when she came to the door of her house on the date of incident, she had a glance (zalak) towards road and she saw three boys in the car.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::Thereafter for a period of three to four days continuously the accused no.2 Jamil used to come to her house.On 22.11.1984 she had been to the hospital wherein she met Khatunbi, the mother of deceased Adil.PW-2 asked Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3) whether the accused nos.1 and 2 have been driven out of the house ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 14/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt by their father.PW-2 informed PW-3 that accused no.2 and another person had been to her house.Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3) waited to the house of PW-2 till 11.00 p.m. on that date for accused no.2 Jamil.The accused persons did not come to her house.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::That on 23.11.1984 Smt. Khatunbi (PW-3) came with Razia (PW-1) to her house and made enquiry about Adil Rashid (deceased).She identified accused no.3 Guddu as the said same person who had visited her house on the night with Jamil (accused no.2).After Adil (deceased) went outside the house with accused no.2 Jamil, she saw that accused no.1 Zahir was standing near the steering wheel of the car and one more person was sitting ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 17/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt on the rear side of the car.As Adil did not return home till 16.11.1984 she made enquiry with his partner Shera Khan to which Shera Khan replied that he does not know the whereabouts of Adil and he is also waiting for him.She made enquiry with accused no.4 about Adil.At that time accused no.4 informed her that he received telephone call from his son Jamil that their car had broken down at Vapi and after it was repaired, they would come back.On 22.11.1984 Zarina (PW-2) met her in hospital and informed that in the night of 16.11.1984 Jamil (accused no.2) was at her house with another boy and stayed in the night.On 23.11.1984 she went to the house of accused no.4 and enquired about Adil to which accused no.4 expressed his ignorance about the same.She informed the said fact to the police.Thereafter her son-in-law Akhtar Khan (husband of PW-1 Razia) and a police constable went to Delhi for making enquiry and returned after a week.Zahir (accused no.1) and Jamil (accused no.2) were arrested by Meerut police and during the enquiry they told that after picnic they dropped Adil at Andheri.Police arrested accused nos.1 and 2 from a Bidi Shop at Nagpada.The police thereafter showed her two photographs which were of Adil (deceased).She identified the said photographs and the person therein.She thereafter attended Kherwadi police station and identified the ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 18/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt articles of her deceased son.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::That she and her daughter saw the chocolate colour car from distance of about 10 to 12 feet.She did not give description about another boy who was accompanied by accused nos.1 andShe had further admitted that she did not tell the police that her son Adil was having purse (article-3) and its contents.She has further admitted that in the year 1983 her son Adil consumed poison and he was treated in Cooper Hospital at Vile Parle.This witness has deposed that accused no.1 made memorandum statement which is at Exhibit 16 and in pursuance thereof car having chocolate colour was shown by accused no.1 which was owned by PW-5 Kishor Dadhich.The discovery panchanama is at Exhibit 16-A. He further deposed that the said car was of chocolate in colour and he did not recollect the make of the said car.That it was night time and he did not see the car number.That the doors of the said car were locked.He further deposed that today he will not be able to identify the said car as he ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 ::: 19/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt had seen it during the night time.That he will also not be able to identify the master (owner) of the said car to whom the accused no.1 Zahir had pointed out because of lapse of nearly 10 years.When the car (article-9) was shown to this witness he has deposed that from the number plates, the number of the car and seats which were black in colour was the same car which was seen by him at J.B. Nagar compound, Andheri as the same Ambassador car.He has further deposed that the said car was in chocolate colour and now it is white in colour.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:16 :::He narrated the incident to the father of accused nos.1 and 2 and also the fact ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 21/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt about their committal of murder.The accused no.4 requested PW-5, not to lodged complaint to the police as the name of his family will be tarnished.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::The accused no.4 subsequently gave him authority letter to bring the car back from Advent Pharma company at Vapi.The accused no.4 gave a letter in hand writing addressed to one Mr. Kavishwar of Advent Pharma company saying that he should take Rs.100/- from the person and give the car.That on 19.11.1984 PW-5 went to Vapi and met Mr. Kavishwar (PW-11) at Advent Pharma.PW-5 paid Rs.100/- to Mr. Kavishwar to which he (PW-11) passed a receipt for the same.PW-5 took the keys of the car and came back to Mumbai.He kept the car at J.B. Nagar, Andheri in garage.That during the course of investigation the police seized his car.That on 16.3.1985 he was called by Kherwadi Police station for identification.He identified the accused no.3 as a person who had come with accused nos.1 and 2 on 16.11.1984 to threatened him.In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he did not recollect, whether he had made statement before the police that he told them that the accused nos.1 and 2 had come to him and they had taken his car.That they had committed murder and that they had not returned his car.That he did not recollect that the accused persons had taken his mechanic and left him in the way.That he did not recollect whether he should report ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 22/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt to the police about the said incident.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::11 PW-6 is Hashmatali Sayyed, a panch-witness to the spot which was pointed out by the accused no.1 where according to the prosecution the ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 23/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt appellants had thrown the dead body of Adil Rashid (deceased).This witness has proved the memorandum panchanama (Exhibit-28) and the spot panchanama (Exhibit-28-A).::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that there were about 25 huts where the jeep was halted near the spot and the police did not make any enquiry with the hutment dwellers in his presence.The accused no.3 Abdul @ Guddu in presence of this witness made a demonstration that a pant which was found on the dead body of Adil Rashid fits him.It is the case of the prosecution that after committing the murder of Adil, a full pant of Adil was worn by the accused no.3 and accused no.3 in turn put on his pant on the dead body of Adil.It is to be noted here that the clothes which were found on the dead body of Adil were already in possession of the police and the aforesaid demonstration in presence of PW-7 according to us is a redundant and futile exercise to connect the link in the chain of circumstances.According to us the evidence of this witness cannot be taken into consideration for connecting alleged link of chain of circumstances put forth by the prosecution.It appears from the evidence of this witness that a pant which was recovered in the presence of this witness, which according to the prosecution was of Adil was not shown to any of the witnesses for its ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 24/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt identification.We therefore keep aside the evidence of this witness from our consideration.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::This witness has deposed that on 20.3.1985 at the instance of accused no.2 a wallet of deceased which he had thrown in the adjoining company of Advent Pharma was discovered at his instance.At the instance of accused no.3 four nylon pieces of strings, 8 to 9 pieces of torn railway ticket were discovered from an open ground of the Advent Pharma company wherein the grass had grown upto 1 and ½ feet.The accuse no.3 also produced 4 to 5 torn pieces of a photograph of a girl from the said place.In the same process the accused no.2 also discovered a wallet of the deceased from an open space.PW-8 has stated that there was nala at that place and accused no.2 jumped over the said nala and went inside the compound from the side of nala.That there was grass at the said place.That the accused no.2 jumped over the barbed-wire and went inside the compound.The said place was opposite of Advent Pharma Company.This witness did not recollect the name of the company.The accused no.2 searched for the wallet and traced it out.In the wallet there was visiting card having writing something like Shera Company or Shera Welding.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::There is another aspect of the Exhibits 33 and 33-A. The memorandum panchanama of accused nos.2 and 3 is a joint memorandum which is at Exhibits 33 and in pursuance of the joint memorandum panchanama, the said articles were discovered.It further appears to us that the discovery at the instance of accused nos.2 and 3 though projected as a separate discovery is in fact a joint discovery and according to us is not safe to rely upon it.We may note here that the police officer who effected the discovery in pursuance of joint ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 26/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt memorandum statements which is Exhibit 33 is ignorant about legal implications of joint discovery at the instance of accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::14 PW-9 is Jogabhai Patel, the owner of the hotel adjacent to Advent Pharma Company at GIDC, Vapi.It appears that this witness has been examined with a view to establish the fact that four months prior to 20.3.1985 the accused persons had been to his hotel early in the morning.15 PW-13 is Jayant Aher, the hand-writing expert who has examined the letter given by accused no.4 in favour of Mr. Jagannath Kavishwar (PW-11) for releasing the car by PW-5 Kishor Dadhich.As the accused no.4 is expired and the case against him stood abated, the evidence of this witness cannot be taken into consideration from the point of deciding the present appeal.16 PW-16 is Haji Abdul Bidiwala from whose shop the accused nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 31.1.1985 by the police.This witness has failed to identify the accused persons in the Court.The record discloses that the statements of aforesaid three witnesses i.e. PW-16, PW-17 and PW-18 came to be recorded after lapse of 10 years and just prior to the commencement of the trial and therefore it ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 27/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt creates strong doubt in our mind about the reliability of their evidence and we refrain ourselves from taking into consideration the evidence of these three witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the accused no.1 came to the company and accused nos.2 and 3 were sitting in the Hotel of PW-9 Jogabhai Patel.He has further admitted that he did not ask accused no.1 as to what work he had with Iqbal Bhai.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::He has deposed that on 11.11.1984 at about 10 a.m. accused no.1 came in the office of the factory and enquired about the Manager Iqbal Bhai.That Iqbal Bhai was not present in the factory.That the accused no.1 came in an Ambassador car having chocolate colour.The said car was parked outside the gate and later on it was brought in the company.That the accused no.1 waited for Iqbal , however, Iqbal did not come to the office.The accused no.1 wanted some money for going to Mumbai.The accused no.1 took Rs.100/- from the Accountant Shri Sudame and thereafter went away.The accused no.1 kept the said car in the compound.After two days they received telephone call from the accused no.4 that he is sending Rs.100/- with the person to collect the car.The accused no.4 gave authority letter on his letter-head.On 20.11.1984 at about 11.00 a.m. Mr. Kumar came to collect the car.Mr. Kumar first met Sudame to pay Rs.100/-.He showed the authority letter to him.After reading the said letter, it was revealed that the car was to be collected by one Kishorbhai.He handed over the possession of the said car to Kishorbhai.In the cross-examination, this witness has identified that the said person Kumar (PW-5) who had came to his Company earlier.He has ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 29/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt admitted that he did not know whether his Company maintains correspondence file or not.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::He handed over the case papers and articles pertaining to CR registered at Manor police station to the officer from Kherwadi police station for further investigation.On 4.31985, his statement was recorded by Police Inspector Khambe (PW-21).::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::21 PW-20 is Dr. Subhash S. Patil, the then Medical Officer at ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 31/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt Masvan Primary Health Centre, Taluka Palghar, District-Thane.Face:-(Petachial Hemorrhage, defined as susbastaneoius hemorrhage and ranging from 2 m.m. to 3.mm incise.Petaehial hemorrhage over the lower half of the face.Both eye lids were swollen and black in colour, skin of the face was congusted.Conjunctival hemorrhages were present.Eye bolls were appeared to be protruded Neck: Ligature mark was seen on the neck in between the laryn and the chin as a dark ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 32/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt brown depression.The length of which was about 33 cm.About 9 cm of posterior surface of the neck was without the mark.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::Breadth of the ligature mark was 2 cm in the anterior surface of the neck in between the two sterno cledomstords just above the thyroid cartilage.(Sterno cledomastords is the name of a muscle of the neck which is situated in the anterior surface of the neck, the attachment of muscle be mastoid process and the midea end the collar bone.Laterally the mark was branching of both sides of the neck.Three separate ligature marks were seen braching from the left lateral end of the ligature mark, as, dark drown depression crossing each other.Abrasions and bruises.Multiple present over anterior surface of neck, round about the ligature mark and lower half of the face in the form of small round and oval patches.Some bruises were also seen over upper part of chest anteriorly, and there colour was brown.Another injuries was noted.Small intestine contained completely digested liquid flood.Large intestine contained matter.Liver was congusted.Spleen and kidneys were congusted.Bladder was empty."After conducting the postmortem examination, PW-20 was of the opinion that cause of the death was Asphyxia due to strangulations.In question put by the Court, PW-20 has stated that the injures present over the neck in the form of ligature mark had been caused by ligature or a string or rope.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::APEAL.162-1995.odt He had further stated that injures noted in the postmortem examination might be caused due to strings like Article-14 shown to him.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::He also sent wireless messages to all the police stations pertaining to said Adil Rashid.That on 12.12.1984 the accused no.4 met him and informed that the accused nos.1 and 2 were also missing with Adil Rashid and were traced by Civil Line Police Station, Meerut and they had been released on bail by his younger brother.That on 15.12.1984 he received letter from the Senior Inspector of Police Missing Persons Bureau, Crime Branch that the said officer has conducted enquiry into the matter and submitted a report (Exhibit-69).In the said report, it was stated that when Civil Line Police Station, Meerut enquired with Zahir and Jamil (accused nos.1 and 2), it was informed to them by the accused persons that the missing person (Adil) departed with them from Andheri Railway station on the said date.That on 19.1.1985 under the orders of Superiors he registered CR No.33 of 1985 under Sections 365 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused nos.1 and 2 at Kherwadi police station.The said FIR is at Exhibit-PW-19 thereafter went to Meerut and Delhi in search of Adil.However, Adil was not found.But they were ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 35/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt also not found.That when he contacted Civil Line Police Station, Meerut, the officer therein informed him that on 28.1.1985 the accused no.4 took the custody of his sons (accused nos.1 and 2) and promised to produce them at Mumbai.That on 31.1.1985 at about 6.30 p.m. he arrested accused nos.1 and 2 from the shop of Haji Abdul Bidiwala (PW-16).That the further investigation was handed over to Police Inspector Shri Khambe (PW-21) to whom PW-19 assisted in the case.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::24 PW-21 is Shri Bhimrao Khambe, Police Inspector then attached to Kherwadi Police station.PW-21 has deposed that on 1.2.1985 he took over the further investigation of CR No.33 of 1985 registered at Kherwadi police station from PSI Shri Khan (PW-19) as per the orders of the Superior Officer.He collected the papers of investigation.PSI Shri Khan (PW-19) assisted him in the said case.On 2.2.1985 the accused no.1 made voluntary statement and expressed his willingness to show the place where the dead body of Adil was thrown.The accused nos.1 and 2 led the police to village Durvesh village on Western Express Highway near the mile stone no.443/4 and accused no.1 pointed out the place where the body was thrown.The accused no.1 thereafter led the police to the Advent Pharma Co. at ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 36/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt Vapi and pointed out the person namely Kavishwar (PW-11).This witness has deposed about various facts pertaining to the steps taken by him during the course of investigation upto the stage of filing of chargesheet in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::(4) abscondance after the alleged commission of crime/going to Meerut and staying there;(5) destruction of evidence;(6) incriminating articles discovered at the instance of accused nos.2 and 3 29 In the present case the identity of deceased Adil Rashid is not in dispute as the mother of deceased (PW-3) had identified and admitted the photograph of Adil in her testimony.30 The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 39/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt present case the chain of circumstances has not been proved by the prosecution and it has been broken at various stages and therefore the benefit of doubt may be advanced to the accused persons.She has further submitted that as the place of recovery of dead body was not in exclusive possession of the accused persons, the accused persons cannot be held responsible for the same.State of Maharashtra.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::31 It is to be noted here that the deceased was last seen together with the accused person by PW Nos.1 and 3 i.e. sister and mother of the deceased Adil.These witnesses have stated that on 15.11.1984 at about 11.30 a.m. they saw Adil in the company of accused persons in chocolate colour Ambassador car.It is to be noted here that these witnesses have not given any specific and/or distinctive features and/or number of the said car at the inception to the police.As far as PW-1 Razia is concerned, it has been brought on record by the defence that the description given by her is an omission.PW-4 is a panch-witness to the discovery of car at the instance of accused persons, has stated that when he saw the car in the Court it was a white colour car.Thus a person who due to darkness could ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 40/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt not see the registration number or make of car and could not have seen the colour of seats in it as doors were locked, identifies it after 10 years due to its number plate though its colour was changed.This identification of car (Art.9) is after 10 years.Identity of car in this matter is the most important link.Even its owner PW-5 - Kishore or then PW-10 - Bahadursingh (Peon at Advent Pharma) are not asked to identify it.PW-11 - Kavishwar, a Chemist at Advent Pharma who speaks about visit of accused Zahir on 16.11.1984, though gives registration number of car, does not depose that he saw that car in company premises.In xerox copy of visit book dated 19.11.1984, visit of PW-5 appears to be recorded as visit by one Kishore Sharma.Thus, last name of PW5 is not correctly recorded.Even entry of visit of Zahir on 16.11.1984 appears to be not proper.Name Zahir appears to be stated later on and at end vehicle number is also written.PW-11 mentions this visit book as inward register and its original is not produced by the prosecution.Thus, the entire evidence is not convincing to conclude visit of Zahir to M/s.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::Advent Pharma on 16.11.1984 or leaving of a car by him there.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::In the present case, the deceased was last seen in the company of accused persons on 15.11.1984 at 11.30 a.m. The dead body was found/noticed on 16.11.1984 at about 7.30 a.m to 7.45 a.m. by Pandu Parade (PW-14) at village Durvesh, Tal-Palghar District-Thane.In view of the ration laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam & Ors (supra) the time gap between last seen together and finding of dead body is too long to hold the appellants guilty for the murder of Adil on the said count, only on the basis of last seen together theory.It is to be noted here that the accused persons have since beginning taken consistent stand that they departed with Adil at Andheri railway station.The said fact can also be enumerated from Exhibit 69 a letter written by the Senior Inspector of Police of Missing Persons Bureau to the Senior Inspector of Police of Kherwadi Police station.In our considered opinion, the appellants cannot ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 42/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt be held guilty for and only on this count.The prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the possibility of any other person other than the accused persons committing the murder of Adil, cannot be ruled out by leading succinct and cogent evidence in that behalf.It is also to be noted here that though the accused no.1 in presence of PW-6 pointed out the place where the dead body of Adil was thrown, the police of Manor police station were already aware of the said spot and therefore pointing of place by the accused no.1 loses its significance.The lapse of non-coordination between the two investigating agencies cannot be held to be an aggravating circumstance against the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::32 As far as the alleged motive behind the crime i.e. deceased Adil has separated from accused no.4 and started his own business, the newly started business of Adil was flourished and therefore the accused persons were having jealousy against the deceased Adil.State of Punjab wherein in paragraph-13 the Supreme ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 43/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt Court has held as under:::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::Thus merely because the accused persons were absconding after a particular date itself cannot be treated as determining factor and their guilt in the present ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 ::: 44/46 APEAL.162-1995.odt offence.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::PW-5 was neither their friend nor of acquaintance with whom they can easily make confession.It is further worth to be noted that even after the accused persons made confession with the said PW-5, PW-5 did not report to the police immediately.The evidence depicts the picture that the said articles were in proper condition as if they were new.It is therefore very unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW-8 and those contemporaneous documents Exhibits 33 and 33-A (discovery panchanama) for basing the conviction of the accused persons on the said circumstance.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::APEAL.162-1995.odt 36 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellants satisfactorily and beyond all reasonable doubts.We therefore give benefit of doubt to the appellants and allow the present appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants.The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2015 00:00:17 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No.444 of 2020 under Sections 354-Kha, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act 2012, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Unnao.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

are primary teachers in Zilla Parishad, Dhule.It is the case of the applicant that the respondent No. 1 filed complaint under section 504, 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(x) (Prevention of Scheduled of Castes Atrocities) Act, and Scheduled 1989 Tribes (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule bearing Special Case No. 93/1998, alleging that the complainant Tryambak since last 2 years serving as teacher at Nilghavan.The present applicant is first assistant teacher.It is further alleged that the Headmaster of the school is under the influence of present applicant, therefore, even if the complainant came late in the school only by two or four minutes, the applicant used to show him absent in the absence of Headmaster.On 16.1.1998 complainant was asked by Headmaster Shri.Yadhav-Patil in presence of students.ORAL JUDGMENT .::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::witnessed by one Pitamber Keru and Kamalabai Razar.the On complaint 17.1.1998 the applicant again with his life.The complainant threatened filed complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, apprehending danger to his life.The complainant left the school for 15 days and extended leave for three and half months.However, it was not possible further to extend the leave.The complainant went to village Sakri and asked accused No.2 G.N.Patil, Block Development Officer, to allow him to join the duties.At that time, the accused No. 2 asked the complainant for withdrawing his complaint filed with Deputy Superintendent of Police and then only he will be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 ::: ( 4 ) allowed to join the services.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::It is further case of the complainant that the Senior Officers have directed for not to pay salary of the complainant.In such a situation, on 1st June, 1998 complainant went to Sakri Police Station for filing a complaint.But, the P.S.O. refused to take out the complaint.It is further case of the complainant that he has also filed application with C.E.O. and Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, even then no complainant salary was paid to the complainant is allowed to join his services.nor On the all these allegations, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District & Sessions Judge and Special Court, Dhule.The learned Sessions Judge after examining the witnesses, directed the office to register the complaint filed by the complainant after following due process.By order dated 27.8.1998 the Sessions Court held that the Special Court is competent to take cognizance of the complaint.The complaint, therefore, be registered by the office after following due process.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::9. Being aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Dhule this Criminal application is filed by the applicant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::Therefore, it is prayed that both the orders dated 27.8.1998 and 9.9.1998, directing to register the complaint and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 ::: ( 7 ) issuance of the process, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Special Case No. 93/1998 may be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 supported the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.In the present case, it is admitted position that the complaint was directly filed before the Sessions Judge and same was directed to be registered and process was issued by the Additional Sessions ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 ::: ( 9 ) Judge.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::In the result, the application is allowed.Orders dated 27.8.1998 and 9.9.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Special Case No. 93/98 are quashed and set aside.However, it is made clear that if the respondent No. 1 wish to file the complaint before the appropriate foram, as permissible in law, he can do so.ig The application is disposed of.[ S.S.SHINDE, J.] ssc/criapln2133.01 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:16 :::

['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.

The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased was living with his mother.Deceased was salesman in a government shop.Appellant and his wife came to the house of the deceased 2 CRA No. 361/2009 at 12 o'clock in the noon.At that time, the deceased was sleeping.They told Kusum Bai (PW-1) wife of the deceased to tell the deceased not to come to their house.On the date of incident, at around 4 o'clock in the morning, wife of the deceased had awaken, at that time appellant Tallu came there.He had a gupti (knife).He had inflicted a blow on the stomach of the deceased.The deceased tried to catch hold of the appellant.Sapna-wife of the appellant Tallu also came there and she had pulled away the appellant.The deceased walked towards the courtyard and fell down.He died after sometime.Report was lodged at police station and offence was registered.The wife of the deceased is a natural witness.Kusum Bai (PW-1) is the wife of the deceased.She deposed that, I was sleeping outside the house on a cot.At around 5 o'clock in the morning, appellant came to our house.He had inflicted a blow on the stomach of my husband by a gupti.Thereafter, my husband (deceased) abused the appellant and clung to him.Thereafter, my husband went towards the courtyard and he fell down.After sometime, one tailor and other persons from the village came there.Those persons had taken my 4 CRA No. 361/2009 husband to the angan (courtyard).He died there.I and my mother-in-law went to police station to lodge the report.Thereafter, police came there.A day prior to the incident, at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, appellant along with his wife Sapna had come to my house and told me to tell my husband not to come to their house.Police prepared the spot map which is Ex. P/3 and I signed the same.Patwari prepared the spot map which is Ex. P/4 and I signed the same.In paragraph 6 of her cross-examination she deposed that my husband had taken out the gupti from his stomach.Some blood was coming out from the injury and some blood was also dropped on the earth.My husband was sleeping on a bed however, there was no blood on the bed.After receiving blow of gupti, my husband clung to the appellant.Thereafter, he walked 15-20 feet on foot then he fell down.Ramkishan Mishra (PW-4) Patwari deposed that I prepared a spot map (Ex. P/4) and signed the same.Ravishankar (PW-5) deposed that I had seen the appellant and his wife were running and appellant had a gupti in his hand.Same facts have been deposed by Kamod Singh (PW-6).Dr. Prakash Rai (PW-7) performed autopsy of the deposed.He deposed that he noticed one injury of 2.5 cm x 1 cm and on internal examination I noticed that there was injury in the intestine and blood was collected in the peritoneal cavity.He further deposed that deceased died due to shock caused by injury.In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that I did not mention in the report that the injury was sufficient to cause death.However, I mentioned the fact that the cause of death was excessive bleeding which was caused due to injury received by the deceased.The main artery of the stomach was cut.He further deposed that I opined that the injury could be caused by the weapon gupti seized from the appellant.I recorded statement of witnesses.The appellant was arrested and on his memorandum Ex. P/6 a gupti was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/7).I signed both the documents.Seized 6 CRA No. 361/2009 articles were sent to FSL.In his cross-examination, he deposed that the body of the deceased was lying in the backside of the temple.I enquired from the neighbors about the incident.But they did not tell anything.He further admitted that the dog squad was called.2) is the mother of the appellant.She deposed that in the morning dead body of the deceased was found and dog was called.(20/02/2018) Per : S.K.Gangele, J :-Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No. 112/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default stipulations.Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence during the trial.2 CRA No. 361/2009The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and awarded sentence as mentioned above.Before the trial Court the appellant and his wife both were prosecuted.The trial Court acquitted Sapna-wife of the appellant from the charges.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no independent witness in the case.The evidence of wife of the deceased is unreliable.There is a dispute 3 CRA No. 361/2009 with regard to place of occurrence.The prosecution has concealed vital evidence.There was no motive.In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC and for the aforesaid offence, the appellant has already undergone sufficient jail sentence.3 CRA No. 361/2009Appellant had entered the house of the deceased.He was armed with weapon.Deceased died on the spot.Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded proper sentence.Wife of the appellant came there and she had taken her husband (appellant) back.4 CRA No. 361/2009From the house of the appellant, a banyan was also seized.5 CRA No. 361/20095 CRA No. 361/2009In paragraph 8, he further deposed that at Sl.No. 6 and 9 mentioned in the spot map (Ex. P/3) I did not notice any blood and I inspected the spot but I did not find any blood traces on the spot.He admitted that he did not file the proceedings of dog squad along with the charge-sheet.6 CRA No. 361/2009He admitted the fact that dog squad was called.Appellant examined two defence witnesses in his support.Jitendra (DW-1) deposed that at around 7-8 in the morning I noticed that dead body of the deceased was lying in front of his house.Later police dog was also brought there.Gulab Bai (DW-Kusum Bai (PW-2) had deposed that appellant had inflicted blow on the stomach of the deceased and thereafter, she told about the incident to her mother-in-law.She was present at the 7 CRA No. 361/2009 time of incident.Report was also lodge by her.The evidence of Kusum Bai (PW-1) wife of the deceased establishes the fact that the appellant had inflicted a blow by gupti.Ravishankar (PW-5) and Kamod Singh (PW-6) corroborated the fact that they had seen the appellant and his wife running.Appellant had a gupti in his hand.They were not normal at that time.These two witnesses have also verified the fact that the appellant was armed with gupti.The gupti was seized from the possession of appellant.As per the FSL report (Ex. P/18) blood was not found on gupti.7 CRA No. 361/2009In our opinion, the evidence produced by the prosecution has established the fact that the appellant had inflicted a blow of gupti on the stomach of the deceased and the trial Court has rightly recorded the aforesaid findings.The next question is what offence the appellant has committed.There is discrepancy in the evidence of Kusum Bai (PW-1) and Investigating Officer (PW-9) with regard to the place of incident.Kusum Bai (PW-1) deposed that she was sleeping outside the house.At that time, appellant had come to their house and inflicted a blow by gupti.She further admitted that some blood had dropped on the spot from the stomach of the deceased 8 CRA No. 361/2009 and thereafter, the deceased had walked upto 15-20 steps and then he fell down.Dr. Prakash Rai (PW-7) who performed the post-mortem of the deceased deposed that he had noticed one piercing injury on the stomach of the deceased.Due to the aforesaid injury, the main artery was cut.The death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding.When the main artery of the stomach was cut, there must be profuse bleeding.Investigating Officer in paragraph 8 deposed that he did not notice any blood at the time of spot inspection.At Sl.No. 6 to 9 mentioned in the spot map (Ex.P/3) he did not notice any blood.This is unnatural.It means that the prosecution has tried to conceal the place of incident because if the place of incident was correct, as mentioned in the spot map (Ex. P/3) and as per the statement of Kusum Bai (PW-1), then there must be some blood found on the spot.Kusum Bai (PW-1) has also deposed that the deceased had abused the appellant and there was scuffle.In that event, the appellant had inflicted a blow of gupti on the person of the deceased.8 CRA No. 361/2009From the possession of the appellant, a gupti was seized which was used for committing the offence.The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and awarded proper sentence.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.12 CRA No. 361/2009

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The allegation against the appellants is that they formed an unlawful assembly in Village Nandpur with a common object of committing the murder of deceased Badri and causing injuries to Goura (P.W. 5) and in pursuance of the said common object, injuries were caused to them.Ultimately Badri died (hereinafter referred to as deceased only) and Goura (P.W. 5) sustained injuries.In nutshell, prosecution story as unfolded during trial is that on 9-9-89 at about 12 noon, two cows belonging to deceased entered into the field of appellants Ramjilal and Badri and damaged the crop of sesame and groundnut which was standing in the field.On this, Badri started taking the cows to cattle pond.Deceased told him not to take the cows to the cattle pond and he is willing to pay the loss.On this, there was wordy quarrel between them.Mother of the deceased has not implicated three accused persons at all.There is no medical evidence that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the deceased himself.He has stated in the FIR that the dispute took place because his two cows had entered into the field of appellants Ramjilal and Badri and had damaged the crop.Thereafter, Ramswaroop armed with Luhangi, Ramjilal, Badri, Chintu, Roshan armed with lathi and Brijmohan bare handed came at the door of his house where Vijay Singh, Buddha Kushwaha, Amar Singh Kushwaha and Lakhu were sitting and talking.Ramswaroop, Ramjilal and Badri caught hold of him in the "Paur" and brought him outside the "Paur".Ramswaroop assaulted by Luhangi on his chest near left rib.Brijmohan slapped him on his cheeks.Ramjilal assaulted by lathi on left side of his neck.Badri also assaulted by lathi on his right cheek.Chintu also assaulted by Lathi on the left side of the ribs and Roshan assaulted by lathi on left side of his neck.When his mother Goura (P.W. 5) came to save him, Badri assaulted her by lathi on her right hand.The incident took place at around 2 PM.Report of the same was lodged at 17.45 hours.The distance of police station from the place of incident was around ten kilometers.Oral dying declaration was also made by the deceased to Birkhu (P.W. 7).He has stated that after receiving information from Parvat Singh about quarrel, he had come at the house of the deceased.At that time, wife of the deceased was giving heat to the chest of deceased.(1) One contusion over left Pectoral region extending upto axilla of size 8 cm x 4cm.(2) One abrasion on right side of chest lower part of size 5 cm x 1 cm.On opening of chest, fractures were found on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rib.Pleura was also found torn.Lakkhu (P.W. 6) was declared hostile but in the cross-examination he has admitted that he had seen the injuries on the body of the deceased.Narayan (P.W. 11) is the son of the deceased.He is also the eye-witness of the incident.He had seen the incident and he has narrated that Ramswaroop was carrying Luhangi, Badri, Ramjilal and other appellants were carrying Lathi in their hands and they caused injury to his father and also to his mother and he has supported the prosecution case but his statement was recorded after fourteen days.The three appellants Brijmohan, Ramjilal and Roshanlal shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each within a period of thirty days from today failing which CJM Shivpuri shall have liberty to take them into custody and commit them to jail.If the fine amount is deposited then a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of deceased Badri.JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.This appeal is directed against judgment dated 2-4-92 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 157/89 whereby appellants are convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 452 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC for one year R.I., life imprisonment, two years' R.I. and two years' R.I. respectively.Deceased assaulted by Lathi on the head of accused Badri.He received injuries in the temporal region.Deceased ran away from the spot.Thereafter, appellant Ramswaroop armed with Luhangi and appellants Ramjilal, Badri, Chintu, Roshan and Brijmohan armed with Lathis came to the door deceased and mutual abuses were exchanged between the parties.At the door of deceased, Vijay Singh Kushwaha, Buddha Amarsingh and Lakhu were also sitting.Appellant Chintu dragged the deceased from the "Paur" and thereafter he was beaten by all.Deceased received injuries on his right and left chest and also suffered injuries on other parts of his body.During the incident Goura (P.W. 5) is said to have rushed to save the deceased who was her son, whereupon accused Badri gave a lathi blow on her right hand, as a consequence of which Goura (P.W. 5) also sustained injuries.Deceased alongwith his brother lodged FIR (Ex. P-1) at Police Chowki Amol Patha on which crime was registered and matter was investigated.Deceased who was injured at that time was referred to hospital for medical examination and treatment but he died in the way.Injured Goura (P.W. 5) was also referred for medical examination.Dead body was also referred for post mortem.Spot map was prepared.Accused persons were arrested, memos under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were prepared, weapons were seized at the instance of the appellants and charge-sheet was filed.During trial, appellants abjured their guilt.Their defence was that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated.They have also taken a defence that it was the deceased who gave lathi blow to appellant Badri who was taking both the cows to cattle pond.Deceased ran away from the spot and when he was approaching his house, he himself fell down on "Dehri" and received injuries.Badri had also received serious injury.Report of the incident was also lodged at Police Station Amola.He was also medically examined.In defence they have also examined one Buddharam (D.W. 1).After considering the evidence on record, Trial Court found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid against which they have preferred this appeal.Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that there is no case that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause the murder of deceased.He submitted that all the independent witnesses and even the highly interested witnesses have admitted that the cows of the deceased entered into the field of accused Badri and caused damages to the crop and it was the deceased who caused a lathi injury on the body of accused Badri and thereafter the deceased ran away from the spot and fell down on the "Dehri" of his own house.Report was not lodged by the deceased as it could not be lodged by him because the deceased had fallen unconscious on spot.Statement of Narain (P.W. 11) who is said to be an eye-witness was recorded after fourteen days of the incident and there is no explanation for this delay.There is no compliance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Intimation report was sent after three days and prayed for acquittal of the appellants.He submitted that during the pendency of this appeal appellant No. 3 Badri s/o Ramlal has expired therefore appeal against him stands abated.He asked the deceased and thereafter the deceased narrated the story and the assault made by the appellants to him.Deceased could not be medically examined because he died in the way while he was being taken to the hospital after lodging of FIR, memo for his medical examination inquest report (Ex. P-25) was prepared by Goverdhan Soni (P.W. 13).In these documents, four injuries have been mentioned.One on the ribs, another on the left side of neck and two other on both the cheeks.Dr. S.P. Jain (P.W. 4) had performed the post mortem of the dead body and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-The middle and upper part of the left lung was also found torn.About one liter of blood had collected in pleura cavity.Both the chambers were empty.Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within twenty four hours.In the re- examination he has submitted that the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex. P-7) were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Goura (P.W. 5) is the mother of the deceased.As per her statement, she was present on spot.She had seen the incident and she also came to save her son and she also received injuries.She is aged about seventy years.She was also medically examined by Dr. R.K. Goyal (P.W. 14).As per his report, he had seen two contusions.One of size 3 cm x 2 cm on the middle of right forearm, above this injury, there was a lacerated wound of size 1 cm x 1/2 cms.Swelling was also there and the same was paining on touching.The other contusion was on the upper side of left forearm of size 1 cm x 1 cm.For injury No. 1 X-ray examination was advised.Injury No. 2 was found simple in nature.Both the injuries were caused by some hard and blunt object.Ramkishan (P.W. 10) is the witness of inquest report as well as notice (Ex. P-24) which was issued to him for preparation of the same.Apart from the aforesaid evidence of dying declaration in the form of FIR, statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as oral dying declaration of deceased to Birkhu (P.W. 7) are also available on record.He has also supported the prosecution evidence.Ramprakash Tiwari (P.W. 1) is the Head Constable who was posted at Police Station Amola.He had received the copy of FIR (Ex. P-1) which was recorded at Police Chowki Amola Patha as Ex. P-2 and crime was registered.Ex P-3-C, copy of the FIR was also forwarded to the Magistrate by him.Its entry was made in the Dak Book (Ex. P-4) and receipt from the Court was also obtained in the Dak Book (Ex. P/4-C).Constable Dayaram (P.W. 2) had brought the FIR (Ex. P-1) from Police Chowki Amola Patha to Thana Amola.Khurshid Ahmad (P.W. 3) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map (Ex. P-6).Vijay Singh (P.W. 8) was cited as an eye-witness and was also the witness of spot map (Ex. P-10) and seizure memos (Exs. P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14 and P-15) but he has not supported the prosecution and has said that his signatures were obtained under pressure and has denied the fact of recovery in his presence.Anoop Singh (P.W. 9) is the witness of arrest memos (Exs. P-17, P-18 and P- 19).He was also declared hostile.Ramkishan (P.W. 10) is the witness of Safina Lash (Ex. P-24).Head Constable Vishnuram Joshi (P.W. 12) is the witness of issuance of Safina form (Ex. P-24), Panchayatnama Lash (Ex. P-25) and memo of post mortem (Ex. P-8).Head Constable Goverdhan Soni (P.W. 13) had recorded the FIR (Ex. P-1) which was lodged by the deceased, prepared the memo for his medical examination (Ex. P-26), referred the injured for medical examination and had also prepared memo (Ex. P-27) for examination of the injuries of Goura (P.W. 5).Deceased himself had told him the names of the assailants and the weapon which they were carrying and the injuries which were caused to him.He has proved the aforesaid documents.Sub Inspector Lallasingh Kushwaha (P.W. 15) had investigated the matter later on and he had visited the spot on 10-9-89 and prepared the spot map at the instance of Vijay Singh.He had also recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused persons and thereafter, at their instance, weapons were seized and memos and seizure memos were also prepared and has also been proved by him.Dr. R.K. Goyal (P.W. 14) had also examined one Badri Prasad s/o Ramlal who was brought by Head Constable numbered 784 Abdul Hafiz from Police Station Amola and had found one contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm on the left thumb thenar eminence and one lacerated wound of size 8 cm x 1/2 cm skin deep over the left parietal region longitudinally placed 4 cm left lateral to median plane.He had also found one lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 1/2 cm bone deep over the right parietal region 2 cm left right lateral to the median plane, longitudinally placed.The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.The injuries were simple in nature.Injury No. 1 was not self inflicted.Both the injuries were separate.Duration of the injuries was within twenty four hours.Goura (P.W. 5) has admitted in her cross-examination that their cow had damaged the crop of Sesame and groundnut which was in the field of appellant Badri.When appellant Badri was trying to take the cows to cattle pond, her son, the deceased, had reached there and there was wordy quarrel between them.The incident took place opposite her house and the fields of the appellants are also situated opposite her house.The field belongs to Ramjilal and Badri.Ramjilal is the owner of the field and appellant Badri was his "Bataidaar".She has further admitted that on the field of Ramjilal, there was altercation between her son (deceased) and appellant Badri and the deceased had given a lathi blow to appellant Badri which he received in his temporal region.Badri and Ramswaroop have also lodged the report and when the deceased came back to his house, the appellants chased him upto his house and beat him.Though she-has stated that blood was oozing from the body of the deceased and his clothes were also stained with blood but this part of her statement is not found factually correct as no blood was oozing from his body.From the prosecution evidence it is clear that the incident took place because of the act of the complainant party.Their cows had entered in the field of accused persons and damaged their crop and when they objected and were taking the cattle to the cattle pond, deceased himself assaulted appellant Badri.Therefore, it is clear that the quarrel took place because of the act and action of the complainant party.Naturally when the appellant Badri was assaulted and he received injury in his temporal region and the deceased ran away from the spot, all the appellants chased him and beat him in front of his house.Therefore, beating of the deceased was in reply and may be with a view to take revenge from him.The deceased received one contusion and one abrasion on the chest.One is attributed to Ramswaroop and the other is attributed to Chintu.Though it is said that the other appellants were also present and appellant Brijmohan caused injuries on the cheeks of the deceased by his hands and Ramjilal gave lathi blow on the neck and Roshan also gave a lathi blow on the neck, but as per the post mortem report, the doctor has not found any injury on the cheeks or on neck of the deceased.The appellants might have formed an unlawful assembly but it is clear that intention or object of all the members of unlawful assembly was not to kill or to commit the murder of the deceased, but, the intention and common object of the members of unlawful assembly was to beat him and to teach him a lesson for causing injuries to appellant Badri.So far as that the participation of remaining appellants Brijmohan, Ramjilal and Roshan is concerned, though they were members of the unlawful assembly, but, there is nothing on record to prove that their common object was to kill the deceased.Their common object may be to cause injury to deceased.As is clear from the dying declaration of the deceased made in the FIR, Brijmohan was bare handed and had only slapped the deceased on his cheeks.They shall surrender before CJM Shivpuri within thirty days from today for undergoing remaining part of their jail sentence failing which CJM Shivpuri shall have liberty to take them into custody and commit them to jail.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

She, after passing the High Secondary Examination from the Loreto House School in 1990, took admission in B.Com.Part-I course and in 1991 joined a tuition centre near Richi Road, Calcutta to receive tuition and there she met the respondent-boy, who also joined the same tuition centre while reading in B.Com.Part-I course in the St. Xaviers College and friendship grew between them.The girl's further case was, that the boy gave out that he had a brilliant academic carrier and he too belonged to a rich family and was a partner in his family business and she was also introduced by the boy to his parents.Subsequently, towards the middle of 1992, the boy told her that he loved her and was ready to sacrifice everything including his life for her and wanted to marry her, but the girl refused as she considered the boy just as a friend and nothing else and she had no intention to marry him.The girl also tried to gradually dis-associate herself from the boy.Subsequently, on or about 1st January, 1993, the boy enticed the girl to accompany him to an unknown place and took out some photographs of him and the girl in a pre-arranged setting and then took her to an office close to the Coffee House in College Street and obtained her signatures on some forms without disclosing the contents thereof and also took certain photographs of the girl in the said office and then declared that both had become husband and wife, but asked the girl to keep everything secret.By that time, the girl had joined a Chartered Accountancy Firm to undergo accountancy course and she was to go out Calcutta with the partners of the said firm in the middle of May, 1993, in connection with audit works, when the boy asked her to be ready to remain absent from her house for a day to undo the aforesaid forms and papers and the alleged marriage.As she was in great mental agony, she agreed to act according to the boy's dictates to get her released of her mental agony.During her stay, the boy and his parents exercised pressure upon the girl to bring about Rs. 15 lacs from her parents for the purpose of purchasing a suitable flat for their living, but as she flatly refused, they tried to ill treat her and compelled her to do all household .works including washing of utensils much against her will.During her said stay at 25, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, she had also to yield to the pressure of the boy to allow him to have sex with her in the night of 15th May, 1993 and as she resisted his similar attempts on the 2nd and 3rd June, 1993, she was beaten by the boy, as a result of which she started bleeding.She was taken to a nursing home on 3rd June, 1993 where she was admitted and was taken to the operation theatre and by giving anaesthesia was treated surgically.On the following day, she was taken home by her parents who had come to the nursing home on getting intimation from the boy and thereafter she never returned to the boy.After recovery from her said illness when the girl again started to get private tuition in some other place, the boy started following her and even threatened her to kidnap her forcibly and ruin her life by any means even by throwing acid on her unless she agreed to act according to his dictates and also returned to him.The girl being apprehensive lodged a diary with the police and also filed criminal case being Case No.C527 of 1993 in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the boy and his parents and relations,The suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement, wherein it was stated inter alia, that the petitioner had married the respondent on or about 14th October, 1992 at the Arya Mandir at Elgeen Road according to the Hindu Rites and it was duly solemnised, and after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lived together as husband and wife at P-4, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, Calcutta-1 and marriage was duly registered under the Special Marriage Act on 1st Janu-ary,1993 and on and from 15th May, 1993, the respondent and the appellant lived in their matrimonial home at 25, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Calcutta-7, till 2nd June, 1993 and during her stay at their matrimonial home, the petitioner was treated cordially by the images of the house and no ill-treatment was made to her and all of sudden on 3rd June, 1993, the petitioner left her matrimonial home with her mother and thereafter the respondent received a telephonic call from the mother of the petitioner asking him to come to Lake View Nursing Home at Calcutta on the same date but she did not disclose the reason.At that time, the petitioner, however, was pregnant.The petitioner then had an abortion and the respondent was forced to give consent for the same and he was also compelled to pay the doctor's fee and other expenses.JUDGMENT Mitra, J.This appeal has been preferred by an unfortunate girl who, though was born with a golden spoon in her mouth because of her own follies, not only suffered herself, but also lowered down the prestige of her family in the society to a great extent.The appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for declaration that no marriage between her and the respondent was performed according to the Hindu rites or otherwise at any place and also for a declaration that the registration of the alleged marriage between her and the respondent and the certificate granted by the marriage officer on 1st January, 1993 under Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act was void and inoperative and also for permanent injunction.Thereafter, on 4th of June, 1993 the girl's mother took her to her father's residence at 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta-20 and since then, she had been illegally confined there under duress.The respondent accordingly, filed Matrimonial Suit being No. 170 of 1994 for restitution of conjugal rights.In the appellant's above suit, the plaint was amended and an extra prayer namely, consent of the appellant to the alleged marriage if any, was obtained by coercion and threat was added.After the family Court was established, both the aforesaid suits were transferred to the family Court and were heard together.So far as the suit filed by the petitioner was concerned, the following three Issues were framed."(i) Is the Mat.Suit No. 121 of 1994 maintainable in its present form ?(ii) Was a marriage between Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Joyita Pandey solemnised at Arya Mandir at Elgin Road according to Hindu rites and custom on 14th October, 1992 ?(iiij Did Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Joyita Pandey live together as husband and wife prior to registration of their marriage on 1st January, 1993 under Special Marriage Act, 1954 ?"During trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant-girl including the appellant herself, while five witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent-boy including the respondent himself.The learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta by his judgement dated 10th January, 1997 dismissed the Mat.However, the learned judge by his said judgement also dismissed Mat.Suit No. 170 of 1994 filed by the respondent praying for restitution of conjugal rights.Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner in Mat.Suit No. 121 of 1994 has preferred the present appeal in this Hon'ble Court.No appeal, however, was or has been preferred by the respondent against the dismissal of Mat.16A. It has been contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that no marriage was solemnized between her and the respondent according to the Hindu rites, and in support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant referred to Exhibits '1' and '2'.According to the learned Counsel for the appellant it is therefore to be seen whether any marriage was solemnized on 14th October, 1992, as alleged in the said Exhibit No. 2 and referred to the evidence of the D.W. 1 namely, the respondent, who in his exami-nation-in-chief had categorically stated that he married the appellant according to Hindu rites and customs on 14th October, 1992, at Arya Istri Swamaj, 2D, Madhab Lane, Calcutta-20 and after marriage they began to live as husband and wife at P-4, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, Calcutta.In exami-nation-in-chief, however, he admitted that the entry made against the column No. 6 in Exhibit '1' as made by him was not correct because no marriage was performed at 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road.Calcutta-20 on 14th October, 1992, but as the parties' sole motive was to get married, such entry was made in column No. 6 after consulting the Registering authority.He also admitted that the entry made by him against column No. 4 was also not correct as, he and the appellant never lived at P-248, C.I.T. Scheme-VII, Calcutta-54 as husband and wife.He, however, sought to explain the reason for giving such fictitious address stating that the same was given on the advice of the appellant.The learned Advocated for the appellant then referred in para 5(a) of the written statement filed by the respondent, wherein it was categorically stated inter alia, that the respondent married the appellant on 14th October, 1992 at the Arya Mandir at Elgin Road according to the Hindu rites and ceremony and the learned Counsel further referred to the deposition of D.W.-1 where in examination-in-chief he categorically admitted, that there was no place like Arya Mandir at Elgin Road which he had disclosed in para 5(a) of his written statement.The learned Counsel also referred to a further lacuna in the evidence of D.W. 1, inasmuch as, in examination-in-chief though he had stated that after the alleged marriage with the appellant at Arjya Istri Samaj according to Hindu rites on 14th October, 1992 they started to live together as husband and wife at P-245, C.I.T. Scheme-VII(M), Calcutta-54, in the alleged Joint application having Exhibit '1', the respondent gave out their present address as P-245, C.I.T. Scheme-VII(M), Calcutta-54 which fact was admitted by the respondent in his evidence as not correct and he also admitted that they never lived at that place as husband and wife.He also argued referring to the statement made by the respondent in his deposition that though in his examination-in-chief he had categorically stated that a large number of photographs were taken at the time of marriage with the appellant at Arya Istri Samaj on 14-10-92 and also at the office of the Marriage Registrar on 20-11-92, yet none of the said photographs was made any exhibit in Matrimonial Suit No. 121 of 1994 and since the negatives of the said photographs were not filed in the suit and since the photographer was also not examined as a witness in the said suit, the trial Court should not have placed any reliance upon the same as those were not duly proved.The learned Counsel placed stress upon the evidence laid by Deb Narayan Tewari as D.W. 2 who in his examination-in-chief categorically admitted that the marriage between the respondent and the appellant was not performed according to the Hindu rites and customs as there was nobody to perform Kanyadan and the Saptapadi was not performed and he rushed through the marriage ceremonies within 45 minutes on the advice of the respondent though about two and half hours would be required to perform the full marriage ceremony and Exhibit No. D was issued by him about eight or ten months back at the instance of the respondent and his father.Exhibit No. D also did not bear the correct date of 15-10-92 which was put in at the instance of the respondent herself.The learned Counsel for the appellant thus submitted that the patent false statements regarding the place of the alleged marriage and the address of the parties as admitted by the respondent himself in his evidence as well as the categorical statement made by the priest (D.W. 2) in his evidence that Saptapadi was not performed, conclusively proved that there was no marriage between the parties to this appeal according to the Hindu rites and customs and the findings of the learned trial Judge were, therefore, perverse and in support of his contentions referred to a number of decisions namely, (1901) ILR 28 Calcutta 37; (1950) 54 Cal WN 186; ; AIR 1971 SC 1153; (sic); ; ; and .Lastly, Mr. Roy Chowdhury also referred to Exhibit No. 6 which was a letter written by the respondent's father Amar Nath Pandey to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lal Bazar dated 17th of April, 1990 wherein the father of the respondent admitted that the respondent developed some relations with one Nabita Jain daughter of one Makhanlal Jain residing at 2A, Jadulal Mullik Road and it was further stated therein that he was called with his son named the respondent to see the Inspector on 16th April, 1990 and he was advised to tackle (on) his own so that bitterness between his family and the family of Makhanlal Jain, the father of the said girl Nabita Jain, did not extend any further and he admitted to tackle his son and according to Mr. Roy Chowdhury the said letter would prove that the respondent was donjuan who used to have relationship with many girls and that shows really speaking that he had no love for the appellant in his mind.No doubt, the letters and the greeting cards being Exhibit 10 and 'B' series prove that only the appellant and respondent were deeply attracted to each other and might be they were in love too, which fact would also be apparent from first blush of the photographs being Exhibit 'E' series though the same were not admissible in evidence without the negatives, and though the Photographs would also suggest that there was some sort of marriage between them, but the evidence on record mainly that of the DW-2 would clearly prove that no Hindu marriage was solemnized between the respondent and the appellant as essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage were not performed at all.Moreover, Exhibit '9' leads us to a presumption that the respondent was in the habit of playing with girls to suit his purpose.Further, in the cross-examination the PW-3 also had categorically stated that she never resided (in) the night with the respondent at P-4, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, Calcutta-1 and in cross-examination she specifically denied that she was not married on 14th of October, 1992, and that Exhibit 'A' was written by her under coercion.Moreover, she further denied in cross-examination that Exhibit '6' and Exhibit '10' were one letter and not two separate letters.Further as discussed above the false statement made by the respondent in Exhibits '1' and '2' which were also admitted by him in his deposition speak of the character and nature of the respondent that by hook or by crook he was determined to have the appellant under his clutches and he did not love the appellant from his heart.Lastly, one glaring fact of the respondent in his suit for the restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant was also dismissed and no appeal has been preferred against the said decree of dismissal which shows that the appellant was not treated properly and lovingly during her stay at the respondent's residence.It really speak (that) there was a valid marriage between the parties and they really love each other why on earth, position would be such that appellant had to leave the house of the respondent in such a condition that the Court would refuse to grant the prayer for restitution for conjugal rights as made by the respondent.This fact also proves that the respondent did not love the appellant at all, and it was his sole object to get the appellant under his clutches to fulfil his evil design to get considerable amount of money from the appellant's parents.So far as the question regarding maintainability of the suit as filed by the appellant in the lower Court as raised by the respondent's lawyer is concerned, we are of the view that since the marriage itself was denied and the prayer was made in the suit for a declaration that there was no marriage between the parties, the suit as framed was quite maintainable in law.Regarding the application for acceptance of additional evidence as filed by Mr. Palit's client is concerned the said grounds taken in the said application, in our view do not fall within the scope and ambit of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is also rejected.In view of the reasons as aforesaid, we, accordingly hold that no marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized according to the Hindu rites or otherwise at any place and no marriage can be deemed to have been solemnized under the 'Special Marriage Act' between the parties to this appeal also.The appeal accordingly succeeds.Y.R. Meena, J.I agree.

['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2.(a) P.W.1 is mother of the deceased Banurekha.P.W.10 is father of the deceased and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased.The deceased was given marriage to A1 who belongs to Coimbatore.A2 and A3 are father and mother of A1 respectively.Before marriage, the accused demanded Rs.10 lakhs, Car and 100 sovereigns of gold.However, P.Ws.1 and 10 stated that they cannot give Rs.10 lakhs, but they prepared to do whatever given to their elder daughter during her marriage.For their elder daughter they have given 100 sovereigns of gold jewels, a Car and 50% of the marriage expenses.Accused were accepted the offer and insisted P.Ws.1 and 10 to perform the marriage in a grand manner.Thereafter, one week prior to the marriage, 3rd accused demanded Rs.1,25,000/- from P.W.1 for decorating the room.2.(b) After marriage, the accused and deceased were taken to P.W.1's house.The accused informed P.W.1 that around 25 persons would be coming to their house.However, for the accused side nobody has come.At the time of marriage, 100 sovereigns of jewel, seer articles were given to the deceased.Rs.10 lakhs was also spent for Marriage expenses by P.Ws.1,2 and 10. 2 days after the marriage, the girl and the bridegroom were sent to the matrimonial home.Thereafter, the accused also complaining that the gold jewels were lesser weight than they accepted.When P.W.1 went to the house of accused, they treated her without any respect.Whenever they visited the accused house, they never allowed the deceased to speak with their parents.In the matrimonial home, she lost her weight.When they enquired the deceased, she informed that the accused demanded Rs.10 lakhs and she was subjected to cruelty.During Pongal, the accused have demanded Rs.10,000/-.Accordingly, P.W.1 gave Rs.10,000/-, micro woven and other seers.In the month of March, 10 sovereigns of gold jewel were also given to the deceased.2.(c) Thereafter, during the Wedding Day function of A2 and A3, P.W.1 and family members were participated.3 days after that function, 3rd accused informed to P.W.1 that the deceased was admitted in the hospital.When P.W.1 went to the hospital, A3 was scolding the deceased.Thereafter, they took the deceased to Karaikudi.In the month of May, the deceased talked over the phone to P.W.1 and told that the accused were demanding Rs.10 lakhs and car and they were treating her cruelly.After two days of that incident, she was admitted in the hospital and she has also become very thin.The accused demanded Rs.10 lakhs of money repeatedly and due to that the deceased lost lot of her weight.2.(d) P.W.2 is sister of deceased and daughter of P.Ws.1 and 10. P.W.3 is friend of deceased.P.W.3 deposed that the deceased told to her with regard to the cruelty by the accused in connection with the dowry of Rs.10 lakhs in her matrimonial home.P.W.4 is medical officer attached to the Apollo First Med Hospital.Discharge Summary is Ex.P.3 P.W.5 is medical officer attached to Surya Hospitals examined the deceased on 23.6.2005 at about 10.35 a.m. and informed that she had died.He informed the police and handed over the dead body to the police.A.R. Copy issued by P.W.5 Medical Officer of Surya Hospitals is Ex.Virugambakkam police taken the dead body to the Government Hospital, Royapettah, where P.W.7 conducted autopsy on the dead body on 24.6.2005 and issued Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P.6 and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging.2.(e) P.W.8 is Tahsildar who conducted Inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Inquest Report Ex.He also recorded the statement of the accused and filed report Ex.P.12 to the police to investigate and find out the reason for the death.P.W.9 is P.A.to the District Collector, instructed P.W.8 to conduct Inquest and examine the witnesses.After receipt of his report, he sent the file to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadapalani circle for conducting further investigation.According to P.Ws.11 to 14, the deceased was cruelly ill-treated in connection with dowry demand by the accused.P.W.15 Inspector of Police, after receipt of the complaint Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, registered a case in Cr.No.885 of 20205 under section 498-A I.P.C., and 174 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the same to the Court and marked a copy to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadapalani Circle.2.(f) P.W.16 Assistant Commissioner of Police, took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar, Rough Sketches of house and bed room which are Exs.P.15, P.18 and P.19 respectively.He also seized M.O.1 Saree under Seizure Mahazar Ex.D.1 to D.3 are the letters written by the deceased, seized by P.W.16 from the house of the deceased.He also forwarded the requisition letter Ex.Similarly, P.W.2 is also aware of Exs.In her cross examination she clearly depose that she came to know about that letters, through her uncle and aunt.I am now talking to you over phone.Sorry honey, I really have no reason to live.Love you lots.Know you've done lots.The only thing the deceased accepted and said that she could not stand up to the expectations of her husband.She is very possessive about her husband.Dear Mummy and Daddy, You've always been very kind to me I've always troubled you sorry for letting you Down, will never trouble you any longer.You've never complained about me.Subsequently, in the month of May also she was referred for psychiatric treatment to the doctor attached to the same hospital.The very next day, she committed suicide in her parent's home and the letters and suicide note were seized from her room by the Investigating Officer.The appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondents/accused from the charges under Section 498(A), 304(B) r/w 34 I.P.C.The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:There also she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws.After 10 minutes, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself.Thereafter, P.W.1 and others went to the police station and P.W.1 lodged complaint Ex.She has also given statement Ex.P.8 to P.A.the Hon'ble Collector seeking orders to conduct Inquest on the dead body of the deceased, since the deceased died within seven months from the date of marriage.Thereafter, he examined witnesses.P.W.16 received one more report from the P.A.to Collector and thereafter altered the charges under Section 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C. He completed his investigation and filed charge sheet under the same sections.In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16; marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and marked one Material Object.After the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances for which they denied their complicity.The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, acquitted all the three accused from the charges under section 498(A), 304(B) r/w 34 I.P.C. Challenging the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that P.Ws.1,2,10 to 14 have clearly spoken about the cruelty met out by the deceased in connection with dowry demand.He admitted that the deceased died within 7 months from the date of marriage, evidence shows that the deceased was admitted in the hospital instantly proved that soon before the death the deceased was subject to cruelty due to the dowry demand.The learned trial judge has not applied his mind and hence the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for conviction of the accused by allowing the appeal.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that unfortunately the deceased committed suicide within 7 months from the date of marriage.P.Ws.1,2,10, of course, have spoken about the alleged demand of dowry and cruelty met out by the deceased, but their evidence is highly contradictory to each other.Further, much importance cannot be given to the evidence of P.W.s.11 to 14 because they are also very close to the family of P.Ws.1 and 10 and their evidence cannot be given much importance, since it is natural for any witness to give such evidence when the death was done within the 7 years from the date of marriage.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused that the entire evidence relied by prosecution is that due to the harassment caused to the deceased, she became sick and was admitted in the hospital, whereas the appellant evidence would show that the deceased was suffering from depression and she was treated by psychiatrist previously.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the deceased also left the suicidal note prior to her death, seized by the Investigating Officer from the occurrence place where the deceased committed suicide.D.1 to D.3 suicide notes given an indication that she had no grievance against the accused at any point of time.She has taken such extra step due to her ill-health.The learned trial judge has clearly analysed the entire evidence and come to the right conclusion that the respondents/accused are not guilty.In the light of the above submissions of both the learned counsel, now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the charges framed under Section 498(A), 304 (B) r/w 34 I.P.C. against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?"P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 are mother, sister and father of the deceased respectively.It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage apart from 100 sovereign gold jewels, the accused had demanded Rs.10 lakh and also a car and as the amount could not be mobilised, the deceased was subjected to cruelty continuously.Therefore she lost her weight and she also informed about the cruelty suffered by her to P.W.1 her mother.P.W.1s cross examination clearly indicates that they themselves voluntarily given 100 sovereigns as they gave to their first daughter during her marriage.Further P.W.1 evidence also clearly shows that she has borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the second accused as loan.Though P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that there was a demand of Rs.10 lakhs, 100 sovereigns and a Car in the first time, it was absent in the complaint as well as the statement given before R.D.O. These facts clearly show that there are serious contradiction in her evidence.It is first time she has spoken before the court.Minor contradictions between the evidence and the statement of witness will not affect the prosecution case.But the entire new set of facts spoken before the court in the substantive evidence cannot be taken as minor contradictions.Their evidence with regard to the demand of Rs.10 lakhs and with regard to the allegation that the accused measured that 100 sovereigns it was only 90 sovereigns are also found to be false in their evidence.Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the demand of Rs.10 lakhs for construction of the house and also a car, as the parents of deceased have not accepted to give that amount, the accused did not send the deceased along with A1 to their house also highly contradictory with each other.Similarly, P.W.10 evidence also unbelievable.The improved version of his evidence was absent before the R.D.O.and also before the Investigation officer.Unfortunately, the girl has died within 7 months from the date of marriage.There is an evidence to that effect that she has already treated for depression by the Medical Officer.P.3 Discharge Summary also filed in this regard.The evidence of Medical Officer P.W.4 clearly shows that the deceased Banurekha was suffering from breathing difficulty and she was treated.P.W.4 further stated that since she was sleepless, she was treated by psychiatrist Gowtham Dass.11. P.W.6 Dr.T. Girija while working in Sundaram Medical Foundation Hospitals, treated the deceased, who was brought to the hospital with sudden onset of weakness of both lower limbs.She had a past complaint of hyperventilation and she was admitted in the emergency unit on the ground that she was not able to walk properly and her legs were weak.P.W.6 in his evidence has stated that on examination, it was found that there was no physical ailment and she was referred to Psychiatric treatment.The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 clearly show the fact that the deceased was in fact suffering from depression and she was treated for by psychiatrist and in fact in the month of May when she was referred to Psychiatrist, the deceased herself told that she wanted to take treatment as out-patient and accordingly she treated.After one month, while she was in her parent's house, the deceased was committed suicide and on the same day Inquest was conducted by the R.D.O. P.W.16 after receipt of F.I.R., went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch.Letters and suicide note Ex.D.1 to 3 written by the deceased were seized under Ex.The cross examination of P.W.1 clearly shows that the police has seized Exs.D1 to D3 and also admitted the hand writing in the letters is of the deceased.P.W.10 has also admitted that he has also aware that the police seized 3 letters from the deceased room and he also seen the letter Ex.D2 addressed to their family members by the deceased.He admitted the writings in the Ex.D2 are his daughter's handwriting.The deceased has not complained anything about the dowry harassment in these letters.The prosecution side has not done any investigation for comparing the hand writing of the deceased in the letter.It may be a mistake on the part of the investigating officer.But at the same time, the seizure of the letters from the deceased room and handwriting of the deceased in thoseletters are not disputed by the family members.P.W.10 admitted that Ex.D.2 addressed to him.P.W.2 came to know about the seizure of the letters from her uncle and aunt.Therefore, these admissions of P.Ws.1,2, and 10 coupled with the evidence of P.W.16 Investigating Officer, there can be no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the letters were seized from the room of the deceased by Investigating Officer on the same evening.P.W.16 evidence clearly shows that he shown the letter to P.W.2 and asked about the letters.Similarly the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused treated the deceased with disrespect and they never allowed to speak with the deceased, were not stated before the investigating officer.Similarly, the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased has told that the accused demanded Rs.10 lakhs to her.So, all these facts clearly show that P.Ws.1,2and 10 evidence is nothing but improved one.D.1 to D.3 letters were seized by the Investigating Officer on the date of death and sent them to the Court.P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 have not denied that the letters written by the deceased.Therefore, there could not be any difficulty in analysing these letters written by the deceased.The first letter Ex.D.1 addressed to A1, in which the deceased has written as follows:Dear Ranjit, I am extremely sorry for spoiling your life.You can begin entirely new life.I couldn't stand up to your expectations.Thanks for all that love you showered upon me.I cannot and be like this.I don't like the way I am now.I am extremely possessive about you.CANT GET ANYONE BETTER THAN YOU.TAKE CARE WILL BE ALWAYS WITH YOU.LOVE YOU.GET MARRIED SOON.TAKE CARE.Please forgive me and forget me.Similarly, Exs.D2 and D3 are read as follows:Ex.D.2Dear Sasi, U've always been there for me.Thank you Sasi, I will take care of your kid from heaven if I go there.Sorry for letting you down.Dear Balami, Be smart, you should not do the mistakes that I did.Take care.Dear Vikki, Always been best brother, please take care of yourself and the become the 'BEST'.Dear Chittapa's and Chitti's Thanks for being there when ever I needed you all.Dear APPA/AMMA/KASTURI/SENTHIL. 'SORRY'.TAKE CARE.LOVE YOU ALL.Sorry Sorry Sorry.Rombha kasta padithitein.Thaanga mudiyala.Vera vazhi theriyale.Ex.D.3 Nobdoy is responsible for my death.I am unwell I cannot bear the way my physical and mental health is now.I don't want to be a burden to anybody.D2 addressed to her brother, sister, parents and other family members, in which she has stated about herself and she had not made any mention about their in-laws and the cruelty met by her at their hands.None of the letters will indicate even slightest doubt about the alleged dowry demand and the cruelty.It is also clear that the deceased has been treated for physical as well as for her mental illness.She also referred to her for psychiatric treatment.Any parents, who have lost their daughter within 7 months from the date of marriage, it is natural for them to have frustration and grievances against the accused and their family.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The petitioners in this Criminal Revision Case are the accused rankedas A.2 and A.4 in Cr.In the complaintit had been stated that on 11.02.2014 at 15.15hrs, their security personnelfound an iron pipe bomb along with a Maaza cool drinks plastic bottlecontaining 1500ml petrol, under suspicious circumstances at the backside ofReliance Market building.No.47 of 2014 on the file of the Othakkadai PoliceStation, Madurai.The petitioners were arrested on 10.03.2014 and 13.03.2014respectively.2.The case was registered based on the complaint of P.Sivathanu, StoreManager of Reliance Market, Uthangudi, Valar Nagar, Madurai.Based on thesaid complaint a First Information Report was registered.During the course of the investigation, the police were able toidentify a number of persons and the petitioners herein were shown as A.2 andA.4 in the case diary file.They were arrested by the police on 10.03.2014and 13.03.2014 respectively and were produced before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Melur for remand along with the remand report.Based onthe alleged receipt of information, one Thiruselvam belonging to the "TamilNadu Liberation Army" (jkpH;ehL tpLjiyg;gil) was arrested by the Inspector ofPolice, Othakadai and his statement revealing the petitioners' involvement inplanting pipe bombs was recorded.The first petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2014 and produced beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur on 11.03.2014 for remand and thesecond petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2014 and produced before same theJudicial Magistrate on 14.03.2014 for remand and both of them were remandedto judicial custody by the first remand orders dated 11.03.2014 and14.03.2014 respectively.Thereafter, their remand came to be extended byperiodical orders upto 90 days.(Till the completion of 90 days, thepetitioners did not make any application for their release on bail).Afterthe expiry of the period of 90 days, there was no order for three days eitherextending order of remand or releasing the petitioners on bail.However,since there was no order directing their release on bail, they continued tobe kept in prison.They were once again produced before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Melur along with the report of the Assistant Public Prosecutorattached to the said Court for extension of their remand beyond 90 days.Thereafter, the petitioners chose to file two separate petitionsunder Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. praying for their release on bail.The saidpetitions came to be filed on 03.07.2014 and the same were taken on file asCrl.During the pendency of the bailapplications, the respondent moved an application for order of extension ofremand of the petitioners on 08.07.2014 along with a report of the PublicProsecutor.After having suffered an order ofremand extension beyond 90 days, the petitioners have chosen to challenge theorder of remand extension passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur inthe above said case on 08.07.2014 extending their remand beyond 90 days.Notice before admission was given to the respondent and therespondent has entered appearance to resist the Criminal Revision Case.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented the respondentinitially.K.Chellapandian, learnedAdditional Advocate General.Accordingly, the arguments advanced byMr.The case cameto be registered based on the complaint given by one P.Sivathanu, storeManager of Reliance Market, Uthangudi and a case came to be registeredagainst unnamed accused persons.Subsequently, one Thiruselvan who has beenranked as Accused No.1 was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Othakadai.Both of them wereproduced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur for initial remand andperiodical remand extensions were also made by the learned JudicialMagistrate, Melur.On 2-6-2012, the appellant was produced before the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, since his 90 days? period of custody was to expire on 3-6-2012,and further custody of 90 days was sought for by the prosecution.The learnedMagistrate by his order dated 2-6-2012 extended the period of investigationand the custody of the appellant by another 90 days.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, inter alia, held that it wasonly the Sessions Court and not the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which hadthe competence to even extend the judicial custody of the accused and toentertain cases of such nature.We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 20-7-2012passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extending the time ofinvestigation and custody of the accused for 90 days with retrospectiveeffect from 2-6-2012, and the orders of the High Court dated 2-7-20121, 6-7-20122 and 6-8-20123 impugned in the appeal and direct that the appellant bereleased on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,upon such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper, including surrender ofpassport, reporting to the local police station, and not leaving the citylimits where the appellant would be residing without the leave of the court,so as to ensure the presence of the appellant-accused at the time of thetrial."The Authoritative pronouncement of the judgment of the HonourableSupreme Court in this respect, interpreting the relevant Sections, will makeit clear, without giving any room for ambiguity, that the Magistrate shallnot have the power to extend the period of remand beyond 90 days inexercising of the power conferred on the Court under the proviso to SubSection 2(b) of Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967, unless the Magistrate happen to be the Court having jurisdiction to tryall the offences alleged in the concerned case.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order ofremand extension dated 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,Melur, Madurai District in Cr.3394 of 2014 is set aside as one passedwithout jurisdiction.It will go without saying that the petitioners shallbe released forthwith, unless their detention has been authorised by someother order in connection with some other matters or under some otherprovisions of law.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q-Branch CID, Madurai.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Y.K. Sabharwal, J.Seema Puri, petitioner No.1and D.R.Puri, petitioner No 2, are parents of Navin Puri.Rashmi committed suicide on 3rd April 1989 by drinking two glasses of kerosene oil and then by dousing herself with kerosene oil and setting herself ablaze.The petitioners are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 304B/406/498A IPC.On 21st July 1989 the bail applications or the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by orders made by R.L Gupta.J (Cr. Misc.Main 793/89 and Cr.Main 928/89) Another application filed by Seema Puri was dismissed by Gupta, J. on 21st August 1989 by a detailed order (Cr.Misc Main 1245/89).On 3rd October 1989 the bail application filed by the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn by Santosh Duggal, J. (Cr. Misc.(M) 1547/89).By the present application petitioners have again approached this court.seeking bail.(2) The dismissal of earlier bail applications cannot operate as a bar So the petitioners again approaching this court.In Babu Singh & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the Supreme Court said "But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another.on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different considerations." The present application is not barred and thus I proceed to consider the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, (3) Firstly, it is contended that the deceased on learning that she may be exposed that she had number of abortions may have decided to end her life.It is urged that the medical check up of the deceased in March 1989 had revealed that she had enlarged multifarious type of uterus which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is demonstrative of the fact that she had number of abortions.It appears that in Cr.1245/89 a medical certificate purported to be issued by Madan's Ultra Sound Centre was filed The said certificate was verified by the investigating Officer from Dr. A K. Gupta of the aforesaid Madan Ultra Sound Centre who mentioned in a note appended on the said certificate that the word is 'Nulliparnus. 'Nulliparnus' means a woman who has never born a viable child.Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently criticised the said note on the certificate However, the criticism of learned counsel will be done into during the course of the trial.From reading of the certificate, primafacia, at this stage.it is not possible to agree with the contention that the deceased had multifarious uterus Reliance was also placed on a certificate issued by Dr. Deepak Chawla according to, which the examination of Rashmi Puri on 24 March 1989 shows 'enlarged multifarious type of .uterus'.The certificate from Dr. Deepak Chawla was filed Along with the present application for bail.it had not been filed with the earlier applications.The Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit, inter alia, stating that when he went to verify the certificate dated 24th March 1989 given by Dr. Deepak Chawla, firstly, he avoided to meet the Investigating Officer and then on meeting the Investigating Officer the doctor was hesitant to commit definitely and specifically in regard to the certificate The doctor is stated to have told the Investigating Officer that he does not remember any Mrs. Rashmi Puri having been examined by him, he did not know whether she was wife of Navin Puri;he did not maintain any receipt of the charges for examining her; he did not maintain any record with regard to the said case stating that probably it was a free case.The doctor, however, admitted his signature on the certificate.In this background much reliance on this certificate cannot be placed at this stage, in support of the contention that the deceased had enlarged multifarious type of uterus.Those aspects will be examined dulling the trial (4) The statement of Rashmi, prima facie, seems to have been recorded by Sdm at about 1l .30 Am on 3rd April 1989 Her statement also seems to have been recorded by the police sometime before recording of statement by SDM.The said statements purport to have the thumb impressions of Rashmi Puri.According to both the statements the deceased was being harassed by the petitioners.In the said statement the father has, inter alia, stated that the petitioners were harassing the deceased as she had, according to them, brought less dowry.According to the said statement they used to give beatings to the deceased for having brought less dowry.All these statements.prima facie, appear to have been recorded soon after the burning incident.(5) Learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions in their criticism of the aforesaid statements.These facts have been controverter by the respondent An affidavit of Sub Inspector Mr. Bhim Singh has been filed, inter alia.stating that the copy of the dying declaration filed with the petition seems to be wrong and enclosing a copy of the dying declaration an Annexure R-l Along with the said affidavit.The copy of the dying declaration filed Along with the affidavit of Sub-Inspector Bhim Singh seems to be correct as per the original on judicial file which had been summoned.(7) Prima facie ensure of both the statements, one recorded by police and the other by the Sdm, points accusing fingers towards the petitioners, more so, read with the statement of the father of the deceased.

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.211 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.There are four accused in this case.A.3 and A.4 were acquitted.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:On 07.05.2009, about 10.00 p.m., the deceased Durairaj, who was sleeping in the cattle shed, was attacked with a knife by the accused persons at Vivekananda Nagar, EB Colony, Ganapathy, Coimbatore.P.Ws.1 to 3, who are his relatives, were sleeping inside the house, which is at a considerable distance of about 20 feet.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that on hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, they opened the door of the house and went outside and found the accused 3 and 4 holding the deceased and accused 1 and 2 stabbing the deceased, repeatedly.On seeing P.Ws.1 to 3, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.As a result of the injuries sustained, the deceased Durairaj died on the spot.Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 took the deceased to the road and laid him there.3. P.W.2, a relative of the deceased Durairaj, accompanied by P.W.4, went to the police station and preferred Ex.P-1, Complaint before P.W.9, Sub-Inspector of Police, B-9, Saravanampatty Police Station.P.W.9 registered Ex.P-11, F.I.R. and arranged it to be forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate.Thereafter, P.W.9 handed over the case to P.W.12, Inspector of Police.P.W.12 prepared Ex.P-2, Observation Mahazar and Ex.He also seized M.Os.3 to 5 under Ex.P-3, Seizure Mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses.He forwarded the body of the deceased to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and on the same day, about 10.00 a.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P-17, Inquest Report.He then caused the body to be forwarded for postmortem through P.W.11, Head Constable, along with Ex.P-7, Requisition for post-mortem.P-15 is the Chemical Report of the Soil.A.1 and A.2 are the appellants herein.The trial Court framed charges against all the accused for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.By a judgment dated 12.10.2012, the trial Court acquitted A.3 and A.4 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and convicted A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 and 2 have come up with the present Appeal.On 08.05.2009, P.W.8  Dr.Jeyasingh, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-The following anti mortem injuries noted on the body:Vertically oblique stab wound 2 x 1 cm x cavity deep noted on back of right side chest at the level of 6th intercostals space, 9 cm right to back of mid line, 4 cm below to inferior border of right scapulation dissection the wound passes inwards downwards passing obliquely into the thoracic cavity and piercing into the back of lower lobe of right lung, measuring 2 x 1 x 1 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.Vertically oblique stab wound 2 x 1 cm x cavity noted on back of left side chest at the level of 8th intercostals space, 9 cm left to mid line, 7 cm below to inferior border of left scapula, on dissection the wound passes inwards upwards obliquely into the thoracic cavity and piercing into the lower lobe of back of left lung, measuring 1.5x1x1 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.Both side plural cavity each contains 750 ml of fluid blood with clot.Vertically oblique stab wound 2 x 1 cm noted on back of right side chest at the level of 5th intercostals space, 7 cm right to mid line, 2 cm below to inferior border of right scapula.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 5 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.Vertically oblique stab wound 2 x 1 cm noted on back of right side chest at the level of T-9 vertebrae, 1 cm right to mid line.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 4 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.Vertically oblique stab wound 1.5 x 1cm noted on lateral aspect of left gluetal region 7 cm left to mid line.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 6 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.Transversal oblique stab wound 1.5 x 1 cm noted on left supromedial aspect of left gluteal region.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 2 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.The left end is sharp.Vertically oblique stab wound 2 x 0.5 cm noted on inferomedial aspect of left gluteal region.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 7 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.The upper end is sharp.x 0.5 cm noted on lateral aspect of right thigh.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 3 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.Transversely oblique stab wound 1.5 x 1 cm noted on lateral aspect of left side chest at the level of 8th intercostals space, 10 cm below and lateral to left nipple, 11 cm left to mid line.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 3cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.The lateral end is sharp.Transversely oblique stab wound 1 x 0.5cm noted on left upper fore arm 7 cm below to elbow.The wound passes obliquely in the muscle plane to a depth of 1 cm and ending as a point.Margins of the wound are clean cut.Transversely oblique stab wound 2.5 x 1 cm noted on inner aspect of upper border of left palm, the wound passes backwards, downwards and laterally, piercing the hand through and through and exited over the back of lateral aspect of lower border of left palm 2 x 1 cms.Margins of the wound are clean cut.P.8 is the Post mortem certificate.P.W.8 gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the stab injuries and its corresponding internal injuries.P.W.12 sent the viscera samples taken from the body of the deceased during postmortem.Ex.P-10 is the Viscera Report, Ex.P-13 is the biological report, Ex.P-14 is the Serological Report obtained from Forensic Science Laboratory and Ex.6. P.W.12  Inspector of Police, continued the investigation and on 08.05.2009, about 7.00 p.m., he went to Gandhipuram Central Bus Stand and as identified by P.Ws.2 and 4, he arrested A-1 to A-3 at 4th platform in the presence of P.W.5 and one Ramachandran. A-1 and A-2 voluntarily confessed to the crime and Exs.P-5 and P-6 are the admitted portions thereof.On the basis of confession, A-2 took P.W.12 along with witness P.W.2 and P.W.4 to F.C.I. Road, Ganapathy and handed over M.O.1 and M.O.2 from a bush opposite to A.P.G. Matriculation School, which P.W.12 seized under Ex.P-4, Seizure Mahazar.Thereafter, on 02.07.2009, about 9.00 a.m., P.W.12 arrested A-4 at Ganapathy Textool Bus Stop.P.W.12 enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements.On returning to the Police Station, P.W.12 forwarded all the four accused for judicial remand and also handed over the Material Objects to the Court.Thereafter, he handed over charge to his successor, P.W.13 for further investigation.On completing investigation, finally, P.W.13 laid charge sheet against all the accused under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited, besides 20 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the same.P.W.8, Doctor has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him on the body of the deceased and he also gave opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.They did not choose to examine any of the witnesses on their side.However, 6 documents were exhibited on their side.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused 1 and 2 guilty under the said charges and acquitted accused 3 and 4 and accordingly, sentenced accused 1 and 2 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Aggrieved over the same, the accused 1 and 2/appellants are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused 1 & 2/appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.As we have already pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.1 admits that though were two street lights on the date of occurrence, they were not glowing.It is also an admitted fact that there was no light in the cattle shed, where the deceased was sleeping.The evidence of D.W.1, Regional Manager of 108 Ambulance Service shows that he received intimation at 3.02 a.m., which means occurrence would have taken place around 2.30 a.m. and not at 3.30 a.m., as alleged by the prosecution witnessess.According to P.Ws.1 to 3, immediately after the occurrence, intimation was given to the nearby Police Station and Police arrived at the scene of occurrence within half-an-hour.It is the evidence of P.W.3 that he narrated the entire occurrence which was reduced into writing and signature was obtained from him, which information was suppressed.14. P.W.1 also admits that the Police arrived at the scene of occurrence, more particularly, the Inspector of Police himself came within half-an-hour of the occurrence.P.W.1 also gave a statement in respect of the occurrence and the same was recorded by the Inspector of Police, which information was also suppressed.P.W.1 also admits during cross-examination that all the accused were arrested at 12.00 midnight, whereas, the arrest of the accused has been shown as 6.00 p.m., and that material objects were recovered thereafter.It is further evidenced by P.W.1 that two other persons, viz. Mr.Ayappan and Mr.Nagaraj were brought to the police station out of suspicion in the alleged occurrence.Had it been true that the accused 3 and 4 have caught hold of the deceased and the accused 1 and 2 have stabbed the deceased repeatedly as alleged by P.Ws.1 to 3, there would have been no occasion for the Inspector of Police to bring two other persons to Police Station out of suspicion.So, it creates doubt as to the version of P.Ws.1 to 3, since they witnessed the alleged occurrence only in darkness, i.e. there was no light in the cattle shed, where the deceased was sleeping.We feel that it is difficult to sustain the conviction imposed on the accused 1 and 2 for the simple reason that the statements made by the prosecution and the defence are contrary.The prosecution says that the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2009 around 3.30 a.m. But, P.W.1, brother of the deceased, who witnessed the occurrence, during his cross-examination has averred that the accused have been arrested at 12.00 midnight.Undoubtedly, the accused can be arrested only after an alleged occurrence.But, according to P.W.1, the murder took place around 3.30 a.m., but the accused were arrested at 12.00 midnight.Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands.The prosecution version is highly doubtful.When the Trial Court acquitted accused 3 and 4 disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it should have applied the same principle while convicting the other two accused, viz. accused 1 and 2 also.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Harish Chandra Roy & Anr...... petitioners Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr.It is further submitted that recording of prosecution evidence has not commenced as yet.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners were involved in misappropriating public fund running over one crore.We have considered the materials on record.We find that the petitioners are in custody for more than a year and recording of prosecution evidence has not commenced as yet.It is pertinent to note although the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code attracts 2 life imprisonment but keeping in mind the dim prospect of the trial concluding in the near future, we are inclined in granting bail to the petitioners, however, subject to strict conditions.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, and on condition that they shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dhupguri Police Station until further orders and shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station once in a week until further orders.They shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and they shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and in the event they fail to do so, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail without further reference to this court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(i) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Jothi.The deceased was a mason byprofession.The family of the deceased and the family of the accusedChellathurai, were living in the adjacent houses.P.W.2 was also living in the adjacent house and allthe houses are situated in poramboke land.On 10.09.2001 in the evening atabout 04.00 p.m, there was a wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the wife of theaccused as the hen of P.W.1 entered into the kitchen of the accused.P.W.1 toldthe said incident to her husband, since deceased, who came in the later hoursafter finishing his work.(ii) On 11.09.2001 at about 02.00 a.m., a wordy quarrel arose between thedeceased and the accused.Thereafter, the deceased and one Ramaiah, thegrandfather of P.W.1, were sleeping in the pial and P.W.1 and her children weresleeping inside the house.On hearing the distressing cry, P.W.1 along withothers came out of the house with a burning chimney and found the accused givinga blow to her husband with M.O.1, spade handle, near the left eye and kicked himon the stomach.The deceased fell down.Immediately, P.W.1 and P.W.2 raisedalarm, but the accused threatened them.Thereafter, the accused dragged thedeceased into his house, tied him in a pillar and took M.O.2, aakkathi, and cutthe deceased on his left shoulder, left elbow and right thigh.P.W.2 and otherswitnessed the same and they could not come to his rescue since it was night andthe accused was also sitting with M.O.2, aakkathi, nearby till the deceaseddied.After, the accused and his family members left their house.(iii) Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came near the deceased and cut the coirrope in which the deceased was actually tied and found him dead.P.1 is the report given by P.W.1 and Ex.P.7 is the F.I.R.The express F.I.R Ex.P.7, along with Ex.P.1, was despatched to the Court.(iv) P.W.8, the Inspector of Police in charge of the respondent policestation took the investigation on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R, proceeded tothe scene of occurrence and made an inspection in the presence of witnesses andprepared Ex.P.15, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.16, rough sketch.Herecovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.The InvestigatingOfficer also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presenceof the witnesses and Panchayatars and prepared Ex.P.19, the inquest report.Thedead body of the deceased, following the requisition Ex.P.4 the was subjectedto the post-mortem by P.W.4, the Doctor working at the Government Hospital,Thuckalay who gave Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate where he has opined thatthe deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained, 12to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem.P.W.1 andP.W.2 proceeded to the respondent police at about 07.00 a.m. P.W.1 gave areport to P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent policestation, who recorded the same and registered a case in Cr.No.1842 of 2001 undersection 302 I.P.C. Ex.(v) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 12.09.2007 and whenenquired, he volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recordedby the Investigating Officer, in the presence of the witnesses and theadmissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.2 and following the confessionalstatement, the accused produced M.O.1 the wooden handle of the spade and alsoM.O.2 the Aakkathi and both M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered under a cover Ex.All those material objects recovered from the place of occurrence,from the dead body and the weapon of crime produced by the accused, weresubjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in two reports Exs.P.10 thechemical analysis report and P.11 the serologist report.On completion of theinvestigation, P.W.9, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.(vi) The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 9 witnesses and relied on 19 exhibits along with 10 M.Os.After the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances foundin the evidence of prosecution witnesses.The accused denied them as false.Onthe side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was letin.After completion of trial, the trial court heard the arguments of bothsides, perused the materials available, found the accused guilty as per thecharges and awarded punishment as referred to above, which is the subject matterof challenge in this appeal.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counselwould submit that in the instant case, the prosecution examined twoeyewitnesses, namely P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the wife and the co-brother of thedeceased respectively and they are closely related to the deceased and hence, ifthe test of careful scrutiny is applied, their evidence should have beenrejected by the trial Court on the ground of the discrepancies in the materialfacts and further in the instant case, the medical evidence did not corroboratethe prosecution case.According to thedefence, at the time of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel following the sameboth the family members were sleeping and at about 02.00 a.m., it was thedeceased who removed the roof of the house of the accused and jumped inside thehouse and at that time, the accused tied the deceased in a wooden pillar andrushed to the police station to give a complaint and at that time, it was thedeceased who tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the accused and at thatjuncture, it was the wife of the accused who gave him a blow with Aakkathi andas a result of it, the deceased died.The defence theory is clearly spoken toby D.W.1, the daughter of the accused, which remained unshaken, should have beenaccepted and the theory put forth by P.W.1 and P.W.2 should have rejected.Advancing his further arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learnedCounsel would submit that even assuming that the prosecution has proved its caseto the extent that it was the accused who attacked the deceased with the woodenhandle of M.O.1, spade and also with M.O.2 aakkathi and the act of the accusedwould not attract the penal provision of murder, but only culpable homicide notamounting to murder.Even as per the case of the prosecution, there was a wordyquarrel at about 02.00 a.m., and following the same, the occurrence had takenplace and thus, in that exchange of words, the accused has acted and it would bequite clear that the act of the accused neither intentional nor pre-meditatedand the accused is entitled to the benefit available in the exceptions to thedefinition of murder and this has also to be considered by this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Stateon the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissionsmade by both sides and also scrutinised the materials available on record.The fact that one Jothi, the husband of P.W.1, was attacked in anincident that had taken place at about 02.00 a.m., on 11.09.2001 in the place ofoccurrence of t and done to death is not the fact in controversy.The dead boyof the deceased Jothi was subjected to post-mortem and the Doctor who conductedthe post-mortem has categorically given evidence and also in the post-mortemcertificate Ex.P.5, that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to theinjuries sustained.Thus, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died outof homicidal violence.Apart from this, the accused has not questioned the saidfact at any stage of the proceedings and hence, it has got to be recorded so.In order to substantiate its case that it was the accused who attackedthe deceased with M.O.1 wooden handle of spade at first and then, following thesame, the accused dragged the deceased inside his house and attacked him withM.O.2, aakathi after tying him in a pillar.It istrue that they are closely related to the deceased.After exercising the test ofcareful scrutiny only, the trial Court accepted the evidence since it inspiredthe confidence of the Court.In the instant case, the occurrence had takenplace at about 02.00 p.m. It is not in controversy that the houses of both thefamilies situate abutting each other and there was a quarrel took place betweenthe wife of the accused and P.W.1 in the previous evening and following thesame, the incident has taken place.It is pertinent to point out that the availability of the accused andthe deceased at the time and in the place of occurrence is not the fact incontroversy.On the contrary, the defence came with theplea that it was the deceased who removed the roof of the house of the accusedand jumped into the house and on seeing that, the accused tied him in a pillarand went to the police station and in the meanwhile, the deceased made anattempt to outrage the modesty of the wife of the accused and at that time, itwas the wife of the accused who attacked him with M.O.2, Aakkathi.This defencetheory has got to be rejected for the simple reason that even as per the defenceplea, when the accused left the deceased, he tied the deceased in a pillar.Ifto be so, there was no question of any attempt which could be made by thedeceased and hence, the introduced theory by the defence fails and it wasrightly rejected by the trial Court.Insofar as the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is concerned, this Courtpointed out that their evidence has inspired the confidence of the Court andthey have given clear evidence in one voice.Apart from this, in the instantcase, the ocular evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 stands fully corroborated by themedical evidence.Yet another circumstance is which is in favour of theprosecution the recovery of M.O.1 wooden handle of the spade and M.O.2, aakkathipursuant to the confessional statement given by the accused.This circumstanceis also pointing to the nexus between the crime and the accused and thus, theprosecution has clearly proved its case that it was the accused who attacked thedeceased with M.O.1 and M.O.2 and caused his death.Coming to the question as to the nature of the act of the accused, theCourt is able to see force in the contention of the learned Counsel for theappellant.In the instance case, there was a wordy quarrel at about 02.00 a.m.,and following the same, the accused has attacked the deceased.As per theprosecution case, even in the F.I.R and through the witnesses, it would be quiteclear that the act of the accused is neither intentional nor pre-meditated, butdue to exchange of words at about 02.00 a.m., at the time of the occurrence, theaccused caused the death of the deceased.With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, thecriminal appeal is dismissed.1.The Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.2.The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

But, he stated that he had advised P.W 1 and 2 not to blow up the matter and he also stated that the panchayat was convened but then he was not aware of what happened thereafter.P.W.5 is the panchayat board president and he turned hostile.P.W.6 was the vice president and he also turnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 hostile.P.W.7 also turned hostile.P.W.8 also turned hostile.P.W.9 was the doctor who examined the victim girl.She had issued Ex.The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 and levied with fine of Rs.2,000/- vide judgment dated 13.10.2010 in S.C No.182 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.2.According to the prosecution, the residence of the victim is opposite to the house of the accused.On 25.03.2007, at about 09.00 A.M, the accused called the victim girl to his house.The victim girl was said to have been studying in II Standard and aged about 7 years.The accused locked the door from behind and made the victim girl lie on the cot and removed her panties.He thereafter attempted to commit rape on her.The victim is said to have cried in pain and wanted to go to her mother.The accused is said to have threatened the victim from disclosing what happened.P.W.1 took up the matter with the local panchayat president and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before the Inspector of Police, AWPS, Thiruverambur.The victim girl was sent for medical examination.The doctor whohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 examined the victim girl stated that there were no external injuries and that the hymen was intact and that semen not found in the dresses.P5 is the accident register which contains these endorsements.3.The investigation officer after recording the statements of the witnesses filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichirappalli for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC.Then, the case was made over to the Mahila Court/Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli.The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked Exs.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal and wanted this Court to set aside the impugned judgment.P5 accident register extract.P.W.10 was working as a Constable during the relevant time and it was she who produced the victim girl and her mother before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichy and took the victim to Trichy Government Hospital.P.W.11 had issued potential certificate for the accused.P.W.12 had taken the accused for medical examination.P.W.13 registered the FIR in this case and who conducted the investigation and filed final report.P.W.14 is the victim girl.6.This Court went through the deposition of the victim girl given in the court.The victim girl had clearly deposed as to what happened.She had clearly stated that after making her lie on the cot and removing her panties, the accused/appellant had placed his private part on hers.In fact, her testimony was also recorded.Her testimony could not be shaken in the cross examination.It is true that even though the occurrence had taken place on 25.03.2007, FIR was lodged only a few days later.The matter was taken to the localhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 panchayat.When he was questioned under section 313 of Cr.PC, the accused admitted that it is true that he fell at the feet of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but claimed that the other allegations are false.When the accused himself stated that there was a panchayat, it is strange that the panchayat president and vice president deposed that no such panachayat was conducted.The defence of the accused is that the father of P.W.2 namely, Sappani had developed great affection for the father of the accused and that he had also settled half acre of the land in favour of the father of the accused.According to the accused, this was the motive for P.W. 1 and 2 to falsely implicate him.7.I am not impressed with this contention.Even if it is true that there was enmity between the family of the victim girl and the family of the accused, still, no one will go to the extent of staking the honour of their girl child.In this case, the girl child in question had clearly spoken about the crime committed by the appellant.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 The testimony of the child is certainly believable and credible.There is no merit in this appeal.8.At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for showing some leniency in the matter of punishment.I am of the view that considering the sheer lapse of time and the fact that the victim girl did not suffer any external injury and the fact that the accused had not come under any adverse notice thereafter, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant can be reduced and it is accordingly reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment.The fine and conviction imposed on the appellant is confirmed.The trial court shall take steps to enforce this judgment and commit the accused/appellant in prison to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.http://www.judis.nic.in 89.The appeal is partly allowed.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.Skm CRL A (MD)No.419 of 2010 11.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Item No. 09And In the matter of: Kishori Ram Yadav & Anr.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Belur Police Station Case No.295 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013 under sections 447/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Post mortem examination was held.According to the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the various injuries as described in such report and the same were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.In the present case, of the 13 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 did not lend any support to the prosecution case.In his evidence in chief he claimed that he reached the place of occurrence on 16th of January, 2000 at about 5-30 p.m. and found a crowd of about 2500 to 3000 persons.He found accused Manas Saha getting down from his motor cycle after intimating the Police Station and police arrived there following him.The mob disbursed.Being asked by the police officer, he signed on a blank full scape paper.He identified his signatures in the inquest report marked Ext.1 and 1(a).He further identified the First Information Report written by one Dipak Bolley and signed by Manas Saha.The same were marked Ext.2 and 2/1 respectively.P.W. 2 just identified his two signatures marked Ext.1/1 and 1A/1 in the documents which were prepared in connection with the death of the said two persons.It is now to be seen as to how far the prosecution could succeed to unveil the mystery.He lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Usthi Police Station.He claimed therein that he heard hue and cry raised by several hundreds of persons in a place to the north of his house on 16th January, 2000 at about 2 p.m. He learnt that the local people encircled three dacoits who were preparing bomb in the field.As the said dacoits attacked the mob with bomb and pistol, the infuriated mob caught them, namely Swapan Halder and Gopal Naskar.They were severely assaulted.The third person somehow fled away.In his evidence in chief he stated that Manas Saha, Pravash Naskar, Nirmal Saha, Laltu Saha and Kachi Mondal came to their house on a particular Sunday about three years prior to his deposing in Court.It was at about 2-30 to 3 p.m. He then stated that those persons asked his mother as to the whereabouts of his brother Gopal.As soon as Gopal came out of the house accused Manas Saha caught hold of his hand and started assaulting him then and there.Other accused 5 persons, as named by him, also joined him.Gopal was then tied with rope around his waist.He was dragged out to the road and being so assaulted, he sustained bleeding injury on his head.Laltu then took out a small revolver from his pocket and claimed that the same was recovered from Gopal.Gopal was thereafter taken to Milan Mandir.Nepal Naskar, brother of P.W.3 was present with him.P.W.3 then deposed that he did not dare to meet the police.P.W.7 was the wife of the victim Swapan Halder.According to her, when the victim Swapan was taking his meal at about 2 p.m. in the house accused Satya, whom she used to 7 address as uncle, came to their house and informed that accused Manal Saha had called him out.Her husband left with Satya after finishing his meal.When they reached near the house of one Nani Bangla, accused persons namely Pravash, Prakash, Ramen, Laltu, Nirmal and Kachi started assaulting her husband.She further stated that her son Bappa was also with her.She clearly mentioned that she did not see accused Satya and Manas assaulting her husband.By the time victim Swapan was taken to the Milan Mandir field, another victim namely Gopal was found lying there dead.In cross-examination, she claimed that she was the second wife of the victim Swapan who married one Joya earlier.In course of cross-examination she further disclosed that Bappa was not the son of Swapan.His first wife Joya was previously married.She denied that the victims were beaten to death by a mob of about 2000 to 2500 persons while they were found making bombs.The said accused was accompanied by other accused persons.Victim Swapan Halder was also taken to the field of Milan Mandir where he was also assaulted by the accused persons with bamboo.In his evidence in chief he stated that after leading the accused persons in such act of killing the two victims, accused Manas Saha went to his house, changed his dress and went to Usthi Police Station in a motor cycle.Being informed by him, police arrived there in the evening.He further stated that he did not see Satya Ranjan Mondal in the field of Milan Mandir on that date nor did he find him there assaulting either of the victims.P.W.10 is another brother 8 of P.W.3 who in his evidence in chief stated that he found the accused persons namely Manash, Prakash, Prabhas, Laltu, Kachi, Nirmal and Ramen assaulting his brother Gopal with bamboo.He also spared accused Satya Ranjan Mondal.P.W.12 is the Police Officer who filled in the formal FIR marked Ext.5.Before starting of the case he referred to the G.D. entry made by one Manas Saha at noon on 16th January, 2000 wherein it was alleged that a huge mob of villagers gharaoed some miscreants of Earpur and were assaulting them.He further referred to the FIR received from Manas Saha at about 16-45 hours.On its basis Usthi P.S. Case No.12 dated 16.1.2000 was started.In his evidence in chief he stated that on receipt of the G.D. he went to the field of Earpur and found a huge mob.There were two dead bodies lying on the ground.He was asked to start a case over RT.The G.D. entry was lodged at 14-15 hours.Two persons, namely Swapan Halder and Gopal Naskar, were found dead on 16th January, 2000 at 2.00 p.m. at village Earpur, P.S. Usthi, Diamond Harbour, District 24 2 Parganas (South).As many as eight accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 304 (Part- I) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Prosecution in order to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused persons examined as many as 13 witnesses.The accused persons during their respective examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded innocence and denied the allegations as made by the witnesses for the prosecution.Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.Learned trial court after taking into consideration all relevant facts and materials by judgement dated 29th July, 2005 found the seven accused persons guilty and convicted them for the offences under Section 304 (Part I) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The said convicts thereafter by order dated 4th August, 2005 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and each of them was directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- only, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for ten months each.Being aggrieved by the said judgement and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants approached this Court by way of filing the instant appeal.Mr. Sanyal appearing as learned counsel for the appellants sought to assail the impugned judgement on the ground that learned trial court failed to appreciate the materials on record in the proper perspective.Being so assaulted, those two persons died on the spot.On the basis of such written complaint police authority started Usthi Police Station Case No.12 dated 16th January, 2000 under Section 304/34 of Indian Penal Code.Interestingly enough, the police authority after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet and such de facto complainant was made one of the accused persons in it.P.W.3 is brother of one of the two victims, namely, Gopal Naskar.P.W.3 followed them.He touched the feet of Manas and sought for release of Gopal.Gopal was thus beaten to death by those persons.On the next day he went to the Police Station and handed over a written document describing the incident.Police did not take any action.He then approached the Superintendent of Police as well as the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID.He made further approach to Usthi Police Station and thereafter forwarded his application by registered post with A/D. He referred to the acknowledgement cards marked Exts.P.W.3 further deposed that two other persons namely Swapan Halder and Shyampada Naskar were also brought by Manas Saha and his associates.They were also assaulted.This resulted in death of Swapan but Shyampada somehow managed to escape. P.W.3 further stated that there was property dispute between their family and the five sons of Adhir Naskar which include accused Prakash and Pravash.He also stated that here land dispute with Manas Saha, who 5/6 years back, set his house on fire.Wife of Manas was the Pradhan of Earpur Gram Panchayat and their family was an influential one.In cross-examination he admitted that he was not present when Manas Saha asked his mother as to the whereabouts of Gopal.He mentioned the names of three persons, Mohan Sardar, Nalin Halder and Faridul, who, according to him, witnessed the incident.He did not like to mention 6 the names of other witnesses. P.W.3 further stated in cross-examination that except accused Satya Ranjan, the seven other accused persons put bamboos on the throat of both Swapan and Gopal.None had the courage to resist.It transpires from his cross-examination that at the relevant time, wife of accused Manas Saha was the Pradhan on TMC ticket. P.W.3 described accused Satya Ranjan Mondal as the supporter of CPI(M) who however joined the said party.He denied that said two victims died being assaulted by huge mob of about 3000 villagers.In his evidence in chief he corroborated the evidence of his earlier witness P.W.3, on some material points.Strangely enough, in cross-examination he deposed that he came to learn from his two sons namely Rebati and Nepal that his another son Gopal was beaten to death by the accused persons.It is interesting to note that such P.W.4 in cross-examination stated that he did not know any Satya Mondal.He had no grievance against any such person.He admitted that he knew all the accused persons including Satya Ranjan since childhood as they were of the same village.There is nothing much in the evidence of P.W.5 who just found the two victims namely Swapan Halder and Gopal Naskar lying dead on the field.P.W.6 was just tendered by the prosecution.P.W.8 corroborated the evidence of P.W.7 on all material points.P.W.9 found the accused Manas assaulting Gopal with a bamboo.He forwarded the said two dead bodies for post mortem examination to Diamond Harbour morgue.He received some alamts like pieces of broken bricks and controlled earth.He examined some local witnesses and recorded the statement before returning to Police Station.He also examined some witnesses on 17.1.2000 and 18.1.2000 and recorded their statement.He arrested two accused persons, namely Pravash and Prakash.Under order of the superior authority, he submitted charge sheet against ten accused persons who included the de facto complainant.He admitted that he did not examine accused Manas Saha and his statement was not recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. According to him, Manas was made an accused as per the statement of witnesses.According to P.W.12, the witness P.W.1 stated before him that he heard the sound of bombs and then he went to the spot and found a huge crowd of about 2500 to 3000 persons.He further stated before I.O. that two dacoits were apprehended.The said mob detained Swapan Halder and Gopal Naskar.P.W. 12 further stated that P.W.5 Jogodish Sarkar told him that on 16th January,2000 when some dacoits were manufacturing bombs they were chased by villagers.The enraged members of the mob including Pravash, Prakash, Laltu Saha and Jiban assaulted the victims.P.W.12 further stated that P.W.6 Kamalesh Mondal stated that the miscreants were making bombs and being chased by the villagers, two of them were detained and were subsequently found dead whereas one of them escaped.P.W.12 further stated that P.W. Rebati Naskar also stated that two dacoits were assaulted by members of a huge mob and he subsequently found that the victims were none other than his brother Gopal and brother in law Swapan.P.W.12 further referred to the witness, Chaya Halder, who according to him, stated that her husband and Gopal Naskar were beaten to death by the villagers of Earpur as well as of other adjacent villages.The said witness stated that she was not at the place of occurrence and when she went to the said place, she found both Gopal and her husband were lying dead in the field.Evidence of the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, clearly indicates that the victims sustained various injuries which could very well be caused by being assaulted by members of mob.The two witnesses examined on behalf of the defence sought to contradict the prosecution evidence implicating the present appellants/convicts.What emerges from the evidence on record is that there had been steady effort on the part of the members of the family of the two victims to shield accused Satya.What emerges from the evidence on record is that some of the members of the gang of the accused persons and the members of the families of the two deceased victims had various kind of disputes between them.There had been land dispute apart from the fact that there was political rivalry.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This revision petition assails the order dated 17th November, 2011 of Special CBI Judge whereby on the application of the Complainant, the bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled in CBI Case RC No. 6/2009 under Section 120B read with Sections 302/364/201/218 IPC registered at P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun.18 persons were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to Crl.P. 532/2011 Page 1 of 6P. 532/2011 Page 1 of 6Aggrieved thereby, the complainant who is the father of the deceased filed two petitions before the hon'ble Supreme Court.One of those petitions was for transfer of the case from Dehradun and another was for cancellation of the bail of the accused persons 1 to 7 granted by the Uttrakhand High Court.The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 17th March, 2011 set aside the order of granting bail to the accused 1 to 7 and transferred the said case from Uttrakhand to Delhi.The present petitioners are the accused at serial No. 8 to 18 in the said case.An offence i.e. U/s 201 IPC entails punishment upto seven years (and fine) and three years(and fine) in different contingencies.According to the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. an offence u/s 201 IPC is a bailable offence although triable by the Court of sessions.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

He is directed to file the same in the office today itself.Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Kanojia, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant(s) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Counter affidavit filed by Sri Kameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the complainant today in the Court is taken on record.It is only as a tangent remark in 164 Cr.PC.statement, she has added the name of the applicant.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant-Akshay Kumar, involved in case crime no.498 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.Order Date :- 5.6.2020 Mahesh

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Theresidents of Banni Purwa and the adjoining 'abadi' of village Banni arrivedon the scene and the appellant and his companions, without collecting anybooty, ran away from the house of Mendai.They were chased by Mendai andGanga and when they were crossing the ditch of Pipra Farm, Mendai caughthold of one dacoit.Another dacoit who was identified by several witnessesas the appellant thereupon fired a pistol shot which hit Mendai and Mendaifell to the ground and was removed to the hospital where he died.Thedacoits took to their heels without collecting any booty when they foundthat the villagers from Banni Purwa and Banni came immediately to the aidof Mendai and Ganga.JUDGMENT1957 AIR (SC) 320The Judgment was delivered by : BHAGWATIBHAGWATI, J. : The appellant had been charged inter alia with havingcommitted an offence under section 396, Indian Penal Code in that he on10/11th day of September, 1954, about two or three gharis before sunrise invillage Banni Purwa, hamlet of Banni, police station Kotwali, Kheri, alongwith other persons committed dacoity in the house of Mendai and that in thecommission of such dacoity, murder was committed by one of the members.Thelearned Sessions Judge found that the appellant, and the others, hadentered the house of Mendai with intent to commit a robbery but were foiledin the attempt owing to Mendai and Ganga having raised a hue and cry.The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court recorded concurrentfindings of fact that the appellant shot and killed Mendai to secure therelease of one of his companions and also to ensure their safe retreat.These concurrent findings of fact ware enough to dispose of the appealof the appellant before the High Court.A distinctionwas sought to be drawn between a case where the dacoits were escaping withthe booty and the case where the dacoits were running away without anybooty.It was argued that it would be an offence of dacoity with murderwhen the dacoits, after committing robbery, were running away with thebooty and in order to escape with the booty they committed the murder andthat it would not be a dacoity with murder when dacoits had no. booty withthem but in order to avoid being caught they committed the murder.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction by the trial Court.The appellant/ accused tried for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 307 IPC.The trial Court after examining the witnesses and appreciating the evidence has held him guilty for the said offences and convicted him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC and 3 months imprisonment for the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC.The period of sentence ordered to run concurrently.The brief facts of the prosecution case:On 09.08.2008 at about 4.00pm., while the accused was cutting the tree in the public place near the victim Gnanamoorthy house, Gnanamoorthy questioned why he is cutting a live tree, for which, the accused abused him in filthy language and said that he will also cut him if he objects.Thereafter, he climbed down from the tree and attacked Gnanamoorthy on his face with the Aruval.Due to the attack, the victim sustained cut injury on his lip.Two of his teeth were uprooted.After got discharged from the Hospital, the victim came to know that the police has not taken any action on his complaint.On completion of investigation, final report was filed against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 accused/appellant.The trial Court after appreciating the evidence placed before it, held the accused guilty and convicted him as mentioned above.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Court below has failed to appreciate the inordinate delay in registering the First Information Report, which has paved way to concoct the facts.The alleged injuries sustained by the victim not been substantiated by proper medical evidence.The scene of crime not been consistently spoken by the witnesses.The inconsistency and contradiction regarding the scene of crime makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.The omission to name the accused before the doctor is fatal to the prosecution case.The natural witnesses for the occurrence have not supported the case of the prosecution.The witnesses of the Seizure Mahazar and Observation Mahazar have turned hostile.PW-1 to PW-5 are interested witnesses.In such circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have held the appellant/accused guilty.In support of his submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the following Judgments:No CITATION DICTUM LAID (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 687 (SC) For Delay in FIR and Non- Prabir Mondal and another disclosure to the Doctor 1 Vs State of West Bengal regarding the history of injury (2018) 1 Supreme Court Failure to send the knife 2 Cases 128 State of and blood stained clothes to Uttarakhand Vs Jairnail Singh Forensic examinationhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Sl.No CITATION DICTUM LAID 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 132 Hostile Witnesses for (DB) K.Dhanavel Vs.State Seizure Mahazar and 3 by Inspector of Police, Observation Mahazar Ayyampettai Police Station, Thanjavur DistrictPer contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that the incident took place on 09.08.2008 at about 4.45 p.m., in front of the victim's house.Soon after the incident, the injured victim/PW-1 was admitted in the hospital.Accident Register copy marked as Ex.P.7 discloses the fact that the victim PW-1 taken to the hospital by his wife Balamani PW-2 on 09.08.2008 at about 5.25 p.m. The Accident Register also discloses the fact that the police was intimated about the medical legal case.While so, the victim who was admitted as in-patient for the grievous injuries got discharged from the hospital and found that the police has not registered his complaint.So, he reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police.Thereafter his complaint has been registered for further action.This fact has been deposed by PW-1 in his testimony.Though not the recovery been supported by the Mahazar witnesses, the fact that the victim was assaulted by the Aruval M.O.1 has been otherwise proved by the prosecution through the injured victim and the eyewitness.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that when the witness who sustained injury in the hands of the accused had identified the accused as well as the weapon used has been cogently proved.The minor lapse on the part of the investigation or the minor contradictions regarding the place of their respective residence has no consequences.The weapon, the seat of attack, the word uttered by the accused clearly proves the intention of the accused.8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate.The first point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is delay in registering the First Information Report.The evidence of PW-1 explains the reason for the delay.The fault of the Station House Officer, who has failed to register the First Information Report despite receiving intimation from the hospital, cannot be a reason for the assailant to escape the prosecution.In this Accident Register the Doctor Bhuvana PW-9 has recorded the version of the victim regarding the history of injury.The doctor was informed that the injuries were caused by one known person.In the instant case, the assailant has specifically disclosed to the doctor that he was assaulted by a known person.Further, in this case, the victim has sustained injury and same has been witnessed by 4 others.The assailant is not a stranger, but the resident of the same place.Therefore, there is no substance in the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant regarding the delay in registering the First Information Report and absence of the assailant name in the Accident Register.When considering whether the injury was caused with an intention or knowledge to cause death to attract Section 307 of IPC, the words uttered by the accused, while causing the hurt and the weapon used by him and the seating of attack gets relevant.The trial Court while holding the accused guilty for offence under Section 307 of IPC sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment.The accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapon.He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madrashttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J vrn Criminal Appeal No.842 of 2011 Date: 26.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) 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.

ORDER S.P. Kukday, J.1. Leave to add.In this revision petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the proceeding in private complaint bearing RTC No. 293/1996 instituted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 464 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 purchased truck bearing registration No. MH-17/A-6670 by borrowing loan of Rs. 36,000/- from the petitioner and entering into hire-purchase agreement with the petitioner proprietary firm M/s. Chopra Auto Finance, Hyderabad.However, respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner with a request to review the agreement.Respondent No. 1 agreed to repay the outstanding amount of Rs. 49,000/- in twenty monthly instalment of Rs. 2,450/- each.Respondent No. 1, however, committed default in payment of the instalment, as a result the vehicle was again taken in possession by the petitioner.On this occasion, respondent No. 1 instituted a criminal proceeding against petitioner and three others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon bearing R. T. C. No. 293/1996 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 464 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.After recording of the verification, the matter was referred to the police for investigation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.After receipt of the report of the Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 23-10-1997 issuing search warrant under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.After getting knowledge of this development, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the complaint.In spite of service respondent No. 1 has not appeared before the Court.In the present case, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 by filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 464 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner has approached this Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It has to be borne in mind that the extraordinary jurisdiction has to be exercised only sparingly and in an appropriate case where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or patent illegality.In the present case, it can be seen that respondent No. 1 has filed complaint in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 464 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, who is proprietor of M/s. Chopra Auto Finance, Hyderabad (A. P.).The allegations in the complaint are that though amount of Rs. 45,400/- out of Rs. 56,000/ - is paid, the petitioner obtained signature of respondent No. 1 on blank stamp papers and forms and by misusing these documents and has taken away vehicle belonging to him.After recording of the verification, the matter was referred to local police for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The inquiry report is submitted on 2-1-1997 making it clear that the transaction is in respect of a civil dispute.The allegations are in respect of chearing and making of false documents.In that case, there was a dispute between the parties relating to the truck purchased by complainant (respondent) under hire purchase agreement.The Financier had taken possession of the truck.The allegation was that offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed.The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.) with Ms. Parul Jamwal, Advocate SI Narinder Kaur, PS Nanak Pura CWC Mr. S.R. Kaushik, Adv.Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 1 of 5Counsel for the parties state that with the aid and assistance of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, the outstanding matrimonial dispute between the parties to the union has been settled amicably on 27th February, 2015 and the statements of the parties to the marriage have been recorded in this behalf.The respondent no. 2/complainant (wife) has in the said statement dated 27 th February, 2015 stated as follows:-"Statement of Complainant Ms. Jyoti D/o Sh.Jai Gopal R/o 45-46, Kamla Park, Dharampura, Najafgarh, New Delhi.I am giving this statement voluntarily without any force, threat, coercion or undue influence."Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 2 of 5In a nutshell, it is agreed by and between the parties to the union that respondent no. 2 (wife) shall be paid a total sum of Rs. 4,60,000/- towards all her claims against the petitioners.Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement between the parties to the union, the entire sum of Rs. 4,60,000/- has been received by respondent no.2 (wife).The latter acknowledges receipt thereof.Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 3 of 5Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 3 of 5In the present case, it is observed that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 7th November, 2015 has already been obtained by the parties from the concerned Family Court, Dwarka, Delhi.Ms. Jyoti, the respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer i.e. SI Narinder Kaur, PS CAW Cell Nanakpura, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.for Respondent no. 2/complainant along with Respondent no. 2/complainant in-person CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 160/2014 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.A girl child namely Plaksha was born out of the said wedlock, who is presently in the care and custody of respondent no.2/complainant (wife) herein.On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his family members.On SA I have settled the case with all the respondents before the court of Ms. Manu Goel Kharb, MM Mahila Court-03, Dwarka towards full and final settlement amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- out of which Rs. 1.5 lac shall be paid by Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 2 of 5 respondent no. 1 Shiv Kumar at the time of recording the statement of first motion of divorce Rs. 1,50,000/- at the time of recording the statement of second motion of divorce and last installment of Rs. 1,60,000/- at the time of quashing the FIR No. 160/2014 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.I undertake that I shall cooperate with the respondent in quashing the FIR.Respondent no. 1 shall not claim the custody or any other rights qua the child Plaksha.Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably before learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi on 27th February, 2015, without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; as the parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent on 7th November, 2015; and the settlement between the parties is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No. 160/2014 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 4 of 5 registered at Police Station- CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the petitioners subject to their investing an aggregate sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt in a nationalized bank, in favour of the minor child- Plaksha, which shall be operated and renewed from time to time under the guardianship of respondent no. 2/complainant (wife), within a period of two months from today.A copy of the receipt shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 4 of 5With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 19, 2016 sd Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 5 of 5Writ Petition (Crl.) 274/2016 Page 5 of 5

['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.

12.12.13 Item No. 114 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 114And In the matter of: Tutun Sk. & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Mr. Sayed Arif Hossain For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 116 of 2013 dated 05.07.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the complainant and the other Petitioners are his relatives.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J)

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The petitioner's counsel urged that false and concocted allegations have been leveled by the victim in her written complaint to Bail Appl.758/2015 Page 1 of 5 humiliate the petitioner.No offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been made out; it is a marital discord.Despite all attempts to consummate the marriage, the petitioner could not do so.Victim's mother was apprised about it and her response was that she was aware of that perennial issue.On 3.1.2015, the complainant visited a gynaecologist; she advised her to meet a psychiatric and marriage councilor.The petitioner also visited the councilor.The prosecutrix started receiving calls Bail Appl.758/2015 Page 2 of 5 from several numbers and the callers used to indulge into cheap talks with her; she started getting obscene calls, messages and posts on Face Book.Bail Appl.758/2015 Page 2 of 5In her complaint dated 9.3.2015, forming the basis of registration of the FIR No.450/2015, the victim gave detailed account as to how during her honeymoon, she was subjected to mental and physical torture.She was categorical to state that the petitioner established unnatural sex against her wishes forcibly; he also used instruments and objects while doing unnatural sex.She further alleged that the petitioner used to hit her; he tried to kill her.These allegations are very serious in nature as the victim was not expected to get this treatment on her honeymoon.There were no compelling reasons for the victim to level serious allegations against the petitioner, her husband, so soon after the marriage.Soon after return to India on 6.1.2015, the victim had gone to a Fatima Clinic, at Malviya Nagar complaining "acute pain lower abdomen; difficulty in passing urine; pain while defecating and itching over anus".The victim gave history of repeated anal intercourse.Merely because the marriage could not be consummated, there was no occasion for the petitioner to indulge in anal intercourse against the order of nature forcibly without victim's consent.Alleged history recorded therein mentions 'anal and oral intercourse by the accused on multiple occasions between 13.12.2014 to 26.12.2014'.Bail Appl.758/2015 Page 3 of 5Subsequently, FIR No.1358/15 under Section 509 IPC was registered on 13.07.2015 against the petitioner.Allegedly, he started circulating victim's mobile number on porn websites.The prosecutrix started received phones from several numbers.Status report dated 11.3.2016 reveals that the prosecutrix had got the information from her colleague Abhishek regarding her number to have been posted on whatsapp group "Drunk, Smoke, Fuck and Sleep".After probe, it was revealed that, one Arun Kashyap was the creator of the said group.His name was ascertained as Kunal Narang.During interrogation, Kunal Narang accepted that the information 'Jugaad@5Ksaket' about the complainant got from a website was posted by him.The petitioner's custody is required to ascertain the website on which the victim's mobile number was posted.Additional Status Report dated 19.10.2016 reveals that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed possession of Samsung mobile phone.On 12.6.2015, a message was sent from his mobile stating that he had returned the office assets to the company including laptop.In another message he revealed about another personal laptop apart from his office laptop.It further describes that several messages in his mobile were addressed to females which were prurient in nature.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Case FIR No.450/2015 under Sections 323/377/506 IPC registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar.Status report/Additional Status report are on record.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and have examined the file.Counsel for the petitioner urged that on 27.02.2015 a settlement took place between the parties to return the various gifts.It was explicitly understood in their meetings on 27.02.2015 and 5.3.2015 that the marriage would be dissolved on amicable and mutual terms.On 18.03.2015, to save the marriage, the petitioner filed a petition for Restoration of Conjugal Rights before the Distt.Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that subsequent motivated FIR No.1358/15 under Section 509 IPC, was based upon false facts and no such information was uploaded by the petitioner on the web-site.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by the complainant's counsel, urged that there are serious and grave allegations against the petitioner whereby during honeymoon, he established unnatural sex with the prosecutrix and inserted instruments/objects in her private parts.Not only that, the petitioner with the sole motive to harass the complainant and to pressurize her to withdraw the case, circulated her mobile number on porn websites.Mobile had videos of animal sex.Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the petitioner as he avoided to join the investigation initially.Bail Appl.758/2015 Page 4 of 5Considering the gravity and serious allegations against the petitioner and his unnatural and unreasonable conduct, I find no sufficient ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The bail application is dismissed.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 24, 2017 sa Bail Appl.758/2015 Page 5 of 5Bail Appl.758/2015 Page 5 of 5

['Section 509 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.

In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.10.2016 in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No. 397/2016 dated 04.08.2016 for committing offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/326/307/511/354B/364A/379/427/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is in custody for 24 days in connection with investigation of Chanchal P.S. Case No. 397/2016 dated 04.08.2016 under Sections 147/148/149/326/307/511/354B/364A/379/427/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Having perused the materials in the case diary and on consideration of the fact that a co-accused has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 19th September 2016, we find no reason to take a different view on this application.Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands allowed.The petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, and on further condition that after release, he shall meet the Investigating Officer of the 2 case thrice in every week until further orders as well as refrain from directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence, failing which the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Dipankar Datta, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that date of birth of Ms. X is 4th December, 1999 and at present she is sixteen years of age.It is submitted that in the month of March, 2016 Ms. X returned home on her own.She fell ill in the month of June, 2016, and was taken to a doctor and on ultra sound, it was revealed that she was carrying a pregnancy of twenty two weeks and six days.The ultrasound report of Dr. Rathore S. USG Trauma Centre has been relied upon.It is submitted that Ms. X is physically weak, inasmuch as, is under great mental stress due to the unwanted pregnancy.Being a rape victim, she is under great mental distress and is keen to get the pregnancy terminated, since its continuation is a threat to her health.Section 3 of The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (the Act for short), reads as under:-When Pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.-Petitioner is father of Ms. X. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein that respondent no.1 be directed to add the name of Rahul and his associates in the FIR.He has also prayed that his daughter be permitted to abort her pregnancy.As regards the first relief is concerned, same has not been pressed since offence under Section 376 IPC has been added in the FIR No. 39/2014, which was initially registered under Section 363 IPC at Police W.P. (Crl.) 2046/2016 Page 1 of 11 Station Sonia Vihar, on the complaint of petitioner.Accused persons have also been arrested.W.P. (Crl.) 2046/2016 Page 1 of 11Second prayer has been vehemently pressed.Affidavit dated 19 th July, 2016 of Ms. X has also been placed on record wherein she has supported the prayer of termination of pregnancy.She has stated that she wants to terminate her pregnancy for her safety and also to safeguard her future.She has further deposed that she was forcibly raped by the accused persons.She is present in Court and submits that she is under great mental stress, agony and trauma on account of her repeated rape.Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that statement of Ms. X has also been recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi wherein she has stated that she was kidnapped and raped and she wants to get her pregnancy terminated.It is further submitted that continuation of pregnancy is injurious to the health of Ms. X.FIR No.39/2014 was registered under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Sonia Vihar on the complaint of petitioner, wherein he has categorically stated that his daughter (Ms. X), aged about 14 years, had gone to school on 30th January, 2014 at 7:30 am and had not returned.W.P. (Crl.) 2046/2016 Page 2 of 11W.P. (Crl.) 2046/2016 Page 2 of 11First of all, no Clinical Psychologist was included in the medical board.W.P. (Crl.) 2046/2016 Page 9 of 11Accordingly, the Medical Superintendent of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi is directed to constitute a medical board comprising of three senior Gynaecologists and one Clinical Psychologist to examine Ms. X and, after interaction with her, to form an opinion as to whether termination of pregnancy is necessary in view of the threat to life of Ms. X. If the board is of the view that termination of pregnancy is necessary, the doctor concern shall take action for termination of pregnancy, without any further permission from this Court.If there is no unanimity amongst the doctors, the majority view of the doctors shall prevail.It is further ordered that in case of abortion, the hospital shall take necessary tissue from the foetus for DNA identification.Investigating Officer petitioner and Ms. X shall appear before the Medical Superintendent, All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 27 th July, 2016 at 9:00 am.All arrangements for admission of Ms. X as indoor patient, if necessary, be made for the tests and subsequent treatment including the termination of pregnancy, depending upon the report of the doctors.W.P. (Crl.) 2046/2016 Page 10 of 11W.P. (Crl.) 2046/2016 Page 10 of 11A copy of this order be given to learned Additional Standing Counsel under the signatures of Court Master to serve the same on the Medical Superintendent, through the Investigation Officer, for compliance.Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.A.K. PATHAK, J.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

sk In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 5.7.2013 in connection with Boxirhat P.S. Case No. 15/2013 dated 21.01.2013 under Sections 498A/323/325 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently charge sheet filed u/s. 498A/306 of the I.P.C.In Re: Mamoni Deb Sharma @ Mamoni Devi SharmaMr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar ...for the petitioner.Accordingly, this application is dismissed as "Not Pressed".

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.