id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,773,305 |
(1) On August 14, 1967 Shri Kashmir Sindhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, made three reports recommending that the charges framed (2) Before the partition of the country Choudhary Bhagat Ram and his five sons, Surinder Nath Rajinder Nath, Narinder Nath, Waseshwar Nath and Joginder Nath, had a joint Hindu family business of stock and share brokers at Rawalpindi.After the death of Bhagat Ram his sons started a partnership firm for doing the same business at Delhi.No capital was contributed by any partner.Surinder Nath, who is the eldest out of the brothers, was, according to the terms of the partnership deed, to be in charge of the office and was to operate upon the bank accounts in the name of the firm.The other partners were to be "the field workers".(3) Unfortunately differences arose between the brothers, more particularly between Joginder Nath and Surinder Nath.On December 17, 1962 Joginder Nath made a report to the Superintendent of Police, South Delhi, alleging that dealings of Surinder Nath with the funds of the partnership firm had not been "honest and straight-forward".In the report alleged instances of criminal breach of trust, cheating and falsification of accounts were given.(4) A case was registered by the police.After investigation the police submitted three charge sheets.Shri Jag Mohan, Magisrate First Class, New Delhi, on September 27, 1965 framed in each of the case a charge under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.The relevant portions of those charges were as under:-".. .that you on or about 17-11-56 being entrusted with the domain over the bank accounts and the office of Choudhury Bhagat Ram & Sons (by virtue of clause 4 of the partnership Deed) committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 2000 shares, 1000 ordinary shares and 1000 deferred shades of Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd., which belonged to the said firm by dishonestly disposing these shares by transferring them in the name of your wife Mrs. Vidya Wanti at the rate of Rs. 11.50 nP. Per share whereas the value of each share at that time was Rs. 24.00 per share, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C............."The decretal amount and the costs amounting to Rs. 3,157.00 were averred to have been paid by Surinder Nath out of the funds of the pertnership firm.Another allegation made against Surinder Nath was that while at Rawalpindi he had on behalf of the joint hindu family entered into a contract with Miss Christy for the sale of 700 Motor General third preference shares at the rate of Rs. 12/8/0 but in spite of receiving the sale price in full did not deliver the share scrips to the buyer.Regarding the value of those shares as well Miss Christy was stated to have obtained a decree which was satisfied from the funds of the partnership firm.Those shares were mentioned to have been brought to India by Surinder Nath and to have been got transferred in his own name.JUDGMENT Jagjit Singh, J.".. . .that you during the year 1954 being entrusted with the domain over the bank accounts and the office of M/s. Choudhury Bhagat Ram & Sons (by virtue of clause 4 of the Partnership Deed) committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 700 shares of Mysore Gold valued at Rs. 2,625.00 which belonged to the said firm, but were misappropriated by you on the pretext that they had been sold and delivered to Miss L. A. Christy on behalf of the firm for Rs. 2,625.00 and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 Indian Penal Code .............""...that you during the year 1947 being entrusted with domain over the Bank accounts and the office of M/s. Choudhry Bhagat Ram & Sons (by virtue of clause 4 of the Partnership Deed), committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 8,750.00 being the value of 700 shares of Motor General 3rd preference, each share valuing Rs. 12.50nP which belonged to the said firm but were misappropriated by you on the pretext that the shares had been left behind 'at Rawalpindi at the time of partition and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C... .........."(5) It will thus be seen that the charges related to criminal breach of trust in respect of 2000 shares of Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Limited, 700 shares of Mysore Gold and 700 shares of Motor General (third preference).(6) The allegations of Joginder Nath were that Surinder Nath had on behalf of the partnership firm purchased 1000 deferred and 1000 ordinary shares of Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Limited at the rate of Rs. 11.50 per share and thereafter when the market value of these shares had gone up to Rs.24.00 per share transferred them in the name of his wife, Mrs. Vidya Wanti.It was also stated that 700 shares of Mysore Gold belonging to the partnership firm were agreed to be sold by Surinder Nath to Miss Christy for Rs. 2,625.00 but instead of delivering the share scrips Surinder Nath dishonestly misappropriated them due to which Miss Christy had to file a suit against him and obtained a decree.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,332,967 |
The applicant is in custody since 12.11.2014 in connection with Crime No. 180/2014 registered at Police Station Dehat District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 376, 342, 506-B of IPC.As per prosecution story the complainant / prosecutrix lodged a report on 12.5.2014 stated that she was married to Pushpendra Singh.Soon after her marriage she was harassed by her in-laws and not allowed to live with him.The Collector / Administrative Officer sent the complainant / prosecutrix to Usha Kiran Ashray Grih, Jamna District Bhind, which was run and controlled by the present applicant.The applicant took the prosecutrix to Kotwali Bhind for lodging the report against her husband.After report was lodged, she was kept in "Ashray Grih", where it is alleged that the (Shivbhan Singh Rathor Vs.State) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2766/2015 applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix.On 6.3.2014 the prosecutrix was molested by the applicant, the complainant resisted and threatened him that she was sent by the District Magistrate and she will make a complaint to the D.M. The applicant closed the channel gate, kept her under surveillance of Guddi Bai and threatened her to engage Gundey (miscreants) to kill her.On 9.3.2014 the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.On 12.3.2014 again he committed sexual intercourse and after removing her clothes took out several photographs of the prosecutrix and threatened her that if she informs to anyone, he will dispatch photographs to her mother, father, sister and other relatives and also to the village people.On this threat he used to commit sexual intercourse now and then.The applicant used to give her stale food and used to get all the washing of clothes, utensils and moping of the floors etc., by the prosecutrix.When the prosecutrix suffered from headache due to stale food, she was taken to the District Hospital, Bhind on 27.4.2014, where the applicant and his wife Asha and one Rekha Shakya had gone to the hospital her.On 30.4.2014 the applicant on the pretext that her statement has to be recorded in the Court, took her to the District Hospital, Bhind and admitted her.From where on 1.5.2014 she left the place.This is the third application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.First application M.Cr.Second application M.Cr.There she narrated all the incidents to Rekha Shakya when she was alone.Rekha Shakya assured to help her.On 28.4.2014 she was taken to the house of (Shivbhan Singh Rathor Vs.State) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 2766/2015 the applicant by the applicant himself.The applicant was stalking her.She lodged the report after gathering confidence.9. Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case and he has not alleged anything against the applicant.Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of regular bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application.The sstatement recorded on 14.05.2015 before the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 355/2014 which is related to the present crime.In the statement, the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case.The prosecutrix has been declared hostile.She has not implicated the applicant in her statement.Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.(Shivbhan Singh Rathor Vs.State) 4 M.Cr.C. No. 2766/2015A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
1,773,345 |
3. Charge against the accused No. 1 was specific that he committed rape on the said girl on or about 17-8-1990 and, therefore, committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused persons as also the prosecutrix are the residents of Sudamnagar, Nagpur.At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was living with and in the custody of her parents who lived in Sudamnagar, Nagpur.Her mother, Smt. Sudha, who is examined as P.W. 1 runs a grocery shop at some distance from her residential house, while her father worked in an Automobile shop.The prosecutrix is the eldest amongst the three sisters, her two other sisters being Ku.Swarna aged about 13 years and Ku.Manisha aged about 11 years.At the relevant time, prosecutrix was studying in 10th Standard in Maharashtra Adhyayan Mandir, Gandhinagar, Nagpur.The accused persons, who were residing together, knew the family of the prosecutrix and were on the visiting terms with each other.The prosecution case is that on 15th August, 1990 at about 7-O' clock, prosecutrix left her house for going to school for attending the flag-hoisting ceremony.Before that, appellant/accused No. 2 - Ravindra had come on the previous day to her house to enquire as to whether she was going to the school for flag-hoisting day or not.He also took his meals and told her that he was going away to his native place by the night train.While she was on her way to the school on 15th August, 1990, accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in an auto-rickshaw and stopped her while she was crossing Gandhinagar ground and told her that accused No. 3 - Rajkumari was calling her and insisted upon her to accompany them.They forced her to sit with them in the auto-rickshaw and they took her to Nagpur Railway Station where she found that accused No. 3 was also there.All the four of them boarded the train and went to Itarsi where they reached in the evening.She was made to wear one Sari and also put Mayuri (red colour) on her feet.The prosecution further alleged that thereafter the accused Nos. 1 and 2 took her to the Railway Station and they went to Allahabad by train where they reached next day, i.e., on 16th August, 1990, in the afternoon.After two days, both of them left Patan and reached Nagpur in two or three day's time.The accused No. 1 took her to Sai Mandir by an autorickshaw where they stayed for 2 to 3 hours.From there they went to Tajbag shrine where they stayed throughout the night, and on the next day, they went to Hanuman Mandir of Rajabaksha area where the friends of accused No. 1 informed that the matter was already reported to the police.Therefore, accused No. 1 went to the house of the parents and he requested her parents to withdraw the report.Thereafter, on the next day early in the morning at about 4.00 a.m., the accused No. 1 dropped her near Amravati Road near her house.She thereafter went to her house and narrated the entire incident to her parents.In the meantime, finding that prosecutrix had not returned from her school, Sudha, her mother, started enquiries into the matter.She had tried to locate the prosecutrix in her relatives at Nagpur and also at Karanja, thinking that she might have gone to Karanja.She also sent couple of boys to Itarsi suspecting that the prosecutrix might have gone to Itarsi suspecting that the prosecutrix might have gone to Itarsi alongwith the accused persons.Further evidence is that of P.W. 4 - Swarna, the younger sister of the prosecutrix who, at that time, was a student of 9th-Standard in the same school where the prosecutrix was studying.She claims that on 14-8-1990, she was not feeling well and she had not gone to school also.She claims that in the evening on that day, accused No. 2 Ravindra had come to their house when prosecutrix was studying.He started handling the books of the prosecutrix and asked the prosecutrix whether she was going to the school on 15th August, whereupon the prosecutrix told that she was not going to the school, whereupon he told her that the next day was the Independence Day and that she must go to the school.She claims that she refused to go on the grounds that she had to go to the Independence Day function to the school.However, according to her, accused Nos. 1 and 2 pressed her mouth and took her in the auto-rickshaw.She tried to raise shouts but she was threatened and thereafter by auto-rickshaw they all went to Nagpur Railway Station where accused No. 3 Rajkumari was standing outside the Railway Station.She was offered tea, and though initially she had refused to take tea, she ultimately took tea in the restaurant opposite the Railway Station.Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the tickets, while she and accused No. 3-Rajkumari kept on standing there only.She claims that after purchasing the tickets, all of them alighted the train and they all reached Itarsi in the evening.She claims that the accused No. 3 alone went to her parent's house, while accused Nos. 1 and 2 and herself waited at the Railway Station.This appeal is at the instance of the three appellants who are convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Appellant/accused No. 1 - Vishnu Parameshwar Yadav additionally has been found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Originally, in all four accused persons came to be tried on the allegation that on or about 15th day of August, 1990, at about 7-O' clock, they kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor girl about 15 years old from Sudamnagar, Nagpur as also from the lawful guardianship of her parents.It was alleged that this kidnapping was with the intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against will, or may be forced to illicit inter-course.The investigation started.The girl, however, was reported to have come back by her mother Sudhabai.Her statement was also recorded.On 1-9-1990, the accused No. 3 was also arrested.Ultimately, even accused No. 1 came to be arrested and was referred for medical examination.Ultimately, on this basis, a charge-sheet came to be filed against all the four accused, and the accused were committed to the Sessions Court by the Chief Judical Magistrate, Nagpur.The accused persons abjured there guilt and raised the plea that they were not guilty.He claimed to have come to Nagpur on or about 15th September, 1990 from Kanpur.His claim was that the girl's statement was full of falsehood.In short, he made a plea of complete denial.Accused No. 2 admitted that accused No. 3 was his elder sister and that he knew the family of the prosecutrix.He also raised a plea that prosecutrix was falsely implicating him.Accused Nos. 3 and 4 claimed complete ignorance about the whole story.In support of the prosecution case, the evidence of Sudha, the complainant; prosecutrix herself as also the two boys who had gone in search of girl to Itarsi, was led.Her father's evidence was also recorded.The other witnesses examined by the prosecutrix were P.W. 4-Swarna, the sister of Prosecutrix; P.W. 6-Mahadeo, the Head Master to establish the age of the girl; Investigating Officer, etc. On the basis of this evidence, the trial Court acquitted the original accused No. 4 holding that he had no concern in the whole matter.The trial Court, however, convicted the other three accused persons for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also convicted accused No. 1 additionally for having committed an offence of rape against the prosecutrix.He pointed out that even as per prosecution case, the appellant-accused No. 3 had not in any manner participated in the actual act of taking the minor out of the custody of her lawful guardians, namely, the parents, nor was there any evidence regarding her activities prior to the said Act. Shri Daga submitted that even if it is presumed that afterwards the minor went and joined the company of the appellant-accused No. 3 who was on her way to Itarsi, she could be said to the accessory after the offence and as such there will be no criminal liability fixed against her.He pointed out from the letters which are proved that the language of the letters shows that the prosecutrix was a girl of full and mature understanding and carrying love affairs with the appellant/accused No. 1, and there was enough evidence on record to show that she of her own accord had left her house and joined the appellant/accused Nos. 1 and 2, as the case may be, if at all it is proved that she was in the company of accused Nos. 1 and 2, after she left her house.As regards the other contentions of the defence in respect of the criminal liability of the other accused, according to him, the offences for which they were convicted were fully brought home.On this back-drop of rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the accused persons are, in any manner, guilty as held by the trial Court.There is nothing unnatural about it for the simple reason that, in fact, the prosecutrix had completed the age of 14 years and was running 15 years.If her age was described as 15 years in the First Information Report, there is nothing wrong about it.12A. The second witness regarding the age of the prosecutrix is P.W. 6-Mahadeo Rajaram Aakhude, who is the Head Master of Maharashtra Adhyayan Mandir High School, Nagpur.He has deposed that from the school record, the prosecutrix was one of the students of the school since 24-5-1985 and was in the school till 17-9-1995, and it was on that day that her father applied for the transfer certificate and she ultimately left the school.He admitted that he did not know as to on what basis the prosecutrix was admitted to the 1st Standard in Primary School.He also admits that he did not know as to which hospital she was born in.In the further cross-examination, he admitted that the records remain in possession of the clerks who take the entry.However, he asserted that he examines the said entries.He was not in a position to tell as to which clerk had taken the concerned entry.The cross-examination takes us nowhere and it is clear that from the school record the age of the girl was fixed to be 14 years and 3 months approximately on the date of the incident.Insofar as the medical examination of the prosecutrix is concerned, the prosecution has not examined the doctor.The medical certificate was admitted by the defence.The medical certificate is Exhibit 34 wherein the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 15 years.It does not seem that the prosecutrix was sent for ossification test.Even in her evidence, the prosecutrix has given out her age as 15 years.From all this material, it can be safely said that the prosecutrix had not crossed the age of consent, i.e., 16 years on the date of the incident.It is true that the prosecution could have established the age by more positive evidence like from the Births and Deaths Register, or her age could have been fixed even by sending her for the ossification test.However, the fact remains that at no point of time has the defence challenged the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix herself; or even the evidence of the Head Master of the school regarding the age of the prosecutrix.It can, therefore, be easily deduced that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years on the date when her alleged kidnapping took place or even on the day when there was alleged sexual intercourse with her.The trial Court has also correctly arrived at the finding regarding her age on the basis of the evidence pointed out above.It will then be useful to see as to whether the prosecutrix could be said to have been kidnapped from the lawful custody of her parents.The prosecution has examined number of witnesses on this issue, first amongst them being the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1-Sudha.According to her, her daughter, the prosecutrix had left the house in the morning at 7-O' clock for attending the Independence Day function in the school.She says that her girl-friends had come but she did not remember their names.It is clear that on that day, the prosecutrix had left alone for the school.She thereafter goes on to say that the prosecutrix did not return for quite sometime and since she was to accompany her girl-friends to the garden and since she was not to be seen around, the mother naturally got worried and started enquiring with the relatives.She claims that she had made enquiries with the maternal sister at Saunsar as also in the house of her husband's brother and could not find the prosecutrix.She also claims that she enquired at Karanja but to no effect.She has also deposed that prior to the incident on 14th August night, accused No. 2 had come to their shop in the evening at about 7 O' clock and he had said that he was going to Itarsi by a train in the said evidence (sic).He also had gone to her house and had meals.This signifies that there were good relations between the family of the accused persons on one hand and that of the prosecutrix on the other.She claims that she suspected foul play on account of Ravindra leaving the town on that very day and, therefore, she sent one Raju and one Dinesh for enquiry.She also had taken the search of the school bag where she had found one chit.She, however, claimed that the chit was not in the handwriting of the prosecutrix.She has described the inter se relations between the two families and she claims that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were on visiting terms to her house.From her evidence, it is clear that accused No. 2 had visited the place of the prosecutrix on the previous day and had his meals there.He was also knowing the prosecutrix as well as her family members and that on the relevant day, i.e., on 15th August, 1990, the prosecutrix had left the house for going to school.As regards the evidence of P.W. 2 - Yuvaraj also, there is nothing much questioning to which he has deposed except that the prosecutrix who had gone out in the morning and not returned till 1.00 or 1.30 p.m., i.e., in the afternoon.He has also deposed about the efforts made by them to locate the prosecutrix.He was asked about the so-called chit which was allegedly found in the school bag of the prosecutrix but he was unable to tell as to whose handwriting the said chit was.P.W. 3-Raju claims to have gone to Itarsi along with one Dinesh, and more particularly the Railway Quarters where the parents of accused No. 3 used to stay.There he found accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 present.He claims that they enquired about the prosecutrix, but she was not there.This evidence really takes us nowhere.The witness claims that thereafter the accused No. 2 went away and again came back on 9.00 p.m. to take meals.Thus, it is clear that accused No. 2 - Ravindra had visited the house of the prosecutrix on the earlier day, i.e., on 14th August 1990, and he also made it sure that the prosecutrix goes on the next day to the school for Independence Day function.The witness claims in her cross-examination that she did not go to the school on the next day as she was not feeling well, but her sister, the prosecutrix, did go to the school at 7.00 a.m., and that she did not return back even till the afternoon, when her, girl-friends had come to fetch her.She also asserts that the prosecutrix did not attend the school on that day.This probably she was saying on the information that she had received from the friends of the prosecutrix.In her evidence she has given a complete family background of her family as well as of the accused persons.She claims that she was knowing all the accused persons who used to come to their house often.She claims that on that day, she started going to the school along with her sister Manisha and from Ambazari Bus Stand, Manisha left for her school by bus.She claims that thereafter she started going ahead on foot and when she came near Gandhinagar Library, an auto-rickshaw came in which accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sitting.She claims that accused No. 2 called her by her name and told her that the accused No. 3 Rajkumari had called her.She says that she was made to wear a Sari at the house of accused No. 3's parents and red-colour was put on her feet and that they were in the house of the parents of accused No. 3 for about an hour and thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 2 and she herself went to the Railway Station again and got into the train which train reached Allahabad Railway Station in the after-noon next day.She further claims that the accused No. 2 then left them at Allahabad, but before that, she and accused No. 1 Vishnu boarded another train while accused No. 2 returned back.She claims that she and Vishnu reached Patna Railway Station on the next day in the early morning and from Patna Railway Station, they went to one Lodging house, where they stayed for couple of days.She claims that during those two days, accused No. 1 - Vishnu committed sexual intercourse with her on three or four occasions.Her further version is that after staying for 2 or 3 days, they left Patna for Nagpur and on reaching Nagpur, they went to Sai Mandir by an auto-rickshaw where they stayed for 3 and 4 four hours, whereafter they went to Tajbaugh Shrine in the evening, where they spent the night.Again, on the next day, they went to Hanuman mandir of Rajabaksha area, where accused No. 1 met few of his friends who told him that the matter was reported to the police.Then again she claims that the accused No. 1 went to meet her parents and after coming back, told her that when she reached home back, the parents should withdraw the report from the police.She, therefore, claims that she was dropped at about 4.00 a.m., in the morning, near the Amravati-road near her house and she then reached the house.She has also confirmed that on 14th August, 1990, accused No. 2 had come to their house and had a chitchat with her, that he had taken his meals and he had also known that she was going to attend the school.She claims that accused No. 2 had insisted upon her for attending the school on the next day.She was confronted with the chit which was allegedly found by her mother in her book, but she denies to have written the same.Her cross-examination is a classic example of haphazardness.She was confronted with her police statement and she had to admit that she had not told the police that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 pressed her mouth while pushing her into the auto-rickshaw.That is undoubtedly a major improvement made by the prosecutrix.She was asked about the number of the auto-rickshaw and she could not give the same.Again, there is nothing unusual if the prosecutrix is not able to give the number of the auto-rickshaw.A very strange suggestion has been given that accused Nos.1 and 2 had not come on the spot and had not pressed her mouth.A direct suggestion was, however, given to her that she had developed a love affair with accused No. 1 and she had thought of marrying him after attaining the age of majority in future.Now, this suggestion is also extremely damaging which suggests that the prosecutrix had, in fact, not reached the age of majority.She was also confronted with two letters which are in her handwriting.She then turned back and said that Exhibit 39 was not in her handwriting.A direct suggestion was given to her that when her parents came to know of her alleged love affair with accused No. 1 on or about 14th August, 1990, they sent her to Karanja, which she denied.She insisted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had threatened her to kill.In the cross-examination by accused No. 2, she was made to admit that she was talking with accused Nos. 1 and 2 outside the auto-rickshaw on the ground for less than 5 minutes.She also admitted that she did not tell anybody that accused nos. 1 and 2 were forcibly taking her.She claims that she did not do so because both of them were standing near her on both sides.Then a round-about suggestion was given to her in the cross-examination that no incident had taken place and that she was falsely deposing against the accused persons at the instance of her parents.At least, from the cross-examination of this witness, it cannot be said that her story given in the examination-in-chief got damaged even in the slightest way.A round-about defence in a halting manner has been tried in the cross-examination.In the first instance, it is tried to be suggested that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had not even surfaced anywhere in the whole affair; then it is tried to be suggested that there was a love affair between accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix and probably as a result of that love affair, the prosecutrix was sent away to Karanja and no incident had taken place.One fails to understand the propriety of this cross-examination.If the prosecutrix was safely sent to Karanja straightway, there was no reason whatsoever for her parents to start hue and cry as regards her disappearance.They had made a hectic search for the prosecutrix at all the places like Saunsar, Karanja and even in Nagpur, with all the relatives, but without any effect, and it was only when their last hope of finding the girl was extinguished, that they seem to have filed a report with the police.One can understand the apathy and the reluctance to file the report, as this was a question of the life of a young unmarried girl.They could not have given the matter to the police so as to bring her life into permanent disgrace.After all, this was a middle class family and they had tried to stick to their values by privately searching for the girl.Her inability to give the description of the auto-rickshaw and to give its registration number thereafter, really proves nothing.No one would be expected to note the number at such hour.She was then taken in the auto-rickshaw by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the threesome went to the Railway Station.The story that she was pounced upon by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and made to sit her in the auto-rickshaw appears to be an exaggerated version.It was at this point of time that the prosecutrix was taken out of the custody of her parents.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no business to be loitering near the way of the prosecutrix to the school.They had also no reason to be in the way of the girl to the school.It is no doubt true that at the Railway Station, the prosecutrix did not make any hue and cry, nor did she make any hue and cry when she was seated in the auto-rickshaw.They were almost on the intimate terms and, secondly, they had also taken the name of accused No. 3 - Rajkumari who was also known to the prosecutrix and who was an elderly and married person.Therefore, her meekly submitting to the request of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 can be well understood.The moment the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been successful in taking the prosecutrix in the auto-rickshaw, which fact is fully established from the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, the offence of kidnapping as against her was complete.Once the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had taken her out of the custody and had taken her to the Railway Station, instead of going back to the house of either accused No. 3 or the house of the prosecutrix, the offence was continued.There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix at all when she says that she was taken by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the auto-rickshaw, on the ground that accused No. 3 was calling her.There was absolutely no reason for the prosecutrix to suggest all this falsely.The prosecutrix has thereafter justified that from the Railway Station, they went to Itarsi where they were hardly about an hour or so.The main role appears to be that of accused No. 2 who had gone to the house of the prosecutrix on the previous day and had made it sure that she was going to the school the next day and, subsequently, accused Nos. 1 and 2 intervened the prosecutrix while she was going to school in the morning and took her away to the Railway Station.The accused No. 3, therefore, deserves to be acquitted.The trial Court has convicted both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences both under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.The second letter, of which the authorship is denied by the prosecutrix, has strangely come from the accused persons when, in fact, it should have come from the custody of the parents of the unfortunate girl.Exhibit 39, therefore, appears to be only a defence machanism on the part of the accused No. 1 wherein the unfortunate girl declares that she was going willingly and was not forced by anybody to leave the house.She also gave a declaration of her love and goes to the extent of saying that if anything happens to 'Pyare', the parents will not find her alive and in that case her life would be spoiled.Exhibit 39 really speaking does not help the defence at all for the simple reason that it is obviously a manufactured document, probably after the girl was taken away by the accused persons from the lawful custody of her parents in order to cover or shield their illegalities.However, Exhibit 38 by itself goes on to suggest that there was something going on between the accused No. 1 and the unfortunate girl and that the accused No. 1 took the advantage of these tender feelings which the unfortunate minor had for him and ultimately took her away of the lawful guardianship thereby committing an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.According to the prosecutrix she was taken to Patna via Allahabad by accused No. 1, while accused No. 2 returned to Itarsi from Allahabad Railway Station.Now, there is no evidence available, besides the words of the prosecutrix regarding as to what happened at Itarsi, Allahabad or Patna.We do not have any evidence as to whether the prosecutrix really reached Allahabad or thereafter upto Patna or what their whereabouts were at Patna.Unfortunately, the investigating agency has drawn a completely blank as to what really happened at Patna.So much so that the girl who was in the 10th class and who was having an urban back-ground, did not even depose to which stations they passed while coming back from Patna.In her evidence, undoubtedly the prosecutrix says only : "Aaropi No. Ek Vishnu yanni majheshi sharir sambandh 3-4 wela don divsanmadhye kela."She disappeared on 15th August, 1990 and came back only by the end of August.P.W. 10 PSI Dadaji Kapadnis suggests that P.W. 2 - Sunanda had reported to the Police Station only on 1-9-1990 that the prosecutrix had come back.Thus, the evidence of the prosecutrix on that count is also unreliable.What is further striking is that the prosecutrix was thereafter immediately sent for her physical examination by the doctor.The defence has admitted the medical certificate of which the notice was given by the prosecution under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code.According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was sent for the medical examination vide requisition Exhibit 24 wherein a detailed questionnaire has been given to the doctor.Thereafter it seems that the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.The evidence of P.W. 7 - PSI Ku.Subhadra is to the same effect.Then we have staightway the medical report of the prosecutrix at Exhibit 34 which appears to have been admitted by the defence.The said report suggests that the prosecutrix was examined on 1-9-1990 at 10.00 p.m. In the said report, it is suggested that there were no signs of external injuries on any part of her body.There were no seminal or blood stains found on the body.Her hymen was found to be intact.Her pubic hair, vaginal swab, vaginal smear and blood samples were obtained and sent for further investigation.It was opined further that the girl was capable of sexual intercourse, and whether she was raped or not, could not be said.Now, unfortunately, there is no explanation given by the prosecuting agency as to what happened to the questionnaire which was sent to the Medical Officer vide Exhibit 24, which questionnaire was sent by PSI Dadaji Kapadnis, the Investigating Officer.PSI Kapadnis had entered into the witness-box as P.W. 10, but has kept quiet.He only said that the further investigation was carried out by PSI Ingle.The said PSI Ingle has also been examined as P.W. 9 but even he has also maintained a studied silence as to what happened to the medical examination and the requisition which was sent by PSI Kapadnis to the Medical Officer.Thus, as to whether the said requisition was answered or not, is a question left unanswered by the prosecuting agency.If the hymen was intact, then the claim of the prosecutrix that there was a physical contact 3-4 times in the two days at Patna becomes really suspicious.In this, the tender age of the prosecutrix will also have to be taken into consideration as to whether she knew what the sexual intercourse was.In order to bring home the offence of rape, the prosecuting agency should have brought on record the clinching evidence of penetration which is conspicuously absent.The Public Prosecutor has complacently left the matter for the Courts to interpret what the prosecutrix meant by 'shareer sambandh'.Thus, the following factors, therefore, render the theory of sexual intercourse highly doubtful :(i) Complete absence of evidence as to what transpired at Allahabad and at Patna.(iv) Apathy on the part of the investigating agency to place the reply to the requisition Exhibit 24 on the record, if there was any.I am afraid, such lenient attitude cannot be taken in respect of both the accused persons.They took advantage of the good relations that they had between the two families.The sentence as awarded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code to both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 is apt, in the circumstances.Hence, the following order :-The appeal is partly allowed.The order of conviction and sentence of the appellant accused No. 1 - Vishnu s/o Parmeshwar Yadav and appellant accused No. 2-Ravindrakumar s/o Ramdhiraj Yadav, for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court, is confirmed.The order of conviction and sentence of appellant-accused No. 1-Vishnu s/o Parmeshwar Yadav, for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court is set aside and he is acquitted of that offence.The separate sentences ordered by the trial Court to the appellant-accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code are also set aside, as they have already been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.The Order of conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused No. 3 Smt. Rajkumari w/o Kariya Yadav for the offence under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court, is set aside and she is acquitted of those offences.Her bail-bond stands cancelled.The appellant-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall surrender to their bail within one month from today.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
177,339,672 |
FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 31/01/2020 16:53:12Case diary perused.This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.214/2019, registered at Police Station- Belkhera, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 395, 397 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.The allegation of the prosecution is that on 20.7.2019 at village Jhalon, P.S. Belkhera, District Jabalpur the applicant alongwith other co- accused persons intercepted the complainant- Ashish Jain, who alongwith his servant, Monu Yadav were travelling on a motor cycle, after threatening and opening fire from the country made pistol, the applicant alongwith other co-accused snatched a beg from the complainant, Ashish Jain, in which Rs.95,000/- were kept and fled away from the spot.The applicant divided the aforesaid money with the co- accused persons.It is also alleged that during investigation, the applicant was interrogated.He admitted the commission of crime and on his information in total Rs. Rs.13,000/- cash and a baseball bat were recovered.He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him.There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence.Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 31/01/2020 16:53:12 2 MCRC-53688-2019 Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, the application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the aforesaid M.Cr.C. is allowed and disposed of.Certified Copy as per rules.(MOHD.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,734,062 |
The petitioner herein on 4th February, 1995 was granted certificate under Section 11 of the Emigration Act, 1983 to commence and carry on the business of recruitment for deployment of workers in foreign countries.Initially the certificate was valid for 3 years and for 100 workers.The validity of the certificate was extended/renewed from time to time and on 22nd March, 2000, the certificate was modified and was made valid for 300 workers, which was later on increased to 1000 plus workers.By order dated 19th January, 2007, the registration certificate was directed to be kept in abeyance in view of the FIR No.912/1998 under Section 420/102-B IPC read with Section 24/25 of the Emigration Act. The said FIR was registered in the year 1998 and a criminal case was pending against the petitioner in the Court.This order dated 19th January, 2007 and a subsequent order dated 4th April, 2007 were challenged by the petitioner by way of W.P.(C) No. 5953/2007 before this Court.Noticing the aforesaid facts, W.P.(C) No.5953/2007 filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide judgment dated 29th September, 2008 with the following directions:-I have heard learned counsel for the parties, the application of the petitioner for renewal of the Registration Certificate was not being considered by the respondents due to pendency of a case arising out of FIR No.912/1998 under Section 420/12--B IPC read with Sections 24 and 25 of the Emigration Act, 1983, Police Station Hauz Khas, Delhi.The petitioner now stands acquitted by the Court.Certified copy of the order of acquittal has been filed.Present petition is disposed of with the following directions:W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 21) The respondents will consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of Registration Certificate.2) Respondents shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.3) Respondents shall pass a speaking order with respect to the renewal/fresh certificate to be issued to the petitioner.Needless to say, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order which may be passed by the respondents, it will be open to the petitioner to assail the same, in accordance with law.Petition stands disposed of."By impugned order dated 11th December, 2008, the respondents have rejected the renewal/revalidation request made by the petitioner holding, inter alia, that there is no provision under the prevailing rules to revalidate/renew an expired registration certificate and the petitioner is required to apply for fresh registration certificate.The renewal application was remanded back to the W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 3 respondents for a fresh decision.The respondents along with the counter affidavit have filed on record office memorandum dated 6th May, 2008 on the question of renewal of the existing registration certificates.The said office memorandum deals how a request for renewal of registration certificate has to be dealt with when a serious complaint was/is pending against the recruiting agent.The said guidelines follow a middle path.In such cases it has been directed that the recruiting agent should be asked to apply for a fresh/new registration certificate but such cases cannot strictly be treated at par with cases for issue of a registration certificate for the first time.It is stated in the circular that the new registration certificate in such cases is in continuation of the earlier registration certificate and the following procedure is required to be followed:-As issue of a new RC in such type of cases cannot strictly be treated at par with the cases of a issue of a RC for the first time and that a new RC in such cases is, in fact, in continuation of the earlier one, and in consideration of the position explained above, it has been decided that when the RC of a recruiting agent is not renewed due to pending complaints and by the time the complaint is closed, the RC expires, a new RC will be issued to the RA ( he should have qualified for renewal on the basis of his performance ) without the requirement of the formalities such as inspection of the office premises and verification of character and antecedents, if the same W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 4 premises are used, which have been inspected earlier and the same person continues as the recruiting agent and no adverse report is there from the police earlier, after obtaining application in Form-I, Form-II and process fee ( the fee paid for renewal, if not utilized for the purpose, will be adjusted for this and RA may not pay fee again).However, such applicants will be called for a personal interview to take stock of the overall situation.A similar procedure will be adopted in case of appeals decided in favour of the RA, if the RC has expired during pendency of the appeal.The applications in all such cases will be routed through the offices of POEs as is the case for fresh registration.While receiving such applications, the POEs shall follow these guidelines.Further, while forwarding the applications to the Office of the Protector General of Emigrants, the POEs will clearly indicate the category of the application, i.e., the applications are for issue of fresh RC on fast tract basis."The said circular dated 6th May, 2009 has not been challenged and questioned in the present writ petition.The request made by the petitioner is fair and reasonable.It will be open for the petitioner to apply for registration in terms of circular dated 6th May, 2008 W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 5 and comply with the formalities mentioned in the Act, Rules and said circular.The application filed by the petitioner will be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date formalities are completed.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,341,294 |
CRM No. 5857 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1.8.2018 in connection with Nanoor P. S. case No. 90 of 2018 dated 16th May, 2018 under Sections 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Bankim Ghosh & Ors.... Petitioners Mr. Sujoy Sarkar .. for the petitioners Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Nanoor P. S. case No. 90 of 2018 dated 16th May, 2018 under Sections 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.((Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
|
177,344,621 |
In default of further to undergo two months RI.The prosecution case in brief is that there was some dispute between the complainant and the appellants on account of some money transaction.On the date of incident, when the complainant saw the appellants ambushing on the way, when he was going to the house of his sister, he apprehended that while returning home they may cause some incident, therefore he requested his brother-in-law Shankar to leave him upto the border of his village.When they were coming back at about 09:30 am, the appellants assaulted them.They were having sticks and swords in their hands stating that they will kill the complainant, both the appellants inflicted sword and stick and caused injuries on the head and hands of the complainant Gopal and Shankar.They both were taken to the hospital.Gopal lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1, crime no.165/2018 was registered by deducing FIR vide Ex.P/20, both the injured were sent to the hospital vide requisition Ex.P/23, Dr.Pawan Patidar PW/9 examined them and found 1-1 incise wound on the backside of head of Gopal and Shankar.He also found abrasion on right index finger of Gopal.Report of Dr. Patidar is Ex.P/12-13, their admission slip and treatment papers are Ex.CT Scan report authored by Dr.The police seized shirt and baniyan of Gopal vide seizure memo Ex.(Delivered on 27/02/2020) With consent of the parties, heard finally.The present appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2019 rendered in Sessions Trial No.148/2018 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants under section 307, 307/34 (both two counts) of the IPC for causing life threatening injuries to Gopal and Shankar and has awarded 7-7 years RI for each offence and fine of Rs.1000/-1000/-.Dr. Patidar advised for X-ray/CT Scan.No bone injury was fond by Dr.Vikas Gupta PW/8 on CT Scan.P/2, plain and blood stained soil from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.The police apprehended the appellants vide arrest memo Ex.P/4-5, recorded their memorandum statement Ex.P/5-6 and recovered Lathi from Gopal and Sword from Dhansingh vide seizure Memo Ex.The police visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.FSL report is Ex.FSL confirms presence of human blood on the article sent to it.After completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet.The appellants were charged under section 341, 307 (two counts), 307/34 (two counts) of the IPC, in addition, appellant Dhansingh was also charged under section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act. After the trial, the charge under section 341 of the IPC and under section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act were not found proved and the appellants were acquitted from those charges but the offence under section 307, 307/34 of the IPC was found proved and the appellant were convicted and sentenced as stated in para no.1 above.The appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds but during the arguments learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence produced by the prosecution for the offence under section 307 of the IPC is not made out.Both the appellants and the complainant have compromised the case.Other witnesses Shivpal PW/2, Dharmendra PW/3, Mohansingh PW/7 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.Dr. Patidar PW/9 who has examined the injured Gopal and Shankar medically have found incise wound on the back side of head on Gopal and Shankar and abrasion on left index finger of Gopal.The trial Court has discussed this issue in para nos.51 to 54 of the impugned judgment considering that the injury was caused by sharp edged weapon on the vital part of the body, therefore, it can be inferred that the intention of the appellants was to cause death or atleast they were having knowledge that by their act they may cause death of the complainant and his companion, therefore, the act can be considered to the effect that the appellants had caused injury knowingly that by that injury they may cause death, therefore, their act falls within the scope and ambit of section 307 of the IPC but looking to the nature of injury and absence of any direct evidence, this conclusion is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, needs correction.After going through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, particularly the statement of Gopal, Shankar and Jitendra, who all three were the best witnesses to say as to with what intention and purpose the injuries were caused to them and also the statements of Dr. Patidar and Gupta, in the considered opinion of this Court, injury cannot be considered dangerous to life.Therefore, the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants under section 307 and 307/34 of the IPC.Considering the alternate prayer of the appellants and looking to the compromise between the parties and keeping in view six months sentence already served out by the appellants, this Court find it appropriate to accede the prayer of the petitioner to reduce their sentence to the period already undergone.In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed.With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands partly allowed and disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,344,674 |
As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was a 16 years 3 months old minor girl on the date of the offence.At about 07:30 p.m. on 02.08.2017, she had gone behind her home to ease herself.At that time, co-accused Ajay Bairagi and petitioners Rakesh Rajak and Rangilal Chakarwarti came.Ajay caught hold of her, Rakesh stuffed a piece of cloth in her mouth and Rangi made her smell some powder.Thereafter, they took her to some house.ad State.M Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has failed to file DNA report in spite of five opportunities having of been given; therefore, no further opportunity is required to rt be granted.ou Since both the miscellaneous criminal cases arise from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and C are being disposed of by this common order.On the way, all three of them sh raped her in the field.When she regained consciousness, she found herself in a house.At that time, co-accused Versha e ad Patel was making her wear a sari and was putting vermilion in her hair.Thereafter, she was found by her relatives Pr abandoned on a hillock behind Rangi Chakarwarti's house in a an unconscious condition.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners M Rakesh and Rangilal have been falsely implicated in the case.of Co-accused Varsha, who has already been released on bail by this Court, is wife of petitioner Rakesh.It is highly rt improbable that she would aid and abet gang rape of an ou unmarried girl by her husband and his friends.In fact, the C prosecutrix was in love with co-accused Ajay and Varsha wanted her to marry Ajay.At worst, Varsha and Rakesh might h ig have aided Ajay in getting the prosecutrix marry to him.It H has been pointed out that in the MLC report, it has been specifically mentioned that no injury, bleeding, redness, inflammation or tenderness was found on the private part of the prosecutrix.She had a old torn and healed hymen.Though, the prosecutrix was a minor, she had attained the age of knowledge and understanding.The petitioners have been in custody since 21.08.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that it is a heinous offence of gang rape with a minor.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the sh case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners, in the opinion of this e ad Court, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, these first applications for bail under section Pr 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of a petitioners Rakesh Rajak and Rangilal Chakarwarti, are hy allowed.ad It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with M one solvent surety in the same amount each to the of satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the rt conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of ou Criminal Procedure.C Certified Copy as per rules.h ig (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE H Digitally signed by BIJU b BABY Date: 2017.12.06 23:26:45
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,773,470 |
The petitioner is a member of Lok Sabha and is National Vice President of Bahujan Samaj Party (for short "B.S.P.").After the Assembly Elections of 1996, there was a political stalemate in Uttar Pradesh.In order to give a representative Government to the people of Uttar Pradesh, B.S.P. and Bhartiya Janta Party (for short "B.J.P.") entered into an arrangement under which it was decided to form a Coalition Government.During the first six months the petitioner was to be the Chief Minister and during the latter half a nominee of B.J.P. was to head the Coalition Government.On completion of six months the petitioner vacated the office of Chief Minister.The charge was handed over to Shri Kalyan Singh, the nominee of B.J.P. It is alleged that Shri Kalyan Singh started undoing the acts, which she had taken for the benefit of down trodden classes.On 22.9.1997 Shri Kalyan Singh issued a Government order making the Prevention of Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, virtually non-functional.It is alleged that soon after the support was withdrawn, Shri Kalyan Singh started making baseless and wild allegations against the petitioner, in order to tarnish her image politically.Efforts were made to frame her in false cases of corruption.None of the allegations against the petitioner had a grain of truth.Even the public interest litigation was also filed at the instance of B.J.P. in the Supreme Court, namely, Writ Petition (C) No.623/97 titled as Dharam Pal Singh and others v. Mayawati and another, which was dismissed on 12.12.1997 in limine.It is alleged that on 15.3.1998 Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee was invited by the President of India to form Government at the Centre.Deliberately false and vague information was supplied to the Court with a view to mislead and obtain relief.The respondent alleged that it was during her regime as Chief Minister of U.P. that a proposal was initiated in August, 1995 for starting Fire Services in Rural areas and to purchase 300 floating pumps at a cost of Rs.5.35 crores.On 6.9.1995 approval was given by the petitioner as Chief Minister.The funds were also sanctioned from the contingency fund.As per the rules, the procurement of portable pumps was to be made through the Directorate of Industries but the petitioner, who was then the Chief Minister, on 13.10.1995 ordered that the procurement may be done by the Fire Services Department.It was an illegal decision on her part.Apparently, there was no urgency as the pumps were required for the months of April to June.In the meanwhile, the petitioner resigned.The matter was reviewed by the then Governor of U.P., who cancelled the petitioner's decision for direct purchase of floto pump by Fire Department.These are minor differences and are ignorable.It was an irregular decision.There were no urgency for the purchase of pumps at that time but funds were also arranged from emergency funds.Inspector General Fire Services through his letter dated 12.8.1997 placed purchase, order on M/s.Fire Challenger for supplying 143 portable pumps despite the fact that permission for drawing Rs.4.65 crores for this purchase was not received till that time from U.P. Police Headquarter.Receipt dated 25.8.1997 was produced by the purchaser showing the transportation of imported floating pumps from Madras to Lucknow.ORDER Devinder Gupta, J.Another direction, which the petitioner sought was that she should not be arrested in connection with the registration of the aforementioned F.I.R. without the prior permission of this Court.Along with the petition, miscellaneous application (Cr.M.No.1869/98) was also filed under Section 482 read with Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for stay of her arrest till final disposal of the petition.Considering the averments made in the petition as also the accompanying application and noticing that prima facie the petitioner's involvement as Chief Minister was not mentioned in the F.I.R. (annexure-P.2), while issuing show cause notice in the main petition, an interim order was passed on 1.4.1998 directing that till the next date, in the event of the petitioner's arrest in connection with the aforementioned F.I.R., she will be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.The respondent opposed the petition by filing its reply on the affidavit of Shri Ravinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Unit (IV), New Delhi, the Investigating Officer of the case, to which rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner.The facts as alleged in the petition on which aforementioned F.I.R. is sought to be quashed may be narrated briefly.On 18.3.1998 Uttar Pradesh State Unit of B.J.P. sent a complaint from Lucknow to the respondent alleging financial irregularities in the purchase of 143 portable fire fighting floating pumps during the petitioner's regime as Chief Minister.On receipt of the complaint on 18.3.1998, the respondent promptly registered the aforementioned impugned F.I.R. (R.C.No.1A/98) for the aforementioned offences.Before registration of the case, no preliminary enquiry as is usually done was conducted.The respondent did not apply its mind at all and registered the case just in order to please the B.J.P., which was likely to assume power at the Centre.Soon after the registration of F.I.R. wide publicity was given through Doordarshan and other media in order to pressurize the petitioner and her party M.Ps.to fall in line and support the Confidence Motion, which was to be brought by the B.J.P. Government in the Lok Sabha.The petitioner has alleged that from the allegations made in the F.I.R. it is apparent that the transaction does not relate to her tenure as Chief Minister.It commenced when the State of U.P. was under President's Rule and Shri Moti Lal Vohra was the Governor.During President's Rule in 1995 the State had initiated a scheme for the setting up of fire fighting equipment at 300 rural centres.Tenders were invited on 27.12.1995 by Shri Lalit Sirivastava, the Director of Fire Services, U.P., which were submitted by seven companies.Ultimately on 23.3.1996 an order was placed on M/s.Fire Challengers, Chennai for supply of 157 fire fighting floating pumps.The petitioner was no where in the picture at that time.As no complaint had been received for the pumps supplied during the President's Rule, the petitioner's Government placed a repeat order on 12.8.1997 for the remaining 143 floating pumps on the same terms and conditions, as negotiated during President's Rule.During her regime fresh transaction was not negotiated.Only the remaining part of the earlier deal was repeated.It is further alleged that the bill for 143 fire fighting pumps, supplied during the petitioner's regime was for Rs.3,66,72,880/-.On 26.8.1997 payment to the extent of 90% of the bill was made.Even though the entire payment was to be made during the period of first six months of the Coalition Government, headed by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1.00 crore was not released by way of abundant caution.Had there been any dishonest intention, the entire amount would have been released before the charge was handed over to Shri Kalyan Singh.It is alleged that the supplier invoked arbitration clause.No contest was made to the arbitration proceedings.Ultimately the State suffered an ex parte award of Rs.2,90,95,555/-.The petitioner has alleged that there is not even a whisper about her complicity in the F.I.R. Despite that she has been arrayed as accused No.1, only in order to tarnish her image amongst the people.Registration of F.I.R. solely is the result of political vendetta, in order to tarnish her image.Without there being any allegation of the petitioner's complicity.On the basis of the above allegations, the petitioner sought quashing of the F.I.R. The allegations made in the petition have been supported on the petitioner's own affidavit, sworn to be true to her knowledge.On the basis of these allegations, interim relief was granted in to her.The respondent denied that a complaint was sent by the State Unit of B.J.P. on 18.3.1998 from Lucknow or that on the basis of the said complaint F.I.R. was registered.An objection is also raised that the petitioner with a view to obtain relief from the Court furnished false and vague information, suppressed facts deliberately and has tried to mislead the Court.It is stated in the reply that a source information dated 20.10.1997, marked to the respondent by the DP&T was received in the office of the respondent.On receipt thereof the same was verified from various sources.Amongst nine others, the petitioner is an accused person.It is stated that annexure-P.2 (annexed to the writ petition) stated by the petitioner to be the F.I.R. in question is not the correct F.I.R. Vital factual information therein like place of occurrence, name of the complainant, provisions of law etc. are wrong.Contents have also not been stated.157 pumps were purchased during the Governor's regime through Directorate of Industries, Kanpur.When the petitioner again became the Chief Minister in 1997, a proposal was initiated for the purchase of 143 pumps, which was approved by the petitioner as Chief Minister, who on 30.7.1997 also sanctioned an amount of Rs.4.65 crores.M/s.Fire Challenger submitted request to the Directorate General Fire Services for awarding a repeat order for supply of 143 floating pumps.As per the rules, repeat order can be issued only within a period of six months of the date of previous purchase and that also only for 50% of the quantity after ensuring that the prices have not reduced after the first order was placed.The quantity to be purchased was more than 50% of the first order.The custom duty had in the meanwhile been reduced by 3%.The respondents have further alleged that the petitioner while functioning as Chief Minister, herself on 19.9.1997 wrote a letter for making payment of the pumps and for taking serious action against the errant officials.The reply further states that accused Devnathan, the Proprietor of M/s.Fire Challenger is the President of B.S.P., Tamil Nadu Unit and had political connections with the petitioner.It is also stated that on receipt of the consignment of 143 pumps an inspection committee carried out inspection of individual floating pumps.The inspection team pointed out several short comings, doubting the genuineness of the pumps being from the Waterous Company, U.S.A., as the plastic stickers of the Company were only found on the pumps.Actual name of the Company was not engraved on the pumps.Director of Vigilance Anti Corruption, Madras had also intimated that the firm M/s.Fire Challenger had come to their adverse notice against certain supplies made to the State Government.Custom Department also intimated the cost of imported pump as Rs.46,743/- on which custom duty was Rs.10,283/-.Thus the total cost of one pump was Rs.57,026/-.As against this cost of the pump, M/s.Fire Challenger supplied the pumps at an exorbitant rate of Rs.2,49,000/- per pump.Enquiry further revealed that neither the petitioner, nor the other co-accused who have been imp leaded along with the supplier, applied their minds and allowed the exorbitant price of the pumps to the supplier.The reply states that the F.I.R. definitely discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner and nine others.The respondents have denied the allegation of malafide specifically denying that a complaint was received from B.J.P.Unit of Lucknow or that the F.I.R. was registered on that basis.On the other hand, it is stated that on receipt of source information on 20.10.1997, the matter was got inquired into.Verification was got made.As a result whereof F.I.R. was duly registered.In the rejoinder, the petitioner has not disputed the fact that it was during her regime as Chief Minister in 1995 that a proposal had been made for purchase of 300 pumps.Non disputing the respondent's' stand that annexure-P.2 is not the correct copy of the F.I.R., it is claimed that the preliminary inquiry report, purported to have been submitted by Dr.R.K.Garg, S.P., C.B.I. on 18.3.1998 cannot form part of the F.I.R. The purpose of preliminary inquiry is to verify the allegations made in the complaint before registration of the case so that the public functionaries are saved from vexatious and frivolous prosecution.The complaint dated 20.10.1997 by Shri Rajiv Ratan Shah, Principal Secretary (Home) alone has to be treated as F.I.R. The petitioner in rejoinder raised another ground to assail the F.I.R. on merits saying that no thorough inquiry was made by Dr.R.K.Garg from local market or from the foreign manufacturer about the Waterous Floating Pumps or from the other customer institutions, who purchased such pumps from M/s.Fire Challenger.The inquiry overlooked the fact that the entire transaction was thoroughly reviewed by a Finance Purchase Committee during the President's Rule and that the purchase of 157 waterous floating pumps at the rate of Rs.2.49 lakhs was duly approved by the then Governor.The petitioner has tried to justify the approval given by her stating that as the earlier Finance Purchase Committee had submitted its report, which was duly approved by the Governor, therefore, repeat order was made, for which she could not be held responsible as the approval was granted only after considering the recommendations of the Finance Purchase Committee.She states that there was no dishonest intention on her part.She approved the recommendations of the Secretary, Small Industries, after considering the requirement of the Fire Services Department and the reasons given by the Ministry for regularisation of the Rules framed in 1989 by the then Chief Minister.She states that the financial interest of the State was adequately taken note of.In the light of the aforementioned pleadings, the parties made their submissions.The main thrust of the submissions made by Shri Vikram Mahajan, on behalf of the petitioner have been that it is a case of political vendetta.The facts as stated in the F.I.R. at the most fall in the category of civil dispute.The supplier had already invoked arbitration clause by nominating his arbitrator, the notice of the same was acknowledged by the State of U.P. As there was no response from the State of U.P., the arbitrator nominated by the supplier became the sole arbitrator, who also served notice on the State through the Directorate of Industries fixing hearing.The State did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte.In view of the fact that award has been made, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.Another ground though not taken in the writ petition but was urged during the course of arguments was that the respondent deliberately and in a planned manner proceeded only against the Dalit Members of the Finance Purchase Committee and left out the upper caste members, which smacks of malafides.On merits, Mr.Mahajan contended that the petitioner merely approved the placing of repeat order at the same rate, which earlier had been approved during the Governor's regime.Annexure-P.2, except for small variation the dates etc. was almost similar to the FIR.Copy of which was filed by the respondent.Taking the respondent's objection as regards suppression of material facts, deliberate mis-statement and making false statement first, needless to add that the petitioner came to the Court alleging that it was the B.J.P.Unit Lucknow, which on 18.3.1998 sent a complaint.On receipt thereof promptly, without verification or inquiry, the respondent proceeded to register the case thereupon.The petitioner thus based her claim on the document annexure-P.2 by asserting that no role in the said F.I.R. has been assigned to her.Name of the complainant in annexure-P.2 is shown as Shri Rajiv Ratan Shah, Principal Secretary (Home).In the copy filed by the respondent it is shown as 'source'.The offences mentioned by the petitioner are also different than those mentioned in the copy of the FIR filed by the respondent."Dear Sir, It was decided to set up 300 centres for seasonal fire fighting arrangements in the rural areas of Uttar Pradesh for the year 1995 and an amount of Rs.5.35 crores was arranged for the purchase of 157 floating pumps and other equipment.The equipment was purchased from M/s Fire Challenger, 5-C, Mookambika Complex, 5th floor No.4, Lady, Chennai.This complaint is against the said firm.Comparison of annexure P-2 and the copy of the F.I.R. filed by the respondent on record thus suggests material and substantial difference.of Police, C.B.I., S.P.E, ACU(V) New Delhi on 18.3.1998 registered the F.I.R. According to the petitioner, the information was received on 18.3.1998 and F.I.R. was also registered on the same day.Fire Department was separately authorized to purchase 40 pumps.Earlier complaints, which had been received when the supplier,namely, M/s.Fire Challenger had supplied 15 floating pumps to Madras Port Trust at the cost of Rs.1.20 lakhs through its sister concern, which was also owned by Shri Devanathan, were not taken cognizance of at this stage.This proposal was approved by the petitioner on 8.8.1997, which led to the issuance of repeat order for 143 pumps.Director Fire Services in his letter dated 16.9.1997 pointed out numerous shortcomings in the pumps and also doubting the genuineness of the Waterous Company, U.S.A. In the meanwhile, Director (Vigilance) Anti Corruption, Madras had also sent a letter pointing out that M/s.Fire Challenger had come to their adverse notice and that departmental enquiry was pending against some officers.The duty of investigation officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts to extract truth from half truth or grabbled version connecting the chain of events.He requested for release of 90% payment on production of these receipts.Though payment had to be made on production of R.R. and the receipts produced were not R.R. In the mean-while, there has been Inspection Committee constituted, which submitted its report.Instead of putting up a note on such complaints, a note was put up for payment of Rs.1,01,10,396/-.The petitioner on 19.9.1997 wrote a letter for making payment of the pumps and also instructed for taking action against the errant officials.In case the allegations aforementioned do not constitute an offence requiring investigation, we fail to understand that what other allegations would constitute prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, for the purposes of registration of the case.The allegations read as a whole do prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence.The allegations made and the material so far collected in case would remain uncontroverted, on the face of it make out a case against the petitioner.It was also observed that there must be some suitable preliminary investigation as to the allegation by a responsible officer before a public servant is publicly charged with an act of dishonesty, otherwise such a report would do incalculable harm not only to the office in particular but to the department he belonged to, if an F.I.R. is straightaway registered.Needless to add that in the instant case result of the preliminary verification into the source information affirmed the role of each accused including the petitioner and it resulted in registration of F.I.R.For the submission that it was a case of civil nature for which award had already been made by the arbitrator, the commencement of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the power, reliance was placed on the decision in M/s.Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another Vs.Union of India and others Janak Raj Vs.The State of Punjab Cr.L.R. (Punjab & Haryana) 236; Harbhagwan Dass Vs.The State of Punjab 1983(2) Recent Cr.Reports 156; Major Singh and another Vs.L.J.303; Hakim Singh Vs.State of Punjab 1987 (1) All India Cr.L.J.321; Mohan Lal alias Mohan Chand Vs.The State of Punjab 1989 (2) All India Criminal Law Journal 825; S.K. Mehta Vs.As the interim order has remained in force till date, it is directed that the same will remain in operation for a further period of 10 days from today to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders from a competent court of law in that behalf.
|
['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 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,773,510 |
(a) Victim Nilkanth Ganpatrao Parate is the resident of Zade Chowk, Lalganj, Nagpur.He resides there with his wife complainant Laxmibai.Appellant Nos. 1 to 4, who are the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively, are also the residents of the same locality and they reside in the neighbourhood, that is just adjacent to the house of victim Nilkanth.They all are the members of the joint family.One of the accused in this case, namely Kashinath Budhaji Moundekar, who died on 12.6.1990, was also the member of the joint family of the accused-appellants.Victim Nilkanth was running a pan stall.Accused Prabhakar was engaged in the business of selling illicit liquor and accused Ramrao used to help him in that business.Victim Nilkanth and all the accused persons including deceased Kashinath were on inimical terms with each other since prior to the incident and there used to be quarrels between them.The reason behind the quarrels was that accused Prabhakar and Ramrao used to hide liquor bottles near the wall on the rear side of the house of Nilkanth and Nilkanth used to object to the same.At the time of Pola festival just preceding the incident in this case, such quarrel had taken place between the accused persons and Nilkanth.The quarrels used to occur between the womenfolk also of these two families on the count of filling water from the common public water tap situated near their houses.These quarrels between the ladies were also taken up by the male members of these two families.(b) On 23.2.1989 at about 7.30 to 7.45 p.m., Nilkanth was sitting on a bench in front of his house in the courtyard.Complainant Laxmibai was working in the house.That time, accused Prabhakar and Raju rushed towards Nilkanth.There was an exchange of words between Nilkanth and these two accused.The accused questioned as to why Nilkanth was objecting to the concealment of liquor bottles by them and was destroying their business.Nilkanth strongly opposed.Thereafter accused Prabhakar and Raju caught hold of both the arms of Nilkanth.Accused Shankar, who was armed with a Bhala spear, rushed towards Nilkanth.At the same time, accused Ramrao rushed with a wooden stick on the person of Nilkanth and gave a blow thereof on his head.Accused Shankar hit Nilkanth with spear on his abdomen on left side.Nilkanth managed to rescue himself from the clutches of the accused persons and rushed towards the Chhapari of neighbour named Lanjewar in order to save himself.All the accused pulled Nilkanth out of the Chhapari in the courtyard.Thereafter accused Shankar again dealt a blow of spear to Nilkanth and accused Ramrao gave a stick blow on Nilkanth's shoulder.Complainant Laxmibai, who was working in the house, heard the shouts of Nilkanth and rushed to the spot.She noticed that the accused persons were attacking her husband.She saw accused Shankar giving a blow of spear to Nilkanth and accused Prabhakar and Ramrao catching hold of the arms ofNilkanth.She also saw accused Raju giving a slick blow to Nilkanth.Laxmibai tried to intervene, but the accused persons pushed her and in that process, she also sustained injuries on her left hand between thumb and index finger.Similarly, the father of Nilkanth named Ganpat also ran down there and tried to rescue Nilkanth, but the accused persons pulled him and he also sustained an injury on his right leg.(c) Nilkanth fell unconscious in the courtyard of his house with bleeding injuries.The accused persons fled.Complainant Laxmibai removed Nilkanth to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur.Nilkanth was admitted in the hospital.While complainant Laxmibai was in the hospital itself, A.S.I.Ramadhar Pande recorded her report.A requisition was also given by A.S.I. Ramadhar Pande to the Casualty, Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, for the medical examination of complainant Laxmibai and the father of Nilkanth named Ganpath.(d) During the same night, i.e. the night intervening 23.2.1989 and 24.2.1989, atabout 1.00 a.m. (of 24.2.1989) P.S.I. More visited the spot of occurrence and drew the spot panchanama.The blood stains were noticed at different places on the spot.The samples of blood-mixed earth as well as sample earth were collected during the preparation of the spot panchanama.(e) Injured Nilkanth was examined medically by Dr. Jiwtode.He was operated upon in the same night.(1) Stab wound, left illiac fossa, 3" x 2" x cavity deep, jejunum part collapsed obliquely placed, bleeding present.(f) On 24.2.1989, the dying declaration of injured Nilkanth was recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate Shri Gaikwad.On the same day, P.S.I. Patil gave a requisition to the House Officer, Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, seeking permission to record the police statement of Nilkanth.On according such permission by the House Officer, the statement of Nilkanth came to be recorded by police.After such statement was recorded, it was revealed that the offence under sections 147, 148 and 149 was attracted and, therefore, section 34 was replaced by these sections in the crime that was registered earlier.The investigation was then handed over to A.P.I. Gaikwad.(g) On 26.2.1989, deceased-accused Kashinath and accused Shankar, Raju and Ramrao were arrested.On 2.3.1989, accused Shankar, while in the custody of the police, gave an information about the spear that was hidden in his house behind the staircase.The memorandum of his versioncame to be recorded in presence of panchas at 11.00 a.m. Soon thereafter, accused Ramrao, who was also in the custody of the police, gave an information about the stick hidden in his house.The memorandum of his version also came to be recorded in presence of panchas at 11.10 a.m. Both the accused undertook to produce the respective weapons.Thereafter A.P.I. Gaikwad along with police staff, panchas and accused proceeded for recovery.Accused Shankar led panchas and police to his house, went inside and produced the spear by taking it out from the place behind the staircase.The same was seized by A.P.I. Gaikwad and the recovery panchanama was drawn.Similarly, accused Ramrao led the panchas and police to his house, went inside and produced the wooden stick that was hidden behind the sewing machine in the house.The same was seized by A.P.I. Gaikwad and the recovery panchanama was drawn accordingly.The evidence of P.W. Laxmibai is that at the relevant time, she was working in the house and on hearing the shouts of her husband, she rushed out from the house.She noticed that four persons attacked her husband.Her husband fell unconscious in the courtyard and with the help of one Jagdish Zade, she called the rickshaw and took her husband to Mayo Hospital.The evidence of P.W. Nilkanth Parate, who is the victim in this case, is that at the time of incident, he was sitting on a bench in front of his house in the courtyard.At that time, accused Prabhakar and accused Raju rushed towards him.There was a hot exchange of words.The above accused were asking the witness as to why was he objecting to the concealing of liquor by them and why was he destroying their business and they said that they had come to see him.P. W. Nilkanth further testified that accused Prabhakar and accused Raju caught hold of both of his hands and that time, accused Shankar rushed towards him with a spear in his hand and accused Ramrao rushed with a wooden stick in his hand.The further assertion of the witness is that accused Ramrao gave a slick blow on his head and accused Shankar gave a blow of spear on the left side at the lower end of ribs and upper end of his abdomen.The further contention of the witness is that he rushed towards the Chhapari of his neighbour Shri Lanjewar in order to save himself and then all the accused, namely Prabhakar, Raju, Shankar and Ramrao pulled him out of the Chhapari in the courtyard.Accused Shankar gave a second blow of spear to him near umbilicus towards left side.The injury caused thereby was through and through, which reached his back near waist.The further version of P.W. Nilkanth is that accused Ramrao gave one stick blow on his left shoulder.The witness further deposed that he fell down.According to him, meantime when his wife had rushed to save him, the accused persons pushed her.JUDGMENT S. G. Mahajan, J.The offences with which the appellants were charged and convicted are under section 307 read with section 149, section 147 and section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, or in default to suffer R. I. for three months more for the offence under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default to suffer R.I. for one month more for the offence under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and again to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer R.I. for one month more for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.A.S.I. Pande gave a requisition to the House Officer of the hospital seeking permission to record the statement of Nilkanth.However, the permission was refused to him on the ground that the patient was unfit.A.S.I. Ramadhar Pande also issued a letter to the Special Executive Magistrate, Nagpur, for recording the dying declaration of Nilkanth.On the basis of the oral report of complainant Laxmibai, that was recorded in the hospital, A.S.I. Ramadhar Pande registered the crime at Serial No. 116/89 under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.On examination, Dr. Jiwtode noticed the following injuries on the person of Nilkanth :(h) Accused Shankar and Ramrao were thereafter referred to Mayo Hospital for the collection of the samples of their blood.The blood samples were collected accordingly and were received from the hospital.On 16.5.1989, the clothes of injured Nilkanth brought by the concerned Police Constable from the hospital came to be seized on the production thereof.All the seized articles including the clothes of injured, blood samples of accused Shankar and Ramrao and the weapons, i.e. Bhala spear and wooden stick, were referred to Chemical Analyser, Nagpur, for examination.The Chemical Analyser's report was received.In spite of strenuous efforts, accused Prabhakar, who was absconding, could not be traced.On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was put up in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in absence of accused Prabhakar.The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, framed the charge of the aforesaid offences (i.e. of the offences under sections 147, 148 and section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code) showing accused No. 1 as Shankar s/o Budhaji Moundekar, No. 2 as Raju @ Rajiv s/o Shankar Moundeker, No. 3 as Ramrao s/o Kashinath Moundekar and No. 4 Prabhakar s/o Kashinath Moundekar as absconding.In this charge, Kashinath s/o Budhaji Moundekar was not shown as an accused probably because in the year 1991, one of the accused reported to the Court that accused Kashinath had expired.However, before framing this charge, the case against Kashinath s/o Budhaji Moundekar was not abated.Again although the charge was for the offences under sections 147, 148 and section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the number of accused participating in the commission of the offence was not shown as five.There was only a reference to four accused in this charge as the persons participating in the commission of offence.Then on 2.8.1995, the absconding accused Prabhakar s/o Kashinath Moundekar was produced before the Court of Session.On his production, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, altered the charge.In this charge, deceased Kashinath s/o Budhaji Moundekar was also shown along with the other four accused as a person, participating in the commission of offence and the number of participants thus was correctly shown as five.The charge was read over and explained to accused Nos. 1 to 4 (who are the present appellants) and the accused pleaded not guilty.On the same date, earlier to the framing of charge, the case against accused Kashinath was abated.The defence of accused persons was of denial.From the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination and from the answers given by the accused persons to the questions recorded during their examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the defence of the accused persons, as is revealed, was that at the relevant time they were not present at home, they had already gone for work and they were yet to return home.The further contention of the accused persons was that injured Nilkanth was engaged in the business of selling illicit liquor and on the date of incident, one of his customers assaulted him and ran away, but the accused persons were falsely implicated.The accused persons also claimed enmity with the family of Nilkanth on the count that there used to be quarrels between the womenfolk of these two families over the question of filling water from the common water tap, in addition to this, accused Shankar also claimed enmity with Nilkanth, contending that Nilkanth was displeased as accused Shankar did not accompany him in gambling.The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the evidence and heard the submissions made on behalf of respective sides.She relied on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Laxmibai and Nilkanth and found that the evidence of these witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence.She also discarded the defence of the accused persons that some other customer assaulted Nilkanth and the present accused were falsely implicated.While arriving at this conclusion, the Judge was of the opinion that the identity of the accused persons as the assailants was established.The charge was framed on considering the documents of prosecution.At the time when the charge was framed, the documents before the Court were the oral report lodged by Laxmibai, the dying declaration of victim Nilkanth and the statement of Nilkanth recorded by police.In the dying declaration, the victim has mentioned five assailants, namely Kashinath, Shankar, Prabhakar, Ramrao and Raju.So as per this report, only four persons, who are the present accused-appellants, were involved in the commission of offence.As per this witness, accused Shankar was holding a spear in his hand and he assaulted her husband with spear.The witness further testified that two of the accused, namely Prabhakar and Ramrao had caught hold of her husband and accused Raju was holding the stick in his hand and he gave a stick blow to her husband.As per this witness, accused Shankar gave a spear blow on the right side abdomen of her husband, which caused the bleeding injury and he then again gave another spear blow on the back of her husband.Now it may be seen how far the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence against each of the accused in regard to the acts done by them, are made out.Laxmibai and Nilkanth both categorically deposed that accused Shankar inflicted the blows of spear on the person of Nilkanth.The evidence of these witnesses shows that the blow of spear was given on the abdomen of Nilkanth and the evidence of P.W. Nilkanth further shows that through and through injury was caused.The evidence of Dr. Jiwlode shows that a stab wound was caused on the left iliac fossa, incised wound (multiple) was caused on the scalp on parietal occipital region, another incised wound was caused on right parietal region, again an incised wound was caused on left leg and lastly, an incised wound was caused on left shoulder of P.W. Nilkanth.All the above injuries were clean cut.Dr. Jiwtode also noticed corresponding internal damage to injury No. 1 in the form of through and through cut in jejunal.In the opinion of Dr. Jiwtode, the injuries were possible by a weapon mostly with sharp edges on both the sides and pointed, viz. spear.The evidence of P.Ws.Laxmibai and Nilkanth on the point of blow of spear given by accused Shankar on the abdomen of P.W. Nilkanth is consistent in material particulars and the same is corroborated by medical evidence as detailed above.Although the evidence of P.W. Laxmibai shows that she reached the place where P.W. Nilkanth was being assaulted, after a short while, the quarrel was still going on and she witnessed accused Shankar giving a blow of spear to Nilkanth.There is no reason to distrust the evidence of P.Ws.Laxmibai and Nilkanth on the above point.The defence of the accused persons that some customer hit P.W. Nilkanth and the accused persons are falsely implicated, is without any basis.There could be none other than accused Shankar hitting victim Nilkanth with a spear.Though it was a dark on the place of occurrence and P.W. Laxmibai admitted in her cross-examination that because of the darkness, it was difficult to know who came and who went, the evidence of P.W. Nilkanth clearly shows that a tube light was burning at that place.The evidence also shows that there are some houses situated near the spot, so the light from those houses also could reach the place of occurrence.Laxmibai and Nilkanth could very well recognize the accused persons as they were acquainted with them being the neighbours and the persons having enmity with them.So the fact that accused Shankar gave a blow of spear on the abdomen of P.W. Nilkanth and caused through and through injury, is established.There might be some contradictions on the point of number of blows of spear inflicted on the abdomen of Nilkanth but the same are minor.The other injuries on the person of Nilkanth were incised wounds.The discussion as to the author of those injuries shall be made subsequently in due course at the relevant places.Now about the participation of other accused persons.Before going into the evidence on this point, one thing needs a mention.There are some contradictions and omissions in the oral report lodged by P.W. Laxmibai and the statement of P.W. Nilkanth recorded by police.Since the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statements of witnesses, was not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution may say that the contradictions and omissions are not proved.However, it was the duty of the prosecution to produce the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statements of the witnesses, for evidence.Had he been examined by the prosecution and had the defence failed to put up the abovesaid contradictions and omissions to the said Investigating Officer, then the accused persons could not have taken advantage of the contradictions and omissions.But here the prosecution itself has failed to produce the said Investigating Officer for evidence.So the benefit in respect of the abovesaid contradictions and omissions must go to the accused persons.However it does not mean that the entire prosecution evidence would go away.Now we may take the acts alleged by P.Ws.Laxmibai and Nilkanth in their evidence against the other accused one by one.(a) P.W. Laxmibai deposed that she noticed that four persons attacked her husband.In this respect, she gave the details.Laxmibai admitted during her cross-examination that she did not state to the police that accused Prabhakar and accused Ramrao had caught hold of her husband.(b) P.W. Laxmibai further deposed that accused Raju was holding a stick in his hand and he gave a blow of that stick to her husband.But this omission was not put up to the witness.However, since the document oral report is exhibited, the same can be read.Otherwise also, there is no injury of stick on the person of Nilkanth.All the injuries on the person of Nilkanth are either stab or incised wounds and they were caused with sharp weapon.There is no contusion or laceration, which could be caused by stick.(c) No doubt P.W. Laxmibai has deposed that when she rushed outside the house on hearing the shouts of her husband, she noticed that four persons attacked her husband.But her evidence in cross-examination shows that in the beginning of the incident, she was inside her house.She admitted that at the time of incident, she was in the middle room of her house.She also admitted that when she came out of the house, a number of people had gathered there.She further admitted that when she saw the incident, her husband had fallen down.However, in the next breath, she volunteered that at that time accused Shankar was giving a blow of spear to Nilkanth.Thus the evidence of P.W. Laxmibai inculpates accused Shankar only and her evidence as regards the role played by accused Shankar stands the test of cross-examination.(d) P.W. Nilkanth deposed that when he was sitting on a bench in front of his house in the courtyard, accused Prabhakar and accused Raju rushed towards him and there was hot exchange of words.They questioned him as to why he was objecting to the concealing of liquor by them and they said that they had come to see him.There is no reason why this piece of evidence of P.W. Nilkanth should be distrusted.(e) P.W. Nilkanth further deposed that accused Prabhakar and accused Raju caught hold of both of his hands.However, this is an omission in the statement of P.W. Nilkanth recorded by police.(f) In the course of narration of incident, P.W. Nilkanth stated that accused Shankar rushed towards him with a spear, accused Ramrao rushed with a wooden stick in his hand and gave a blow of stick on his head.The fact that accused Ramrao rushed towards Nilkanth with a wooden stick and gave a blow of stick on his head, seems to be an omissionin the statement of P.W. Nilkanth recorded by police.However, this omission was not put up to P.W. Nilkanth.Still this version of Nilkanth cannot be taken as reliable as there was no injury on the head of Nilkanth, which could be caused by a stick.As already observed above, the injuries on the head of Nilkanth were all incised wounds and there was no contusion or laceration.So the story that accused Ramrao gave a stick blow on the head of Nilkanth stands falsified.Those injuries must have been caused by accused Shankar.(g) During the course of evidence, P.W. Nilkanth deposed that after accused Shankar gave a blow of spear on his abdomen, he rushed towards the chhapari of his neighbour Shri Lanjewar in order to save himself and then all the accused persons, namely Prabhakar, Raju, Shankar and Ramrao, pulled him out of the chhapari in the courtyard.The perusal of the statement of P.W. Nilkanth recorded by police shows that there is an omission in respect of some of the accused about pulling him out of the chhapari.In the statement before police, P.W. Nilkanth has stated only two names.He stated that accused Shankar and accused Raju pulled him from the house of Lanjewar by catching hold of his hands.He omitted to state that accused Prabhakar and accused Ramrao also pulled him out of the chhapari of Shri Lanjewar.Thus the omission is about Prabhakar and Ramrao.The fact that only accused Shankar and accused Raju pulled Nilkanth from the house of Lanjewar, is, therefore, established.The evidence of P.W. Nilkanth shows that thereafter also, accused Shankar gave a blow of spear on the umbilicus region on left side and it was a through-and-through blow.(h) P.W. Nilkanth further deposed that after such blow of spear was given by accused Shankar.Ramrao again gave one stick blow on his left shoulder.This also seems to be an omission in the statement of P.W. Nilkanth recorded by police, but it was not put up to the witness in his cross-examination.However, again it may be seen that the injury on the shoulder of Nilkanth is an incised wound and it could not have been caused by a stick.So it is reasonable to infer that the injury on the shoulder of P.W. Nilkanth was also caused by accused Shankar and not by accused Ramrao.The story that accused Ramrao gave a blow of stick on the shoulder of Nilkanth is thus falsified.(i) During the course of narration of facts in the evidence.P.W. Nilkanth deposed that meantime his wife had rushed near him from the house and the accused persons pushed her.The version of P.W. Laxmibai is also that when she intervened the assault, the assailants pulled her and that time she received the injury between the thumb and index finger of her left hand.In the report Exhibit 52, Laxmibai stated that when she went to separate the quarrel, she sustained injury between the fingers of her left hand.She did not specifically state in her report that the assailants pulled her.But the sustaining of injury indicates that there must be a resistance when she tried to intervene.On the basis of the above evidence of P.Ws.Nilkanth and Laxmibai read as a whole, one will find that all the four accused removed the_ obstacle of Laxmibai in the process of assault on Nitkanth.On the point of participation of the accused persons in the criminal act with a common intention, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants cited Sambhu Bora and another v. State of Assam,.In this cited case, the two accused were tried on the charge of murder.All of them were armed with deadly weapons.They were together.There was an order by someone, "kill, kill", when all of them simultaneously attacked the deceased and the prosecution witnesses.After the occurrence, the appellants left together and they were later arrested from the same place.It was observed that the High Court rightly held that the appellants caused the injuries with the common intention and was justified in convicting the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.As already discussed above, what is required to be seen is whether the accused persons, besides the accused doing the principal act, participated in the criminal act in one or the other way with a common intention.From the discussion made above, even on considering the omissions, the facts proved are that accused Prabhakar and Raju initially came on the scene of occurrence and raised a quarrel, questioning the victim as to why he was objecting to the concealing of liquor by them.Not only that, but they threatened victim Nilkanth that they had come to see him.Thus they declared their intention, which was followed by the act of accused Shankar, who inflicted a blow of spear on the abdomen of Nilkanth.When Laxmibai came to the rescue of her husband, the accused persons pulled her.But she stated in the said report that when she intervened and tried to separate the quarrel, she sustained the injury on the dorsal portion of finger of her left hand.In the instant case, the circumstances indicate that the report was lodged hurriedly because the victim was facing the critical condition and subsequently he was also operated upon.The evidence of P.W. Laxmibai has to be read coupled with the evidence of P.W. Nilkanth, who deposed specifically that when his wife had rushed near him from the house, the accused persons pushed her.Again the evidence of P.W. Nilkanth after taking into account the omission about accused Prabhakar and Ramrao in his statement before police shows that when he had been to thechhapari of his neighbour Shri Lanjewar, accused Shankar and Raju pulled him out.Although the fact that some of the accused gave the stick blows to victim Nilkanth, is not established, the facts and circumstances detailed above clearly show that all the other accused participated in the commission of offence in one or the other way along with accused Shankar who did the principal acts of giving spear blows.Otherwise also, the number and nature of injuries on the person of the victim clearly indicate that without the assistance of the other accused, such severe injuries could not be inflicted.The facts and circumstances detailed above also indicate the common intention on the part of the other accused.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,487,033 |
(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,488,316 |
The accused Vandish Wankhede, Vilas Gote, Ajay Khobragade, Madhukar Meshram, Pralhad Ramteke and Hemraj Nikode were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each.The accused nos.1 to 10 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight days.2] Since the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted accused Ajay, Madhukar, Pralhad and Hemraj of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the State has preferred the appeal against those accused by preferring Criminal Appeal No.208/2005, whereas the accused who have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, they have challenged aforesaid conviction.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 4::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 5 3] The prosecution case, in brief, can be summarised as under :::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 5The complainant Dharmendra s/o Mangalrao Sukhdeve, his brother and accused persons were the resident of Pulai, Tahsil and District-Wardha.The dispute was going on between the complainant and the accused persons on the ground that the complainant's father was playing witchcraft on the sister of accused no.1 Vandish.On the date of the incident i.e. on 19.10.2002 at about 6.00 pm, the complainant Dharmendra Sukhdeve (PW-1) along with his brother Vijay Sukhdeve (PW-3), Dilip Nanaware (PW-5) and Vijay Khobragade were proceeding to Arvi by his own auto-rickshaw for purchasing the doors for his house.After purchasing the doors at Arvi, when they reached Pulai Bus Stand, between 10.30 to 11.00 pm, accused no.1 Vandish asked him to stop the auto-rickshaw and dragged PW-1 Vandish down from the auto-rickshaw by abusing him "Kare Madarchoda" and assaulted him with an axe on his hand.When PW-1 Vandish tried to avoid the blow, he sustained the injury on his left palm.At that time, Vilas Gote, Sambha Nikose, Sudhakar Wankhede, Ajay Khobragade, Madhu Meshram, Pralhad Ramteke, Hemraj Nikose, Samrao Khobragade and two ladies namely Suman Vitthal Patil and Vachchhi Sambha Nikose rushed at the place of the incident.According to PW-1, Pralhad Ramteke assaulted him and his brother by means of stick.Hemraj Nikose assaulted him and his brother by means of stick.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 10 Sambhaji Nikose assaulted him and his brother by means of stick and other accused assaulted them by means of fist and kicks blows.PW-1 stated that in the meantime his parents arrived at that place.Accused no.1 Vandish assaulted his father by means of axe on his forehead, whereas his mother was assaulted by accused no.1 Vandish by an axe on her head.Accused Vilas Gote assaulted his mother and father by means of crow-bar, so also Sambhaji Nikose assaulted his parents by stick.PW-2 stated that accused no.1 Vandish assaulted his wife by means of an axe on her head.Vilas Gotey was::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 12 holding crow-bar and others were holding sticks.PW-2 was assaulted by Vilas Gotey by means of crow-bar.Pralhad Ramteke, Sambhaji Nikose, Hemraj Nikose, Madhu Meshram, Vatchalabai, Sumanbai, Shamrao and Ajay Khobragade were all holding sticks.ORAL JUDGMENT 1] Both these appeals are decided together by this common judgment as they arise out of same offence.Criminal Appeal No.784/2004 is preferred by appellant nos.1 to 10 against the State, whereas Criminal Appeal No.208/2005 is preferred by the State against the appellants.In Criminal Appeal No.784/2004, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') preferred an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2004 delivered by the learned 2nd Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.8/2003, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted accused nos.1 Vandish Wankhede and Vilas Gote for the offence punishable under::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 4 Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.They were armed with crow-bar, axe and sticks.All of them attacked the complainant and the persons who accompanied him.In the meantime, the incident was reported by one Dilip Narnaware to the::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 6 mother of PW-1 namely Sau.Baby Sukhdeve and father Mangal Sukhdeve.Therefore, they rushed at the place of incident.They were also assaulted by the accused persons, due to which, mother of PW-1 sustained injury on her head and father sustained injury on his forehead, so also brother of PW-1 Vijay sustained injury on his chest.It is further the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons attacked the complainant and his associates at the time of the incident.PW-1 then reported the incident to the Police by lodging his complaint (Exh.54).::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 6He referred the injured persons to the hospital for their medical examination and treatment.PW-12 then visited the place of incident and recorded the spot panchanama.From the place of incident, he took the charge of the articles i.e. wooden plank, while dupatta, two wooden pieces, crow bar, iron rod, blood smeared earth, plain earth, two sticks, one slipper, one chappal, chilly powder, bamboo stick, palas stick and one printed cotton rumal of red colour under seizure panchanama (Exh.105).PW-12 arrested all the accused.On 21.10.2002, at the instance of accused no.1 Vandish, an axe was taken charge from the field of Rambhau in Pulai Shiwar under panchanama (Exh.122).The statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded by PW-12 and after the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The learned trial Judge framed the charge and on analysis of the evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge has delivered the judgment as aforesaid.4] I have heard Shri Y.B. Mandpe, the learned counsel for the appellants-accused as well as Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::He further submitted that although as per the testimony of the witnesses, two axes were involved in the alleged offence, however, only one axe is recovered at the instance of accused no.1 Vandish and the said recovery cannot be termed as discovery as the said axe was taken charge from the open field which was accessible to one and all.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 8 The learned counsel for the accused contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 8He further contended that out of ten accused, only two were convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and other accused were acquitted under the said provisions.He submitted that thus the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and perverse.7] In order to verify the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be appropriate to go through the evidence led by the prosecution.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of PW-1 Dharmendra Sukhdeve, PW-2 Mangal Sukhdeve, PW-3 Vijay Sukhdeve, PW-5 Dilip Nanaware and PW-11 Bebi Sukhdeve, who are the injured witnesses, the Medical Officers PW-13 Dr. Madhuri::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 9 Gujarkar and PW-14 Dr. Yogini Katkar and the Investigating Officer PW-12 Surajkishor Choube.The prosecution has not examined any independent witness on the point of incident.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 98] The testimony of PW-1 Dharmendra Sukhdeve shows that on 19.10.2002 at about 10.30 pm, he along with Vijay Khobragade, Dilip Nannaware and Vijay Sukhdeve reached near bus stop of village Pulai by his auto-rickshaw from Arvi.His auto-rickshaw stopped by accused no.1 Vandis and abused him as "Kare Madarchoda".Accused no.1 Vandish pulled PW-1 out of the auto-rickshaw.Accused no.1 then assaulted PW-1 by means of an axe on his neck and left palm.The brother of PW-1 namely Vijay got down from the auto-rickshaw and tried to catch hold Vandis, however, accused no.1 Vandis assaulted Vijay Sukhdeve by means of an axe on his head and chest.Then Vilas Gotey, Ajay Khobragade, Shamrao Khobragade, Pralhad Ramteke, Madhukar Meshram, Hemraj Nikose, Sambhaji Nikose, Vatchalabai Nikose and Sumanbai Patil came there.Accused Vilas Gote assaulted the brother of PW-1 by means of crow-bar.The accused Ajay Khobragade assaulted PW-1 on his head by means of Ubhari.Accused Shamrao Khobragade assaulted PW-1 and his brother by means of stick (zilpi).PW-1 stated that his mother fell down.All the accused fled away.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 10PW-1 Dharmendra admitted in his cross-examination that a criminal case is pending against him, his brother, his parents and Dilip Nannware with regard to the same incident dated 19.10.2002 in Arvi Court.PW-1 further denied that he had beaten to accused no.1 Vandish on his head, so also accused Sudhakar and Vilas.He denied that they were holding an axe, iron tomy and sticks.Thereafter, accused no.1 Vandish went to Kharangana Police Station and accused Vilas, Sudhakar and Vandish were admitted in the hospital.Improvements were pointed out in the testimony of PW-1 to the effect that he was beaten by accused Vandish on his neck, Vijay got down from the auto-rickshaw and tried to catch Vandish, however, he was beaten by an axe on his head and chest, Dilip Nannaware ran away towards the house and other accused came there.His brother Vijay Sukhdeve was beaten by iron sabbal.PW-1 was beaten by Ajay by means of Ubhari.PW-1 Dharmendra and his brother::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 11 were beaten by zilpi by Shamrao, Pralhad Ram Ramteke has beaten them by means of sticks, Hemraj assaulted them by sticks, Sambhaji assaulted them by sticks, his parents were assaulted by accused no.1 Vandish by an axe on their heads, Vilas assaulted to PW-1's parents by crow-bar and Sambhaji Nikose assaulted to his parents.His mother fell down and on suspecting that she died, all the accused ran away.The testimony of PW-1 is full with improvements and discrepancies.His testimony shows that a cross complaint was lodged by the accused persons against the complainant and his family members.9] The testimony of PW-2 Mangal Sukhdeve, who is the father of PW-1 Dharmendra, shows that on 19.10.2002 at about 10 to 10.30 pm, Dilip Nannaware came to his house and narrated about the assault to PW-1 Dharmendra, therefore, he along with his wife rushed towards the bus-stop.Vijay and Dharmendra were assaulted by accused Vandish by an axe.PW-2 Mangal tried to rescue them.However, accused no.1 Vandish assaulted his wife by an axe on her head.Accused Vilas was holding crow-bar and others were holding sticks.PW-2 along with his wife tried to rescue them.All the accused then fled away.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 11::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 12In cross-examination PW-2 denied that he along with his wife, Vijay, Dharmendra and Dilip Nanaware assaulted to accused no.1 Vandish, Vilas and Sudhakar.He further admitted that a case is pending against them in Arvi Court.An improvement was pointed out in the version of PW-2 that he noticed Vandish while assaulting to his sons Vijay and Dharmendra by an axe.He along with his wife tried to rescue the quarrel.His wife was beaten by Vandish by an axe.Vilas Gotey was holding crow-bar and remaining accused were holding sticks in their hands.PW-2 was assaulted by Vijay Gotey by the end of crow bar.Vandish abused "Madarchoda, Mazya Bahinila Jadu-Tona Kela".All these improvements were pointed out in the version of PW-2 which go to the root of the prosecution case.10] The testimony of PW-3 Vijay Sukhdeve shows that on 19.10.2002 at about 10.30 to 11.00 pm, when he along with his brother Dharmendra, Dilip Nannaware and Vijay Khobragade were near the Pulai Bus Stop, at that time, accused Vandish stopped their auto-rickshaw and started abusing them by saying "Ka Re Madarchoda".Dharmendra was::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 13 pulled down from auto-rickshaw by Vandish and he started assaulting Dharmendra by an axe.Vilas Gotey, Sambhaji Nikose, Sudhakar Wankhede, Hemraj Nikose, Pralhad Ramteke, Shamrao Khobragade, Madhukar Meshram, Ajay Kbobragade, Sumanbai Patil and Vatchala Nikose were also started assaulting to him and his brother Dharmendra by means of crow-bar, axe, sticks and ubhari.His parents arrived at that place.Her mother requested Vandish not to beat her sons.However, she was assaulted by Vandish by an axe on her head.His father was assaulted by Vilas Gotey by means of crow-bar.His mother fell down on the earth and, thereafter, all the accused fled away.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 13PW-3 admitted in his cross-examination that since prior to the incident he was in cross terms with accused Vandish.He however denied that Vandish had lodged a report with regard to the assault against him, his father and his brother.He further stated that his father had lodged his private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arvi against Vandish, Vilas Gotey etc. PW-3 stated that he does not know whether accused Vandish had sustained bleeding injury to his head and his clothes were stained with blood.He also denied that Vilas Gotey sustained injury.He further stated that he does not know whether Vandish, his father and Vilas Gotey were admitted in the hospital.Improvements were pointed out in his testimony to the effect that one of::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 14 the accused was holding Ubhari.His mother requested Vandish not to assault her sons.She was beaten by Vandish by an axe.His father was beaten by Vilas Gotey by crow-bar.His mother fell down on the earth.Vilas was holding a crow-bar.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 1411] In the testimony of PW-5 indicates that on 19.10.2002 at about 10.30 to 11.00 pm, when they reached near the bus stop of Pulai, accused Vandish obstructed their auto-rickshaw and abused as "Kare Madarchoda".Dharmendra was beaten by Vandish by an axe.Vijay Sukhdeve got down from the auto and requested them by saying "Maru Naka Re".On noticing their quarrel, PW-5 ran away towards the house of Mangal Sukhdeve and informed the incident to him.Thereafter, PW-5 along with Bebibai Sukhdeve and Mangal Sukhdeve came to the place of incident.Bebibai requested "Maru Naka Re".Accused Vandish instigated Vilas Gotey by saying "May Ali Takre Kurhad".Vilas Gotey assaulted Bebibai by an axe on her head.She became unconscious.Thereafter, all the accused fled away.In the cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that his statement was recorded after 2½ months from the date of the incident.Few improvements were pointed in his version to the effect that their auto- rickshaw was obstructed by accused Vandish and he has abused as::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 15 "Kare Madarchoda".Dharmendra was beaten by Vandish by an axe.Vijay got down from the auto-rickshaw.PW-5 gave an understanding to them by saying "Maru Naka Re".By shouting, he went to the house of Mangal and narrated that Vandish is beating Dharmendra and Vijay.He brought Mangal and Bebibai on the spot.Bebi requested as "Maru Naka Re - Maru Naka Re".Vandish instigated Vilas Gotey by saying "May Ali Tak Kurhad".Bebi was assaulted by Vilas Gotey by means of an axe on her head and she became unconscious and accused persons ran away noticing that Bebi died.All these improvements go to the root of the prosecution case and the version of PW-5 is doubtful.PW-5 denied that he along with other had beaten to Vandish and Vilas Gotey and also the father of Vandish when he came on hearing the shouts.He stated that he does not know whether Vandish had sustained bleeding injury to his head, so also Vilas Gotey and father of Vandish also sustained injuries.He denied that he has stated before the police that the villagers had rescued the quarrel.The said contradiction was marked as portion mark 'A' for identification.Thus the testimony of PW-5 is full with discrepancies.12] The testimony of PW-11 Bebi Sukhdeve indicates that on the date of the incident at about 10.00 to 10.30 pm, Dilip Nannaware had been to her house and informed that Vandish Wankhede, Vilas Gotey and some other persons were beating to her sons Vijay and Dharmendra near::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 16 Pulai Bus Stand.She along with her husband, Suresh Patil and Dilip Nannaware went to the Bus Stop.Vandish Wankhede, Vilas Gotey, Shamrao Khobragade, Ajay Khobragade, Sambhaji Nikose, Hemraj Nikose, Madhukar Meshram, Pralhad Ramteke, Suman Patil and Vatchabai Nikose were assaulting her sons by means of sticks, fist and kicks blows.They were holding sticks, crow-bar, axe, iron bar.She tried to intervene the quarrel.However she was also assaulted by accused by means of sticks and fist blows.She was beaten by Vilas Gotey by means of an axe on her head.She sustained bleeding injury and therefore she fell down.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 15::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 16PW-11 started in her cross-examination that her statement was recorded by the police twice.She stated in her statement that there was a light on the spot.However, the said version did not find place in her statement recorded by the police.She admitted that a criminal case is pending against her and others in respect of the same incident.The improvements were also pointed out in her statement to the effect that she along with her husband, Suresh Patil and Dilip Nannaware went to the bus stop and Dilip Nannaware informed her that her sons were beaten by Vandish and others near bus stop, all the accused were beating to her sons by first and kicks blows and sticks and accused were holding sticks, iron bar and sabbal in their hands.She tried to intervene the quarrel, however, all the accused assaulted her by sticks and kicks and fist blows,::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 17 due to which she sustained bleeding injury.Further improvement was pointed out with regard to the effect that Dilip Nannaware and Suresh Patil were along with them on the spot.All the accused were holding sticks, iron bars and sabbal and they were beating by it, so also she was assaulted by the accused by fists blows.All these improvements were pointed out in her version.PW-11 denied that her husband had filed number of cases against the villagers.She had also filed a case against Vandish, Vilas, Sudhakar and others.According to her, many people gathered on the spot.She however denied that her sons were holding tomy and other weapons in their hands.She further denied that in darkness she received blow of tomy on her head.She also denied that since prior to the incident she was in cross terms with Vandish and accused nos.3 to 10 are relatives of Vandish.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 1713] The meticulous testimony of all the prosecution witnesses shows that there are many improvements made by them with regard to the incident.The testimony of these witnesses is not consistent on the point as to which accused was holding which weapon.There is also discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses with regard to the fact as to which accused had assaulted which witness and by means of which weapon.PW-11 stated that she was assaulted by all the accused by means of fist and kicks blows and Vilas Gotey was assaulted her by::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 18 means of an axe on her head, whereas as per the testimony of PW-11 she was assaulted by Vilas Gotey by means of an axe on her head.However, as per the testimony of PW-5 accused Vandish was assaulted his mother by means of an axe on her head.Thus, there are discrepancies in the version of these witnesses with regard to the incident and the weapons used by the accused persons.If at all the testimony of witnesses is accepted, two axes were involved in the incident, one used by Vilas Gotey and other used by Vandish.However, there is recovery of only one axe in the crime in question.It is not clear as to which accused was holding which weapon at the time of the incident.Admittedly, the incident had taken place during night hours at about 10.30 pm.It is not clear from the evidence of the witnesses that there was sufficient light at the time of the incident.Even the spot panchanama does not throw any light on this aspect, but the testimony of all these witnesses also indicates that there was a cross case pending against them arising out of the same incident.It is the case of the defence, during the cross of the same incident, accused persons also received severe injuries, which clearly shows that there was free fight among the accused persons and the witnesses.It appears that there were two groups and between two groups, assault had taken place.Accordingly, the complainant and the witnesses, who were the accused persons in the cross case bearing Regular Criminal Case No.58/2003, decided by the learned Additional::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 19 Sessions Judge, Wardha on 16.12.2004, the complainant and the other witnesses were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to throw light on the aspect of the alleged incident.It appears that the prosecution has tried to suppress the true genesis and the occurrence of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 18::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 1914] In the case of Lakshmi Singh .vs."Injuries on the person of the accused and one of them succumbed to the said injuries.The trial Court found that there was free fight between the two groups.In such circumstances, the appellant can be made liable for their individual acts and, therefore, the conviction was not sustainable.The trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant for rioting or for other offences with the aid of Section 149, IPCode."15] The learned trial Judge should have considered the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective.The prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against the accused persons.As regards the appeal by the State, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Insofar as the::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 ::: Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 20 appeal against the conviction of the appellant nos.4 to 10 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the following order is passed :::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::Apeal784.04 + 208.05.odt 20ORDER 1] Criminal Appeal No.784/2004 filed by the appellants-accused is allowed.2] The judgment and order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.8/2003 is hereby quashed and set aside.3] All the accused are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.4] Criminal Appeal No.208/2005 filed by the State of Maharashtra stands dismissed.JUDGE Gulande::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:47:22 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,495,068 |
Page 5 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2713 of 2019Page 5 of 74.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.Page 6 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2713 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 6 of 7(mmi) H.C.P.No.2713 of 2019 27.05.2020 Page 7 of 7http://www.judis.nic.inPage 7 of 7Pandurangan, who is the detenu.The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Page 2 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2713 of 2019Page 2 of 74.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:"5.I am aware that Thiru.I am aware that Thiru.As far as the ground case concerned, in a similar case registered at Vellore North Crime Police Station Crime No.200/2017, under Sections 294(b), 394, 397, 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Page 3 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2713 of 2019 Thiru.Nandhu @ Nandhakumar by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vellore in Crl.As bails are being granted by courts in such cases, there is most likely that he (Thiru.Palani) may come out on bail, he would indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace..............."Page 3 of 75.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the similar case registered in Vellore North Crime Police Station Crime No.200/2017, under Sections 294(b), 394, 397, 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Nandhu @ Nandhakumar by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.2714/2017 on 07.07.2017, and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Page 4 of 7In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.C3/D.O.No.130/2019 dated 22.11.2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Palani, male, aged 29 years, S/o.Pandurangan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.and P.T.ASHA, J.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,949,916 |
O.P. No.10605 /2020 of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of twenty one days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and on further condition that:-(a) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with the Bank of Baroda, Adambakkam Branch/the Intervener, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and produce the receipt of deposit before the learned Magistrate at the time of his surrender.(b) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.(c) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and 4/8http://www.judis.nic.in _________ CRL.O.P. No.10605 /2020 thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.(d) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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].(g) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,501,208 |
(Delivered on 24/02/2020) This petition is filed by Sahnawaz Khan in Crime No.336/2017 registered at Police Station Kanadiya, District Indore for the offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, of IPC, on the ground that the petitioner is implicated in the crime only on basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Karan Tiwari @ Aasif @ Sonu Choudhary that he got prepared fake Pan Cards, Driving licences and Aadhar Cards seized from his possession with the help of the present petitioner.2. Facts in brief are that on 01.09.2017 one Neelesh Kumar Dubey filed a written complaint with the police stating that about 15 day back a persons approached him impersonating and stating that he is Karan Tiwari S/o Ajit Tiwari and asked to find out any suitable Hindu Brahmin girl for his marriage.The petitioner asked him to provide his date of birth etc. to find out any suitable proposal.In his attempt to collect further information of this Karan Tiwari when the complainant inquired from the people of the society, his friend Ankit Bhanopia and some other people revealed that original name of Karan Tiwari is Asif @ Sonu Chaudhary and he is a Muslim.Therefore, the complainant approached the police and lodged complaint.The police registered the case and investigated the same.During investigation, the police recorded statements of his uncles and cousins, who confirmed that Karan Tiwari is actually Asif Khan S/o Azim Chaudhary.The police arrested him and seized his ADHAR Card, ATM card, PAN card, Driving license, Bank account and some other documents showing him as Karan Tiwari S/o Ajit Tiwari.On interrogation, he revealed that he got prepared these fake document with the help of the petitioner Shahnawaz Khan.The police recorded his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, arrested the petitioner and searched his mobile shop, but found nothing to connect him with the crime.This way the police implicated the petitioner in the array of the accused on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused.Through this petition filed on 31.10.2017, It is asserted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not concerned with the crime.No incriminating evidence is recovered from his possession.That the allegation against the petitioner is that he helped the main accused in preparing documents to show his fake identity.The police have recovered many fake documents from the possession of co-accused Karan Tiwari @ Aasif @ Sonu Choudhary, but there is no recovery of fake documents from the petitioner.He was neither named in the written complaint nor ever contacted any one with any fake identity or impersonated himself with forged name or documents.He has no nexus with the co-accused.The police have foisted false case on him.It is further submitted that disclosure/confessional statement of co-accused or the petitioner himself is not admissible in the eyes of law.There is no other evidence collected by the police to connect him with the alleged crime committed by someone else.Therefore, FIR registered and all proceedings taken pursuant thereto be dropped against him.The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Pulukari Kotaya Vs.Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, Harichara Kurmi and Jogia Hajam reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184, Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 10 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 597, State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 17: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 230 (page 36), Mustkeem Vs.State of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724, Asar Mohammad and Ors.State of U.P. reported in AIR 2018 SC 5264, Kusal Toppo Vs.State of Jharkhand reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1563, Valiyaveetil Ashraf v. State, S.H.O. Kottakkal Police Station reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 441 : 1994 Cri LJ 555 (page 561) and Pappu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 SCC OnLine MP 442 : 2001 Cri LJ 875 (Page 876).Further judgements of the MP High Court rendered in Anant Kumar Vs.State of MP reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 1499, Sharif Khan Vs.State of M.P. 1997(II) M.P.W.N page 254 N 173, Raghu Thakur Vs.State of M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPHT 116, Suresh Upadhayay Vs.State of M.P. passed in MCRC 837/2014 dated 5th March 2014, Rajveer Singh Vs.State of M.P. reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 265, Raju @ Rajesh Chawla Vs.State of M.P. order dated 6.10.2015 rendered in MCRC 3579/2015, Gajendra Singh Bhadoria Vs.State of M.P. reported in MANU/MP/0976/ 2016, Madanlal Vs.Faijal & others Vs.State of M.P. passed in MCRC 10904/ 2017 dated 19th February 2018, Dashrath Vs.State of M.P. passed in MCRC 5452/2017 dated 26 November 2018, Mohamad Wasim Mewati Vs.State of M.P. passed in MCRC Dated 11th March 2019, have also been referred by the counsel for the petitioner.The facts that no evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is collected by the police during the investigation or that not a single witness, whose statement has been recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated anything against the petitioner have not been controverted by the prosecution.It is further not contested that there is nothing against the petitioner except the disclosure statement of the co-accused Asif Khan.Accordingly, the petition succeed.The FIR No. 336/2017 registered at Police Station Kanadia, Indore under Section 465,468,471,419 of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings taken thereunder so far as it relates to petitioner Shahnawaz Khan are quashed.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,950,175 |
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Maharajganj dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2019 (Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Sharma Vs.State of U.P.), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj dated 10.12.2019 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.370 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj.Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.Perused the record.The prosecution case, in brief is that the victim was enticed away by the victim.Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.The prosecutrix and the applicant were in love with each other and she was the consenting party.Further submission is that victim has denied for internal or external examination and neither she received any injury.It is next submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged after one month and nine days of the alleged incident and there is no explanation of the delay.The age of the victim as per the medical report is 18 years.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The natural guardian of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.The revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence.He is in jail since 01.08.2019 in connection with the present crime and has completed substantial period of sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.(ii) That the revisionist, who is juvenile, is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated by the first informant in the present case.(iii) That the courts below have not appreciated the report of the District Probation Officer in its right perspective.(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.(vi) That the courts have erred in law in not considering the true import of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the impugned orders passed by the courts below suffer from manifest error of law apparent on the face of record.(vii) That the courts below have acted quite illegally and with material irregularity in not properly considering the case of juvenile in proper and correct perspective which makes the impugned orders passed by the courts below non est and bad in law.(viii) That bare perusal of the impugned orders demonstrate that the same have been passed on flimsy grounds which have occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court.In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."There is nothing said against the juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation Report that may show him to be a desperado or misfit in the society.The two courts below have held the juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated.That finding, in both the orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in one case of the judge and in the other of the Board.State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs.State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order 06.01.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Maharajganj dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2019 (Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Sharma Vs.State of U.P.), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj dated 10.12.2019 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.370 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Sharma through his natural guardian/ father Ramashankar be released on bail in Case Crime No.370 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist through his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of November, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,511,737 |
Heard on the bail application.As per the prosecution case, one land was purchased by co- accused Ajab Singh and Krishna Gopal Chaurasiya jointly in the name of Smt. Sheela Kushwah who is wife of Ajab Singh.Thereafter, some portion of the land i.e. plot No.17/18 was sold to the complainant namely, P.L. Shakya by Krishna Gopal Chaurasiya who is power of attorney holder of Smt. Sheela.It has been alleged that the aforesaid plot was again sold to somebody else by Krishna Gopal Chaurasiya and when the complainant went to the house of present applicant and Ajab Singh for demanding his money at that time quarrel took place between the parties, therefore, matter was reported to the police, on which present crime has been registered.2 M.Cr.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that the aforesaid plot was sold by Smt. Sheela Kushwaha and no sale deed was executed by the present applicant except to complainant P.L. Shakya.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,307,854 |
C.C. as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid Digitally signed by RASHID KHAN Date: 2018.10.12 15:16:41 +05'30'Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
|
['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.
|
21,312,203 |
During the investigation, a suicidal note was recovered from the house of the deceased and it was sent to the hand writing examination.According to the report, suicidal note was written by the deceased in which the deceased has written that his wife and her parents would be responsible for his death and on account of their harassment and threatening with regard to false implication in the case of demand of dowry and harassment, he committed suicide.giving rise to this revision are that in the intervening night of 03.11.2017, Ishan Gohar husband of the applicant No.1 has committed suicide by hanging himself at his residence 447, Sharma Colony, Shahjahanbad, Bhopal and the suicide was committed on account of abetment caused by the applicants by continuous harassment and threatening to indulge him and his family members in false case of demand of dowry and harassment.About the incident, Crime No.199/2018 was registered at Police Station, Shahjahabad.Learned trial Court mechanically without application of mind has framed the charges, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that considering the suicidal note of the deceased and statements of family members of the deceased, it is crystal clear that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment and threatening given by the applicants, therefore, they are responsible for the aforesaid offence.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
213,147 |
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Chandran (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), a Gulf returned agriculturist while on his way to Panthalam market around midnight between 25.5.95 and 26.5.95 at a Panchayat road at Arunoottimangalam was brutally assaulted.Soon he was lifted to the Government Hospital, Mavelikara.After first aid, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital suspecting head injury.The injured was shifted to the Medical College hospital, Kottayam.After return from his engagement abroad deceased was engaged in betel cultivation and trade.Valsala (PW-15) is his widow, and Manoharan (PW-4) was his brother.Santosh (PW-18) was his nephew.On 25.5.1995 he was on his way to Panthalam market, which starts functioning from early hours in the morning.When deceased and Santosh (PW-18) reached near the house of P.K. Ramachandran (PW-14), all the named accused (A-1 to A-6) and two others waylaid them.Bhargavan (A-1) dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with an iron rod stating that he should not live any more.Deceased slumped on receiving the blow.Then Dhanarajan alias Dhanan hit the deceased with motor cycle chain on his neck and back.Deceased cried out in pain, hearing which A-1 said that he was not dead and should be finished.Responding to this, accused Sudhakaran (dead), Chandran, Sadasivan and Radhakrishnan (A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 respectively) assaulted the deceased on the head and back with sticks.Santosh (PW-18) cried for help and ran towards home.Hearing the cry Manoharan (PW-4) and other neighbours rushed to the spot.On the way Santosh (PW-18) met Manoharan (PW-4).Meanwhile Anandan (PW-2) and Nalini (PW-3) rushed there.Anandan (PW-2) and Manoharan (PW-4) supinated the deceased who asked for water and named the accused persons to have assaulted him.PWs 3 and 4 gave water to the deceased.PW-18 Valsala (PW-15) and others in the meantime reached the place.PW-4, PW-18 and others shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Mavelikara.Dr. V.C. Alexander (PW-5) attended the injured and opined that he should be shifted to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam as there was suspected head injury.He also sent an intimation to the Mavelikara Police Station.Since PW-4 and PW-18 did not carry much money, they returned home, collected some money and clothes and along with PW-15 searched for a car.They went to the house of one Shajahan, Advocate requesting for a car.Later, they got a car and the injured was shifted to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.Though he was admitted and treated at the Hospital in the intensive care unit, he did not survive.At about 3 p.m. on 26.5.1995, he recorded the First Information Report on the basis of narration by PW-The occurrence was witnessed by Santosh (PW-18) who was accompanying the deceased at the time the accused persons assaulted him.J U D G M E N TARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Appellants question their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').Appellant Bhargaven was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- with default stipulation.The other four appellants were awarded similar custodial sentence but the fine in their cases was Rs.35,000/- each.No separate sentence was awarded for offences relatable to Sections 143 and 148 IPC.The Kerala High Court by the impugned common judgment dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants confirming the conviction and sentences imposed.Subsequently, information was lodged at the police station and investigation was undertaken, on completion of which charge sheet was filed.According to prosecution the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder formed into an unlawful assembly and being members of unlawful assembly they were armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, motor cycle chain and sticks and with intend to commit murder of the deceased Chandran, he was brutally assaulted at his head and body and due to the head injuries sustained Chandran breathed his last.Six persons faced trial.Twenty eight witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.Santosh (PW-18) was stated to be an eye-witness wheres Anandan, Nalini, Manoharan (PWs 2, 3 and 4 respectively) were stated to be persons before whom the deceased made dying declaration implicating the accused-appellants.Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication because of previous litigation.A-1 Bhargavan additionally took the plea of alibi to the effect that he was hospitalized at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam at the time of occurrence and the possibility of his assaulting the deceased is improbable.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuza, found the prosecution version cogent, credible and trustworthy and convicted and sentenced the accused persons-appellants as aforesaid.The so-called dying declaration before PWs.2, 3 and 4 is a myth.The doctor clearly stated that he was unconscious when brought to the hospital and, therefore, the question of his making a coherent declaration before PWs.2, 3 and 4 as claimed is impracticable.Additionally, in the so-called dying declaration, accused no.1 was not specifically named.The conduct of PW-18 is not natural.Though claimed that PW-18 had accompanied the deceased, said fact has not been established.His reaction does not appear to be normal.It is highly improbable that one person was assaulted by several persons, and he did not react and remained passive onlooker.It is equally improbable that after having allegedly made murderous assaults on a person, no attempt was made to even cause a scratch on a person who claims to have witnessed the entire occurrence.The Trial Court noticed that accused persons knew the deceased and PW18 were going to the market on particular day.It is, therefore, improbable that they would leave unscathed a relative of the deceased who claims to have witnessed the occurrence.Additionally, PW-18 did not mention the names of the assailants to the doctor who first treated the deceased.The conduct shown by the PW-18 and others in delaying to take the deceased to the hospital and first going to the house of their advocate on the unacceptable plea that they wanted to use his vehicle shows that the first information report was lodged after deliberation and falsely implicating the accused persons.The first information report was lodged on the next day of occurrence.2 and 3 claimed that they had seen the deceased in an injured condition.Their evidence goes to show that Santosh (PW-18) was not present when they reached the spot of occurrence.But the said witness stated that light was not on when he reached the site.Reliance has been erroneously placed on the basis of statement of PW-14 (P.K. Ramachandran) recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Cr.P.C.').In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that the plea about A-1 having nothing to do with any litigation of deceased and accused except being the latter's advocate is clearly not correct factual position because the Trial Court itself noticed about cases instituted by A-1 against the accused.The evidence of PW-14 has rightly been discarded on the question of availability of light.Section 149 has been rightly applied as all the accused persons carried weapons and their presence and acts done have been established.The time of occurrence was after mid-night and the distance to the hospital was such as it took nearly 3 hours to reach it.PW-18 has also stated as to why he could not come to the rescue of the deceased.The plea of alibi has been rightly rejected in view of the evidence of doctor and the nurses i.e. PWs.In essence it was submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court about the guilt of the accused did not warrant any interference.In Dalip Singh and Ors.The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 is cogent and credible, clearly supporting the claim that dying declaration was made before them.The names of the accused persons were claimed to have been stated before PWs.3 and 4 who categorically stated that the name of accused no.1 was stated.The plea of alibi was rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court.The appellant no.1 had not established that he was in the hospital on the trial.The evidence of doctor and the nurses (PWs.19 to 22) clearly shows that he was not given any medicines after initial examination and that itself was conclusive of the fact that he was not in the hospital in the evening when the medicines were given to the patients.It has been specifically stated that he was permitted to stay outside.It has also been explained as to why there was delay in lodging the first information report.The Trial Court and the High Court considered the evidence and came to hold that the paramount attempt was to save the life of the deceased, and witnesses tried to take him to the hospital at Kottayam.The evidence of PW-18 was sufficient in itself to uphold the conviction.Additionally, there is evidence of the dying declaration.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,315,244 |
Heard Sri Yanendra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State through video-conferencing.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Mayank Srivastava with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-892 of 2019, under Sections-376, 328 I.P.C., Police Station-New Agra, District-Agra, during pendency of trial.From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections-376, 328 I.P.C.;(ii) against FIR lodged on 01.12.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 03.12.2019;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.In any case, he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a pre-existing consensual relationship between the parties with respect to which he has referred to transcript of certain chats between the parties on a social media platform.(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 2.6.2020 Shubham
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,315,687 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellants are accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.98 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the above stated three accused as detailed below:Serial Number of charge Charge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1 & A3302 of IPC2A2 & A3302 r/w 109 of IPC3A1 to A3201 r/w 34 of IPC4A1506(2) of IPCBy judgment dated 12.02.2015, the trial Court convicted these appellants / accused 1 to 3 for various offences as detailed below:Rank of the AccusedPenal provision(s) under which convicted SentenceA1302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.201 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The deceased in this case was one Mrs.The first accused is her husband and the accused 2 and 3 are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively.The marriage between the first accused and the deceased was celebrated three years before the occurrence.After the marriage, the deceased and the first accused were living as husband and wife at Talavaipalli village.2.2 But shortly after sometime of the marriage, the first accused developed suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased.On account of the same, there arose frequent quarrels.In consequence of the same, the deceased used to return to her parental home often.Lastly, she stayed so at the house of her parents for three months at Beerpalli village.Thereafter, the issues were sorted out by the elders and the deceased was taken back into the matrimonial home.Thus, the deceased again started living with the first accused.The accused two and three were also living as joint family with them.It is further alleged that on 05.03.2010 at 3.00 p.m. the deceased spoke to P.W.1 the brother of the deceased that she was harassed by the accused.One Chinnasamy intervened and pacify them.On 06.03.2010, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 wanted to see the deceased.Therefore, he was coming along with P.W.2 from his village to Thalavaipalli village.He got down from the bus at Bangarapalli bus stop and from there P.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding towards Thalavaipalli village on walk.When they were passing through the bank of a lake, at around 08.00 a.m., from the pump shed of the first accused situated somewhere near the said lake, P.Ws.1 and 2 heard the cry of the deceased.Therefore, they rushed towards the said shed, where they found the gory incident.Heart empty, 350 gms, congested.Lungs congested, hyoid bone intact, stomach congested, liver 1200 gms, spleen 100 gms, kidneys 100 gms congested, uterus empty, opening of scalp occipital brain matter liquefied state.He gave opinion that the deceased would have died due to head injury and also due to suffocation between 24 to 36 hours prior to the postmortem.P13 is the postmortem certificate.A2302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.201 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.A3302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.201 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The trial Court acquitted these appellants from the rest of the charges.The accused 2 and 3 held the deceased and the first accused strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope.P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed the same.After the deceased breathed her last and having ensured that the deceased was no more, all the three accused took the dead body to a nearby tree and hanged the dead body with a nylon rope to make it appear as though she died by committing suicide.With petiole of a coconut leaf, caused injuries on her private parts also.P.Ws.1 and 2 could not do anything out of fear.2.5. P.W.1, thereafter, went to Gurubarapalli Police Station, which is situated at a distance of about 10 kilometers from the place of occurrence and made a complaint at 09.30 a.m. P.W.12 the then Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2010 under Section 302 I.P.C. against all the three accused.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P.W.17 took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.P.W.14, Dr.Devendiran conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 07.03.2010 at 10.30 a.m. He found the following injuries:External Injuries: Oedema all over the body, swollen fact with contussion.Peelant skin with multiple blisters filled with fluids.Hairs easily plucked out, veins distention over forearm, axilla and thighs.Neck swollen and rope impression seen, vaginal orifice swollen with edemation and blackish coloured vaginal folds with laceration.Internal examination: Ribs and thorax intact.During the course of investigation on 07.03.2010, P.W.17 arrested all the three accused.On such arrest, on the disclosure statement made by the first accused, a stone, a aruval and the petiole of a coconut leaf were recovered.He forwarded the accused for judicial remand and also handed over the material objects to the Court.On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against all the three accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment, which the accused denied.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined, 22 documents and 8 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitness to the occurrence.They have stated that they were proceeding to Thalavaipalli village after getting down from the bus at Bangarapalli bus stop.They witnessed the entire occurrence.P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by him.P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased.She has stated only about the earlier quarrel between the first accused and the deceased.P.W.4 is the cousin of the deceased.He has stated that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing about the same.Similarly, P.W.5 has also stated that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing about the same and found the dead body hanging in a tree with a rope.2.11. P.W.6 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence.P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer of the said village.She has stated that on 06.03.2010 at around 12.30 p.m. she had information that a woman had committed suicide by hanging.P.W.8 has stated about the arrest of the accused and the consequent recovery of the material objects.P.W.9 the Head Clerk of the Court has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination.The report states that there was human blood on the saree pieces, blouse and in-skirt of the deceased.P.W.10 is a Constable attached to the police station received the F.I.R. and the complaint at 09.30 a.m. from P.W.12 and handed over the same to the learned Magistrate.According to him, the distance between the police station and the Court of the learned Magistrate is hardly 13 kilometers.He has further stated that it took only 15 minutes for him to reach the Court of the learned Magistrate.P.Ws.13, 15 and 16 have turned hostile and they have not stated anything incriminating.P.W.14 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.Ws.17 and 18 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, they are before this Court with this appeal.There was head injury and there were also injuries to the private parts of the deceased.If it is a simple case of suicide, by hanging, these injuries would not have happened.P.W.14 has opined that the death was not only due to asphyxia but also due to head injury.Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that the death of the deceased was not by suicide but it was only a homicide.Now the question is who all are the perpetrators of the crime.P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that they were proceeding to the house of the deceased at Thalavaipalli village, they got down from the bus and when they were proceeding to Thalavaipalli village, and when they were passing through the bank of a lake, they heard the distress cry of the deceased and when they rushed to the motor shed of the accused, according to them, they found that the accused 2 and 3 were holding the deceased and the first accused strangulating her with a nylon rope.Then, according to them, all the three accused took the dead body, hanged it and made it appear as though it was a case of suicide.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 is highly unnatural and the same would go to prove that they would not have been present at all at the time of the alleged occurrence.We find every force in the said argument.P.W.1 is none else than the brother of the deceased, who was aged about 30 years at the time of occurrence.He was aged around 58 years.Thus, they were highly interested in the deceased.It is also highly unbelievable that P.Ws.1 and 2 would have been patiently witnessing the entire occurrence, which would have gone for a long time.It is the case that after killing the deceased and after having ensured that the deceased was no more, all the three accused, hanged the dead body in the tree by using a nylon rope.This would have again taken some more time.P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that they were standing and simply watching patiently the entire occurrence until the accused disappeared from the said place after hanging the dead body.Had it been true that they were present at the scene of crime, after all the three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2, by all natural human conduct, with an anxiety to save the deceased, would have gone near the dead body lifted the same and tried to remove the dead body from the noose so as to revive her, that also they did not do.They did not even go near the dead body.They simply went to the police station and made a complaint.They claimed to be present at the place of occurrence by chance.As we have already pointed out that they are interested witnesses.Their conduct is highly unnatural.It is stated that the complaint was made at 09.30 a.m. at Gurubarapalli Police Station.But the F.I.R. reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 01.00 a.m. on the same day.Absolutely there is no explanation as to why it took such a long time for the F.I.R. to reach the hands of the learned Magistrate.The Constable who took the F.I.R. to the Court has stated that it took only 15 minutes for him to reach the Court from the police station.The F.I.R. had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate, as we have already pointed out at 01.00 p.m. The F.I.R. would have been handed over to him only around 12.30 p.m. at least.Thus, the very origin of Ex.P1 is doubtful.Apart from that, P.W.7 the Village Administrative Officer concerned has stated that on 06.03.2010, at around 12.30 p.m., she had information that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging.According to her, she went to the place of occurrence some time before 12.30 p.m. and after having found the dead body hanging, she submitted a report to the Tahsildar and also to the police.It was only on her complaint, the police immediately arrived at the scene of occurrence at around 12.30 p.m. From this evidence, it is clear that until the arrival of the police, it was not known to anybody as to how the deceased was killed.The impression at the place of occurrence till 12.30 p.m. was it was a case of suicide.It was only after removal of the dead body, the injuries would have been noticed and thereafter, F.I.R. would have come into being by implicating all the three accused as assailants.For the foregoing reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction.Before concluding, we want to highlight certain unethical practices adopted in this case by the defence.Though the learned counsel for the accused was very much present in the Court, he did not cross examine any of these witnesses for no reason whatsoever.On that date, none of the witnesses were cross examined by the defence counsel.P.Ws.5 and 7 were recalled on a request made by the accused and cross examined on 29.11.2013 i.e. after about four months.During cross examination, many answers were elicited from the witnesses virtually quite contrary to their evidences in chief examination on certain vital facts.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to these vital answers elicited during cross examination and wanted us to disbelieve the case of the prosecution giving weightage for these answers.Therefore, we are of the view that in such a situation, when a witness who had narrated the entire facts in chief examination, during cross examination, which is held after several days or months, makes some contradictory statements, the Court may, for these reasons, decline to act upon the facts elicited during cross examination.In the instant case, for the said reasons, we have not given any weightage to the answers elicited on certain vital facts during cross examination of these witnesses mentioned above.We have appreciated only the facts spoken by these eye witnesses and other witnesses during chief examination and since we find that the prosecution has not proved the case, we are forced to acquit the accused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,317,423 |
The same is taken on record.Respondent No.2 is present.She is being represented by her counsel.She is duly identified by the IO ASI Ramesh Kumar.W.P. (Crl.) 1519/2017 Page 1 of 4The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 02.06.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Najafgarh, Delhi.However, out of this wedlock no child was born.After solemnization of marriage, the couple started living at the matrimonial home.Due to some temperamental differences between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent no.2, they could not reconcile with each other.Resultantly, the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home on 08.02.2014 and started living with her parents.She lodged a complaint with CAW Cell which culminated into the said FIR.On making a reference by the learned MM, Mahila Court, Delhi, the parties appeared before the learned Mediator, Delhi Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.On 15.07.2016, petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 resolved and settled their all disputes before the learned Mediator.By this settlement, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 had W.P. (Crl.) 1519/2017 Page 2 of 4 decided to part company of each other and obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent.Status report has been handed over in court.Respondent No.2 also filed a petition for maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) against the petitioner No.1 in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Delhi.The petitioner no.1 had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 in full and final settlement of her all claims including the maintenance and cost of dowry/stridhan articles.The respondent no. 2 had also agreed to withdraw her both petitions filed under Section 12 of D.V. Act and 125 of Cr.PC.W.P. (Crl.) 1519/2017 Page 2 of 4A decree of divorce by mutual consent was awarded on 28.03.2017 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Delhi by which the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 was dissolved.The respondent No.2 states that she had voluntarily resolved all disputes with the petitioners without any coercion or force.Today, the petitioner No.1 has paid the balance settlement amount of Rs.1,25,000/- vide three separate Demand Drafts i.e.(i) 305642 for Rs.49,000/- (ii) 305643 for Rs.49,000/- & (iii) 305644 for Rs.27,000/-, all dated 04.09.2017 issued by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi to respondent No.2, which she has accepted.She submits that she does not want to pursue the said FIR.She submits that the said FIR may be quashed.W.P. (Crl.) 1519/2017 Page 3 of 4The matter had been amicably settled between the parties and no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR.Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No.834/2014, registered on 31.12.2014 with Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi (South West District), under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,317,903 |
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant sh arrested on 06/11/2017 in connection with Crime No.614/2017 for e offences registered under Sections 363, 376(D)(N)(2) of IPC and ad section 4 of POCSO Act, police station Kotwali District Hoshangabad.Pr Allegation against the applicant/accused is that he along with co- accused person kidnapped and committed gang rape with the a hy prosecutrix.Charge sheet has been filed and M trial will take time to conclude.It is further submitted that prosecutrix is a sister of brother-in-law and applicant's sister has made FIR against of his brother-in-law for offence punishable under section 498A, 506 of rt IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is still pending and ou on account of this enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.During the investigation, the police ig authorities made many efforts to got her statement recorded.This H conduct of the prosecutrix makes the whole story suspicious.Hence the applicant be released on bail.Learned G.A for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, in view of this Court, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of bail.Hence this application is allowed without commenting anything on the merits of the case.It is ordered that the applicant Abdul Irashad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty 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. Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,324,547 |
The complainant as an appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Judge) at Mahe in C.C.No.47 of 2004 on 12.05.2005 acquitting the respondent/accused from charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has preferred the present appeal.The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement/Ex.D.2, dated 20.02.2003 by which the appellant agreed to invest a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) in the business venture and the respondent/accused agreed to pay 35% of the profit within one year and if the business runs in loss, the respondent/accused agreed to return the money invested by the appellant with 22% interest.On the very same date of execution of the agreement, the respondent/accused issued Ex.The said cheque has been issued by the respondent/accused in the capacity of Proprietor, Pachilakkad Coffee Agencies.However, in the Ex.D.2/Agreement, it has been stated that the respondent/accused has taken on lease a coffee Curing Works under the name and style of 'Yes Coffee' and the appellant/complainant has agreed to invest Rs.6,00,000/- in the said business.So, it is not the case of the appellant/complainant that he had lent money to this respondent for his individual business.But the Ex.P.W.1 has also deposed that he do not know whether Noushad received Rs.3 lakhs from Yes Coffee on his direction for doing Continental Coffee Works.So, the evidence of P.W.1/ Sakhariya itself would reveal that he had invested the amount of Rs.6 lakhs only in the 'Yes Coffee' and not in 'Pachilakkad Coffee Agencies'.Furthermore, as per Ex.P.1/Cheque for a sum of Rs.7,32,000/- without filling the date.Since the respondent/accused did not pay any money even after the time specified in the agreement, the appellant/complainant filled up the date and presented the Ex.P.1/Cheque for encashment.However, the said cheque was returned as 'insufficient funds'.The memo issued by the Union Bank of India is marked as Ex.Hence statutory notice under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been issued under Ex.P.3/Notice dated 03.03.2004 to the respondent, for which the respondent issued Ex.P.4/Reply dated 25.03.2004 stating that the respondent has no personal liability.The postal receipt is marked as Ex.P.5, Postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P.6 and the Statement of Account is marked as Ex.The respondent/accused pleaded that he has not borrowed the money as alleged by the appellant but the appellant has only invested the amount in the business of a partnership firm 'Yes Coffee curing works' in the respondent/accused is one of the partner and to prove the same, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 were marked.The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence has acquitted the respondent/accused, against which the present appeal has been preferred.By raising the above points, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant prayed for conviction and sentence.Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the cheque has been issued as security in the business of a partnership firm.However, the other partners of the firm were not impleaded as parties.P.1/Cheque for Rs.7,32,000/- to the appellant/complainant without specifying the date.Since, the respondent/accused did not pay any money out of the profit, the appellant/complainant filled up the Ex.P.1/Cheque and presented the same for encashment.P.W.1 in his evidence has admitted the Ex.D.2/Agreement.In his cross-examination, he has stated that in Ex.P.1/Cheque without affixing the date.D.2/Agreement, the first party is not only the respondent/accused but also one Sainudeen.However, the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not issued to the said Sainudeen, but it was issued only to the respondent/accused.However, on 23.10.2003 the said landline was transferred in the name of one Suresh.P.1/Cheque was issued on the very same date of execution of Ex.D.2/Agreement without specifying the date.So, as on the date of issuance of the Ex.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,332,277 |
This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by petitioner-Satish @ Shivshakti, who is apprehending his arrest by Police in Crime No.298/2017 registered at Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore, concerning offences under Section 342 and 370-A of the IPC.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.Allegedly, on a secret information, a raid was conducted by police on 11.5.2017 in the house of one Jyotibai, in which, four children viz. Soni - 4 years; Rahul - 4 years; Manisha - 6 years; and Anil - 4 years, were recovered regarding which she could not give any satisfactory information.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complicity of the petitioner is alleged on the basis of disclosure statement said to have been made by Jyotibai that she was assisted by the petitioner.It is submitted that Jyotibai has already been released on bail vide 2 order dated 29.6.2017 passed in M.Cr.It is further submitted that except disclosure statement made by Jyotibai, there is no other evidence with regard to complicity of the petitioner and that the mothers of Sonu, Rahul, Manisha and Anil have given the statement that they have left temporary custody of their children with Jyotibai.Though the prayer for anticipatory bail is strongly opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest by Police in the aforesaid case, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.C.C. as per Rules.( VED PRAKASH SHARMA ) JUDGE Alok/-
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,280,089 |
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the objector/ complainant.Case diary perused.This is application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 36/2020 registered at Police-Station-Mahatma Gandhi Road, District-Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D and 509 of I.P.C.(2).As per prosecution case, the victim, who is aged about 26 years working as Assistant Commissioner Co-operative and Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society Grade-II.The applicant was posted as Deputy Commissioner Co-operative, Indore and the victim was working under him.It is alleged that applicant used to repeatedly ask the complainant to visit Maheshwar for excursion, to which she never agreed.From June 2019 the applicant started having filthy conversation to which some had double meaning and used to pass derogatory comments upon her body.He also used to make the complainant sit in his cabin for hours and have vulgar conversations with her.He also used to send messages her on whatsaap, which were suggestive, compelling her to surrender to his sexual demand, the applicant sent lewd messages which outraged the modesty of the complainant.He also threatened 2 that if his demands are not accepted then there will be dire consequence.It is also alleged that on 21.10.2019 when she went to Bhopal with the applicant for official visit where also he tried to give bad touches to her.On the basis of aforesaid, the FIR bearing Crime No.36/2020 has been registered against the applicant.(3).The other offence registered against the applicant are bailable in nature.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,286 |
(18/06/2009) The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 38/05 for the offence punishable under section 306/34 of IPC arising out of the crime no. 574/04 registered at police station Katni.In brief the prosecution case is that on 21/09/04 at Katni Civil Line, five persons namely Kishori Lal Gupta, Maya Bai w/o Kishori Lal, Monika D/o Kishori Lal, Renuka D/o Kishori Lal and Mayank S/o Kishori Lal committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.The matter was Page numbers M.Cr.C. No. 4705/2009 reported to the police station Katni on which basis a merg was recorded.During inquiry of merg it was found that these five persons died by consuming some poisonous substance and their visras were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.During investigation, a suicidal note, alleged to be written by deceased Kishori Lal has was seized where it is alleged that due to the recovery proceedings initiated by Oriental Commerce Bank for the recovery of loan amount which he has taken from the bank concerned, in that recovery proceedings his house was wrongly auctioned by the recovery officer Nahida Khatoon, Naib Tahsildar.It is further alleged that the other co-accused as well as applicant Asha Singh Gaharwar have insulted him with regard to the aforesaid recovery proceedings initiated by recovery officer hence, Kishorilal and his family members have committed suicide.On the basis of suicidal note, police has registered a case under section 306 of IPC against the applicant and other co-accused persons.After due investigation, a charge sheet has been filed which is pending Page numbers M.Cr.C. No. 4705/2009 presently before the Additional Sessions Judge, Katni.C. Nos. 8451/2005, 8453/2005 and 1336/2006 has already quashed the proceedings against other co-accused namely Suresh Kumar Gupta, Prakash and Satyapal Grover and thus, the criminal proceedings against the present applicant should also be quashed on similar grounds.4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the Government Advocate for the State.C. No. 4705/2009 instigation.
|
['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.
|
1,262,882 |
JUDGMENT O.P. Dwivedi, J.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 31st July, 1992 complainant Rakesh lodged a report to the effect that his daughter, namely Geeta aged 13 years is missing from his house since 29th July, 1992 evening.She had also taken away her clothes and Rs. 400/-.In the said report he expressed suspicion on the appellant Mohar Singh @ Pappu who resides in his neighborhood.On this report, a case under Sections 363/366, IPC was got registered vide FIR No. 45/1992 Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi.On 2nd August, 1992 Geeta, prosecutrix was recovered from the jhuggi of Mohar Singh @ Pappu.Pie was arrested.Geeta was got medically examined.Her bone age was opined to be between 14.5 to 15.8 years.Statement of Geeta was recorded under Sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. wherein she made allegations of rape against all the accused persons.Accordingly, accused persons were arrested under Sections 363/366/506/376/34, IPC.After completing the investigation, challan was submitted to the Court.All the accused persons were charged under Sections 363/366/34, IPC.They were separately charged under Section 376, IPC also.Bal Kishan and Prahlad were further charged under Section 506/34, IPC.After careful consideration of submissions of learned Counsel for the parties in the light of material on the record, learned ASJ came to the conclusion that age of the prosecutrix was about 16.5 years at the time of alleged incident.Accused persons were exonerated of the charge under Section 376, IPC as prosecutrix in her statement before the Court did not say anything in this regard against the accused persons.They were however, convicted only under Section 363/34, IPC for having kidnapped the minor girl and sentenced accordingly.Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.This appeal has been pressed mainly on the ground that there was no reliable evidence from the prosecution side regarding the date of birth of prosecutrix (sic.) medical opinion giving her bone age between 14.5 to 15.8 years could not be made the sole basis for fixing the age of the girl as 16.5 years because there is always a margin of error of two years on either side.Further in this case the doctor, who gave the opinion with regard to the bone age of the prosecutrix has not been examined in the Court.Therefore, the said opinion was not admissible in evidence.Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties in the light of material on the record and the case-law cited at the Bar, I think the challenge is well-founded.In the case of Shanti v. State, reported in 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 476 (Delhi), and Mani Ram @ Ramesh v. State, 1990 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 136 (Delhi), it has been held by this Court that if the X-ray reports on the basis of which the opinion regarding bone age has been given, has not been produced before the Court, the opinion of the doctor cannot be accepted and that if the doctor who gave the opinion regarding the bone age of the prosecutrix is not examined in the Court, his opinion cannot be admitted in evidence.Moreover, there is always a margin of error of two years on either side.Different High Courts have taken a similar view on the point.Reference can be had to the cases of Balasaheb v. The State of Maharashtra, 1994 Crl.L.J. 3044; Sheela Bai and Anr.v. State of M.P., I (1997) CCR 538=1997 (2) Crimes 461, and Paramjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1987 Crl.In the present case, Dr. Sanjay Hak who had given the opinion PW 4/A regarding the bone age of the prosecutrix has not been examined in the Court, so defense had no opportunity to cross-examine him on the question of his opinion with regard to bone age.Therefore, opinion regarding bone age of the prosecutrix Geeta becomes inadmissible in evidence.Besides, there is always a margin of error of two years on either side.If margin of two years is given on the higher side, age of the prosecutrix can be above 18 years.The benefit of doubt in such a situation always goes to the accused.The appellants, therefore, will be entitled to be given benefit of doubt as regard the age of prosecutrix Geeta at the time of alleged incident because it cannot be said with certainty that the girl was below 18 years of age at the time of incident.Ms. Kamlesh, Principal who was examined as PW 6 stated that Rakesh (PW 2), father of the girl had submitted the birth certificate.Rakesh PW 2 stated that he is illiterate and had given the age of girl at the time of admission in the school by approximation.So this evidence was rightly rejected by learned ASJ being of no help in fixing the exact age of the prosecutrix Geeta at the time of incidentOnce it is found that prosecution has failed to prove with certainty that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of incident, the only question which remains to be considered is whether she was taken by force or she went of her own accord.On this point, learned ASJ found the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable.She has deposed that she was standing at the door of her house when she was threatened by the accused Mohar Singh to accompany him and that is why she accompanied him and kept on roaming here and there with him.Her statement does not inspire confidence because her father Rakesh PW 2 himself stated that girl had taken away some clothes and a sum of Rs. 400/- which shows that she had willingly gone with the accused Mohar Singh after taking Rs. 400/- and some clothes.PW 1 Geeta however denies this.Not only that she did not raise any alarm or protest for two-three days during which period she remained in Chanderlok Park as stated by her.The accused made her to sleep in the park only.She could raise alarm to attract the attention of the public.It is not possible to believe that she got no opportunity to attract attention of the people in a crowded city like Delhi.In cross-examination, she deposed that accused had taken her to various places like Pahar Ganj, village Garhi and Chanderlok Park but she never raised any alarm.In these circumstances it can be safely concluded that she roamed with the accused persons of her own accord and since she has not been proved to be minor, accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt.Accordingly, both the appeals are accepted.The impugned order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside.Both appeals stand disposed of.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,291,260 |
CRA 68.13.odt 2On 8.12.1994, elections to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly were declared.Applicant was nominated as Election Officer, Buldhana.(ii) The Election Commission had directed all the Election Officers to videograph all the events of election proceedings and for the said purpose to appoint three videographers in each legislative constituency.The videographers were to be provided video cassettes by the administration.(iii) On 8.12.1994, after elections were announced, applicant on 12.12.1994 issued advertisement in the local newspaper inviting tenders to videograph election proceedings as directed by the Election Commission.During meetings, Election Officers were directed to appoint ten videographers to each constituency instead of three, as directed earlier.ORAL JUDGMENT This application is directed against the order dated 25.9.2012 passed below Exh.128 by the learned Special Judge, Buldhana in Special Anti Corruption Case No.6/2003 thereby rejecting the application for discharge preferred by applicant/accused.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 2 2] The facts giving rise to criminal revision application may be stated, in brief, as under :::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::On opening::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 3 the tenders, work of videograph was given to M/s. Fortune Communications, Pune as bid quoted by M/s. Fortune Communications was lowest one.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::CRA 68.13.odt 3Investigation was conducted.On completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed before the Special Judge.Applicant appeared and moved an application (Exh.128) for discharge.The said application came to be rejected.Being aggrieved thereof, this revision application has been preferred.3] Heard Shri Voditel, learned counsel for applicant at length and Shri Balpande, learned APP for non-applicant.4] It is submitted on behalf of applicant that number of videographers from three to ten was increased by the Chief Election Commissioner and applicant and all election::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 4 officers were directed to engage at least 10 videographers for each constituency.No audit objection was raised.No adverse communication was received from the Election Commission.According to applicant, allegations in FIR are misconceived and unsubstantiated by any evidence.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::CRA 68.13.odt 45] Learned counsel for applicant challenges the impugned order on the following grounds :(i) Applicant was working as Collector.He was charged for serious mis-demeanour.Considering the nature of allegations made in FIR and in view of verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, preliminary enquiry by a superior officer was necessary before lodging FIR.A grievance is that no such preliminary enquiry was conducted against the applicant.(ii) To attract the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, basic::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 5 element is the dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage for himself and others and against public interest.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::defence of accused cannot be considered at this stage.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 6 According to him, FIR makes out occurrence of offences and trial court, considering the allegations against applicant, rightly rejected the application for discharge.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::The question as to whether accused should be discharged or charge should be framed against him or not can be decided on the basis of material collected during investigation.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 7 8] Keeping these legal parameters in mind, it is to be seen in the present controversy, whether accused was entitled for discharge.The Chief Minister in our view pursued the right course.CRA 68.13.odt 10::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::CRA 68.13.odt 11The entire accounts were submitted by the office of applicant and audit department approved the same.No::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 12 objection was raised by the Chief Election Commissioner for engaging ten videographers per constituency.13] The learned Special Judge, while rejecting the application, observed that on the basis of evidence, merits and demerits of the prosecution case can be determined and declined to discharge the accused.Criminal::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 ::: CRA 68.13.odt 13 Revision Application deserves to be allowed.Hence, the following order :::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::(iii) Application (Exh.128) filed by applicant in Special Anti-Corruption Case No.6/2003 is allowed.(iv) Applicant - Prakash Murlidhar Bhishikar is discharged from Special Anti-Corruption Case No.6/2003 pending before Special Court, Buldhana.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:15:30 :::
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,295,407 |
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum, in Sessions Trial No.June 3, 2002 arising out of Sessions Case No.122 of 2001, by which the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for two months more for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant no.1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for 6 months more for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for 6 months more for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.The backdrop of conviction and sentence of the appellants is as follows:-The defacto complainant Radhu Soren filed a written complaint before the Officer- in-Charge of Sainthia Police Station on the basis of which Sainthia Police Station Case No.22 of 1997 dated March 1, 1997 under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.The police investigated the said criminal case and submitted charge sheet against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.The court framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.On conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced to each of them imprisonment for various terms for both the offences under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Rupam Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has pointed out various omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 who happens to be the defacto complainant of this case.He has also pointed out from the written complaint treated as FIR and the evidence of P.W.1 how P.W.1 has tried to improve upon his earlier statement given to the police.Mr. Mukherjee submits that almost all the co-villagers of the appellants have stated in the evidence that they had good relation with the deceased who committed suicide, though most of these witnesses were permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution.He argues that there is no evidence to indicate the specific role played by each of the appellants in the commission of offence of abetement of suicide of the deceased.The specific submission of Mr. Mukherjee is that the deceased wife died after 9-10 years of her marriage with the appellant no.1 and as such, the prosecution cannot take advantage of presumption available under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.He further submits that the father of the deceased has consistently stated in the written complaint and in the evidence before the court that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.10,000/- by the parents of the deceased.Mr. Banerjee has pointed out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there is consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured during her stay in the matrimonial home and she committed suicide in the matrimonial home and as such, it is the duty of the husband to explain why the deceased committed suicide.The specific submission of Mr. Banerjee is that the appellant no.1 is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, though the other appellants may get the benefit of doubt for failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the specific role played by other appellants in the commission of the offence.For proper appreciation of the rival contentions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties, it will be wise and prudent on my part to scan the evidence adduced before the trial court.The defacto complainant Radhu Soren (P.W.1) is the father of the deceased Basini Soren.The defacto complainant has stated in the written complaint (exhibit-1) that Basini Soren was married to the appellant no.1 Sibu Ram Murmu about 9-10 years before her death.P.W.1 has stated in his evidence and in the written complaint that all the appellants used to inflict physical and mental torture on the deceased for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.10,000/- by him.He has further stated in evidence and in the written complaint (exhibit-1) that on Magh 20, 1403 B.S. 4 the deceased was driven out from the matrimonial home when she protested about the demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellants and the deceased was compelled to take shelter in her parents' house.The contents of the written complaint (exhibit-1) disclose that on 4th of Falgun 1403 B.S., the appellant no.1 took the deceased back to her matrimonial home after the appellant no.1 was persuaded to do that by the brothers of the deceased.He has stated in his evidence how she had gone back from her parents' house to the matrimonial home with the appellant no.1 on 4th Falgun 1403 B.S. I do not find any major inconsistency between the oral evidence given by the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and the statement given by him before the police as written complaint (exhibit-1).The omission in the oral evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the role played by the brother of the deceased in persuading the appellant no.1 to come to the house of parents of the deceased to take the deceased back to the matrimonial home cannot lead me to disbelieve the evidence of the defacto complainant.One Badal Soren (P.W.2), Ganesh Murmu (P.W.3), Lilu Maddi (P.W.4) - all co- villagers of the appellants have stated in evidence that the appellants maintained good relations with the deceased.On consideration of the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W.14), I find that all the above prosecution witnesses denied their earlier statement given before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer has specifically stated about the statement given by them during investigation.One Pakui Soren (P.W.6) who happens to be the sister of the deceased has stated in evidence that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the appellants 5 during her stay in the matrimonial home and that all the appellants demanded Rs.10,000/- from the father of the deceased.It appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) that this witness did not disclose before the Investigating Officer that the appellants demanded Rs.10,000/- from the father of the deceased.So, it will not be safe and prudent on my part to rely on the evidence of P.W.6, so far as her evidence about the demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellants is concerned.One Kartick Soren (P.W.7) who happens to be the brother of the deceased Basini has stated in evidence that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the appellants during her stay in the matrimonial home.The cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) reveals that this witness did not disclose before the Investigating Officer that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the appellants during her stay in the matrimonial home.So, the oral evidence of P.W.7 with regard to physical assault of the deceased by the appellants is found to be unreliable.It transpires from the evidence of Chitan Kisku (P.W.10) who happens to be the uncle of the deceased that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the appellants during her stay in the matrimonial home.Similarly, it is elicited from the evidence of Dumni Soren (P.W.11) who happens to be the mother of the deceased that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the appellants during her stay in the matrimonial home.I do not find any cogent reason to disbelieve the evidence of the above witnesses with regard to the torture inflicted on the deceased Basini during her stay in the matrimonial home.On an analysis of the evidence of above prosecution witnesses and the written complaint treated as FIR (exhibit-1), I find that the prosecution has been able to establish about the physical and mental torture of the deceased Basini during her stay in the matrimonial home.On close scrutiny of the entire evidence, I do not find any 6 specific role played by the mother in law of the deceased and the sister in law of the deceased in subjecting the deceased to cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home.The inquest report prepared by P.W.12 indicates that there were marks of injury on the neck of the deceased.P.W.12 who conducted the inquest, opined that the cause of death is suicide by hanging.The post-mortem of the dead body of Basini was conducted by Dr. B.S. Paul (P.W.9) who has also opined that the cause of death of Basini was asphyxia following hanging which was ante-mortem and suicidal in nature.The above aspect of expert evidence is consistent with the story of the prosecution that Basini committed suicide by hanging.It has, thus, been established from the evidence on record that the deceased Basini committed suicide by hanging.Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or 7 Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."On scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, I find that the deceased Basini was subjected to cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home.I have already observed that there is no iota of evidence to indicate the specific role played by each of the appellants in inflicting physical and mental torture on the deceased Basini who lived with the appellant no.1 as husband and wife for 9-10 years and gave birth to three children.Had there been any specific demand of money by all the appellants, the brother of the deceased, mother of the deceased and other prosecution witnesses would have disclosed the same before the court and also before the Investigating Officer of the case.Except the father of the deceased, no other prosecution witness has consistently stated before the Investigating Officer and in the trial court about the demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellants.Even the father of the deceased who has narrated about the demand of Rs.10,000/- in the written complaint (exhibit-1) and in evidence before the court as P.W.1, was not interrogated by the Investigating Officer during investigation of the case.Mere inflicting of torture - physical and mental cannot amount to instigate a person to commit suicide.The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses does not indicate that the parents in law of the deceased and the sister in law of the deceased aided or instigated the deceased Basini for committing suicide.The evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case is not sufficient to establish the charge of abetment of suicide against the appellants.Doubt looms large in my mind about the commission of the offence of abetment of suicide by the appellants.8 So, the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt for committing the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.I have already observed that there is consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses to establish that the deceased Basini was subjected to physical and mental torture during her stay in the matrimonial home.I have also observed that the evidence adduced before the trial court is not sufficient to indicate the specific role played by the parents in law and the sister in law of the deceased in inflicting torture on the deceased during her stay in the matrimonial home.There is no doubt that the torture inflicted on the deceased Basini will definitely come within the ambit of "cruelty" as defined in Explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.The logical inference of my above observation is that the appellant no.1 being the husband of the deceased must be held liable for subjecting the deceased to cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home, as it is established from the evidence that she played specific role in dragging out the deceased from the matrimonial home when the deceased took shelter in the house of her parents.So, the conviction and sentence of all the appellants for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction and sentence of the appellant no.3 and 4 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside.In view of my above observation, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant no.3 Smt. Laxmi Murmu and appellant no.4 Smt. Saraswati @ Sarala Hemram by the trial court for the offence under Section 498A and conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant no.3 Smt. Laxmi Murmu and appellant no.4 Smt. Saraswati @ Sarala Hemram for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside.Similarly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant no.1 Sibu Ram Murmu by the trial court for the offence under Section 306 of the 9 Indian Penal Code is set aside.However, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant no.1 Sibu Ram Murmu by the trial court for the offence under Section 498A is hereby affirmed.The appellant no.1 is, thus, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months more for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.(R. K. Bag, J.)
|
['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.
|
126,298,714 |
Suresh and Others) and M.Cr.It is an admitted position that the disputes with the deceased was in regard to some affair with the daughter of accused No.1 and sister of accused No.2 and, therefore, the deceased was called for counselling.If in fit of anger some words were uttered and when admittedly all the prosecution witnesses have deposed that deceased had brotherly relationship with the daughter of respondent No.1 and he had touched her feet on his sweet will, it is apparent that touching of the feet was not the reason for abetment.No ground is available on the appreciation of evidence to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal.Thus, the petitions fail and are dismissed.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,310,608 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 17.2.2015 relating to Crime No.54/15 registered at Police Station Pali, District Umariya for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 364, 302 and 201/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned P.L. opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,846,882 |
( 07 / 09 /2015 ) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the complain proceeding in case No. 13345/2010 (Anil Shivhare & Ors.Rakesh Saxena and Ors.).2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a temple and adjacent land to it is situated behind Police Station Madhav Ganj, Lashkar.The property was given on permanent tenancy and accordingly, father of petitioners No. 1 & 2 got possession of said property.Till that time, the petitioners were in possession of said property.The State Government by order dated 17.07.1984 treated the said temple as "Okaf" property and accordingly, appointed Sushila Bai as Pujari.The competent authority issued notice dated 07.08.1984 under M.P. Lok Parisar Bedakhli Adhiniyam.The said Court on 25.03.1991 opined that said property was owned by deceased Raghunath Rao Teesgaonkar and presently is in possession as permanent tenancy with petitioners' M.Cr.C.7796/2010 2 father.The State Government was restrained from interfering with the possession of petitioners' father.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that later on also a dispute arose because of which Civil Suit No. 110A/2009 was filed in which the competent Court passed an injunction in favour of the petitioner.In the said application respondents No. 2 & 3 prayed that property / temple is a public temple / property and petitioner No.1 is not permitting the residents of Mohalla to enter into the property and conduct "Pooja Archana".The Trial Court by order dated 17.04.2008 (Anexure P/3) decided the said application and gave a finding that prima facie it is not established that property in question is a public property.Accordingly, said application preferred by respondent No.2 and Mukesh Savita was rejected.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Civil Suit is still pending.It is alleged that on 19.04.2008 the petitioners abused, threatened and beaten them.On the basis of said report offences under Section 341, 294, 323, 506 (2) IPC were registered against the petitioners.On 12.11.2009, in case No. 4032/2009 the court below acquitted the present petitioners from the charges.The concerned police station conducted an investigation M.Cr.C.7796/2010 3 and found that allegations are factually incorrect.Accordingly, FR was recorded (Annexure P/6).The Superintendent of Police, after examining the case diary permitted the police authorities to file ER which was, in turn, filed before the Court (Annexure P/7).It is further urged that on 24.10.2009 the petitioner No.1 preferred a complaint against Anil Shivhare and Mukesh Savita and his wife.This report was filed under Section 294, 323, 324 and 506B IPC.The court below by order dated 08.09.2010 took cognizance of the matter and directed for registration of case.Criticizing this complaint and the order by which cognizance was taken, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid factual backdrop makes it clear that respondents No. 2 & 3 have left no stone unturned to disturb or harass the petitioners.They made all possible efforts to lodge frivolous complaints / reports against the petitioners.Against the incident of 24.10.2009, petitioners promptly preferred report which was duly registered.When respondents No. 2 & 3 came to know about it, they belatedly filed complaint based on incident dated 24.10.2009 which is a counter blast and hit by the law laid down by Supreme Court in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ( State of Harayana & Ors.No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.I have heard the parties and perused the record.In the present case, respondents No. 2 & 3 have not chosen to file any reply and rebut the factual averments of the petition.The facts narrated in the petition shows that respondents No. 2 & 3 earlier made efforts to rope in petitioners in criminal cases.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,208,534 |
Civil Hospital, Vidisha, reported to the Jailor, Sub Jail,Vidisha, as follows :"Subject, In Ref.to some specialist for further investigation and needful."On February 22, 1965, Y. D. Kamran, Civil Surgeon, Vidisha,.reported as follows: "Shri Ratanlal, undertrial, was examined by me.He does not appear to be deaf or dumb, but is mentally retarded.He should be referred to Stiperintendent, Mental Hospital, Gwalior, for expert opinion."On March 29, 1965, Dr. B. Shah.He used to run away wherever he liked.He used to jump in the river also.He used to enter thehouse of anybody.He used to lock his house.CRIMINAL APPELLATE.R. L. Kohli and J. C. Talwar, for the appellant.I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed a aginstthe judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, GwaliorBench, allowing the appeal of the State and convicting theappellant for having committed an offence punishable underS. 435, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergoimprisonment for one year.The only point involved in thepresent appeal is whether the appellant was a person ofunsound mind within s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code at thetime of the incident." It was further observed :The prosecution case is that on January 22, 1965, the appel-lant set fire to the grass lying in the khalyan of Nemichandat the time of the setting of the sun.He was caught atthe spot while setting fire.On being asked why he did itthe accused said; "I burnt it and do whatever you want." Theaccused was arrested on January 23, 1965, and he remained inpolice, custody till February 2, 1965, when it was foundthat the accused needed medical examination, and accordinglythe District Magistrate ordered that he be medicallyexamined.The defence also led evidence as to his condition before theincident in question.Shyamlal, D. W. 1, son-in-law of theappellant stated that "the accused was not feeling well for2-3 years.He further stated that "prior to this incident theaccused was being taken to Bhopal after tying him for thetreatment of mind.He was also taken to Bhavera but theaccused did not improve." In ,cross-examination it wasbrought out that "prior to the setting of fire the accusedwas neither got admitted in the government hospital nor any,report was lodged in the police station." No cross-examination was directed to ascertain the nature of hisillness or to bring out that he was otherwise sane.Another witness, Than Singh, D.W. 2, (the appellant is hismaternal uncle) stated that the appellant "used to dowhatever he thought.His' childrenused to lie hungry outside.He used to set fire in hisclothes also.On the day of occurrence the condition of theaccused was worst.He did not speak to anybody on that day." The witness, however, admitted that the accused had notbeen taken to Government hospital.admitted that theappellant remained in the khalyan throughout the period thatthe grass was burning till the chowkidar took him to thanaand did not utter a word and did not try to run away.The Trial Court, relying on the evidence of Shyamlal, D.W.1, Than Singh, D.W. 2, and the behaviour of the accused onthat day came to the conclusion that the accused was insane.The High Court, with respect, erred in differing from theTrial Court.The High Court observed that the appellant hadnot examined in defence any expert in mental diseases tosubstantiate his plea of legal insanity.It is expectingrather a great deal from a poor villager that he shouldproduce experts in mental diseases, specially in view of thecertificates issued by the Medical authorities after he wasarrested.The High Court further erred in holding that themedical reports were of no evidential value.it is true thatthe reports speak of the mental state of the accused at thetime when the reports were issued but the High Court failedto note that the appellant was in police custody fromJanuary 23, 1965, and the police could have producedevidence to show that he was absolutely sane till the daywhen they sent him for medical examination.,The High Court thought that the evidence of the two defencewitnesses only suggested an irrational behaviour on the partof the accused.The High Court failed to note that,according to D.W. 2, the appellant used to set fire to hisown clothes and house, and this could hardly be calledirrational it is more like verging on insanity.The High Court also felt it rather unsafe to rely on thetestimony of the two defence witnesses because such evidencecould always be procured.It was also impressed by the factthat there was no independent witness forthcoming nor wasthere any evidence showing that the accused was taken toBhopal or Gwalior for treatment.The High Court observed:"Apart from this, these witnesses merely suggest that there was irrational behaviour on the part of the accused.A person can surely improvewithin three years.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,857,573 |
The Rule is made returnable forthwith.The learned APP waives service for the Respondent-State.He is appointed to represent Respondent No.2 who has been duly served.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::JUDGMENT : (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.) :-With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.The applicants are the husband and his relations and are accused of committing Crime No.173 of 2018 on the basis of FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 with Pachora Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Section 406, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.However her husband and mother-in-law subjected her to cruelty on account of their demand for money.The rest of the applicants were residing in the same house while she was cohabiting in the::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019 4 Cri.Appln.446-19.odt matrimonial home.Her sister-in-law instigated her husband and on that count all the applicants were casting aspersions on her character as well as the character of her mother and sister-in-law.There was a persistent demand for money.She was threatened that she would be allowed to co-habit only if, money was paid.In July 2018 she was sent to her parental home but her mother-in-law removed all her ornaments and asked her not to return.When she tried to resume co- habitation by approaching the applicants on 07.10.2018 she was not allowed to enter the house and since thereafter they even did not pick up her phone calls.On 02.12.2018 again she made an attempt to resume cohabitation and went to the applicant's house.But her husband and father-in-law hurled abuses and agreed to allow her to resume co-habitation within eight days but when she contacted her husband on 06.12.2018 he refused to talk to her and ultimately she lodged the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::The learned advocate for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant Nos.1 to 3 when this Court::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019 5 Cri.Appln.446-19.odt expressed its disinclination to grant any relief to them on merits.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::So far as the rest of the applicants, their learned advocate submits that primarily the allegations and overt acts are attributable only to applicant Nos.1 to 3 who are the husband and his parents.Though the rest of the applicants have been named and referred to in the FIR, the allegations against them are omnibus and vague.Role is attributable to each of the applicants in the matter of demanding money and subjecting her to cruelty.The learned advocate for Respondent No.2 also cites a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and others Vs.State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Application No.4015 of 2014 dated 05.05.2017 and submits that the same course should be followed as was followed in this decision wherein a similar request of even the relations of the husband was rejected.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the FIR and the decision of the Division Bench in case of M/s Kailashben (supra).Applicant No.4 is the brother of the husband.Applicant No.5 is the grand father.Applicant No.6 is the married sister.Applicant No.7 is the maternal uncle and applicant No.8 is the wife of the::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019 7 Cri.Appln.446-19.odt maternal uncle of the husband.As far as applicant Nos.7 and 8 are concerned, they are resident of village Pimpri, Taluka Pachora whereas the husband and his parents are residents of Jamner and the husband is in the employment of a bank at Nandura, District Buldhana.Applicant No.6 sister is resident of Khamgaon.It is thus apparent that Respondent No.2 had put in barely 10 months of marriage.Several allegations about demand for money and harassment on that count have been levelled during this short duration.Few episodes have been mentioned as to the manner in which money was demanded and she was ill-treated on that count.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::The first episode is referred to at the time of Satyanarayan Pooja after the marriage wherein the sister of the husband that is applicant No.6 is stated to have exhorted her husband and on that count she was being taunted by suspecting her character.As far as applicant No.4 who is the brother of the husband, it is::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019 8 Cri.Appln.446-19.odt alleged that at the instance of their mother her husband and applicant No.4 started demanding her money.Again there is a reference to an episode dated 04.04.2018 when she went to the house of the applicants to resume cohabitation and from then onwards till July 2018 she was subjected to ill-treatment by husband and his parents for money.It is alleged that during that period even applicant No.6 had instigated the husband on telephone.In respect of each such episodes, apart from Respondent No.2, there are few witnesses like Mahendrasingh Patil, Gangabai Rajput to corroborate her version.However, as can be seen, the allegations as against Respondent Nos.4 to 8 are vague and omnibus.Unlike applicant Nos.1 to 3 neither the FIR nor these witnesses attribute specific overt acts to them in demanding money or subjecting her to cruelty.Bearing in mind the usual tendency noticed by the Supreme Court in several cases that in disputes leading to filing of a complaint under Section::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019 9 Cri.Appln.446-19.odt 498-A of the IPC there is usual tendency to implicate all the relations of the husband, in our considered view, the matter in hand, presents yet another instance of a similar kind.The allegations against applicant Nos.4 to 8 being vague and omnibus and accepting them at their face value do not make out necessary ingredients for the offences alleged.The application to the extent of applicant Nos.4 to 8 is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::The fees of the learned advocate Mr. S.S.Patil appointed to represent Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.3,000/- and shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority.(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) ...::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 01:26:08 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,208,588 |
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Ashok Ambre who was a doctor by profession was residing along with his family members at village Pirlote, District Ratnagiri.Nalini Ambre (P.W. 1) is his wife.She is a doctor by profession.One Shobha Tambe was working with them as a maid servant and residing at.the residence of deceased Ashok along with her one daughter i.e. Sujata Tambe P.W. 2 and two sons.On the night of 23.3.1996 after having dinner all of them were watching a movie on television and then at about 1.00 a.m. in the said night deceased Ashok along with his wife and children went in the bed room for sleeping whereas Shobha and her daughter Sujata went to sleep in the drawing room.Her son Santosh went to sleep in the adjoining room and her another son Sanjay had gone out for sleeping.As per the prosecution version in the said night deceased Ashok and his wife Nalini awoke from their sleep on account of some noise.Ashok then went in the drawing room followed by his wife Nalini.Lights were put, on by Ashok and then they saw three persons in the said drawing room and the door had been broken.One of the three persons was having an axe in hand.He gave a blow of the said axe on the head of Ashok as a result of which he sustained injury on the head and collapsed on the floor.In the meantime, Savitribai i.e. mother of Ashok, Shobha and her daughter Sujata also awoke.These three were assaulted by remaining two assailants with iron bars and sticks.The assailants demanded keys of the cupboard from them and they went inside the bed room and collected gold ornaments, silver ornaments, cash amount and other valuable articles.The assailants also snatched ornaments from the persons of Nalini.In the meantime three more persons also entered into the said residence.On hearing the sound Santosh P.W. 3 tried to come out of the room where he was sleeping but he found that the door was chained from outside.He, however, managed to enter into the room adjoining the drawing hall and through the slit of partially open door of the said room, he saw the assailants standing in the drawing hall with weapons and Ashok lying on the ground.He also saw that some of the assailants were in the bed room and they were taking away ornaments from the person of Nalini and from the cupboard.The assailant with the axe pushed him inside the room and thereafter they went away from the house.An information was given to the police station.Police came to the residence of Dr. Ashok and found that Dr. Ashok had succumbed to injury.Complaint was recorded on the information given by Nalini and on that basis crime was registered.Information was sent to the other police stations to arrange nakabandi.Various police stations arranged nakabandi.P.S.I. Arjun Rane (P.W. 12) who was then on duty as P.S.I, at.Alore Police Station had received such message whereupon he had made arrangement for such nakabandi near Pophali village on a road leading to Karad from Chiplun.In the morning at about 7.00 a.m., in the ghat near Pophali village on the Karad Chiplun road, he was checking the vehicles and in that process at about 7.00 a.m. he stopped one Chiplun-Kolhapur S. T. Bus.P.S.I. Rane was standing near the driver's cabin.He sent the police staff from the passengers' door into the Bus for checking.At that time, P.S.I. Rane saw one passenger throwing a white handkerchief out of the Bus window, P.S.I. Rane picked up the handkerchief and found that there was one Mangalsutra in the handkerchief.P.S.I. Rane immediately suspected that the offenders were in the Bus and shouted to the police staff that they were in the Bus.At that time three passengers jumped down from the Bus and ran away.However, the other accused who were travelling in the said Bus were accosted by P.S.I. Rane.After accosting the accused travelling in the S. T. Bus.he conducted the search and seized various articles and ornaments allegedly stolen from the house of deceased Ashok and then handed them over to P. I. Gajanan Juikar (P.W. 13) who was investigating the crime.During the course of investigation weapons were recovered at the instance of accused No. 4 Charansingh.Identification Parade was conducted.Properties were sent to Chemical Analyser for analysis.Defence of all these accused is of denial.The conviction of the accused persons is mainly founded on the occular account rendered by three eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Nalini Ambre, P, W. 2 Sujata Tambe and P.W. 3 Santosh Tambe and on the basis of recoveries and seizures of certain articles from them.The evidence of P.W. 1 Nalini shows that on the relevant night, they heard sound of the door and she woke up from sleep.Her husband went towards the door.She also followed him.They saw three persons in the room.One of the persons gave blow of axe on the head of her husband.Her husband collapsed on the floor because of the said injury.The other two persons were having iron bars with them.The next circumstance against the accused is that of seizure of ornaments.On the said date, a message was received from the Control Room regarding offence of dacoity at the house of Dr. Ambre and instructions for nakabandi were given.The said message was received on 23rd March, 1996 at 4.45 a.m. On receiving the message, immediately this officer alongwith staff went to Kumbharli Ghat near Pophali village.In the said Ghat alongwith police staff he was checking the vehicles.At about.At that time, he had seen a passenger from the said Bus, throwing a white handkerchief out of the S. T. Bus from the window.The said handkerchief was picked up by P.S.I. Rane and in the said handkerchief there was a 'Mangalsutra'.He immediately suspected the offenders were in the said Bus.JUDGMENT V.K. Tahilramani, J.The instant Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1997 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants who were original Accused Nos. 1. 4, 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 and Sections 396 r/w 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-i.d. R.I. for six months on each count.They were also convicted under Sections 457 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R.I. for six months.Original Accused No. 7 was convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and punishment: of R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R. I. for six months was imposed on her for the said offence.The dead body of Dr. Ashok was sent for post-mortem.Injured persons were sent for examination and treatment and other necessary investigation was conducted.On the conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused which included not only the present appellants/accused but other accused as well including those who were absconding.Four out of the 8 accused Who faced the trial were acquitted by the Trial Court.As there was no possibility of immediate arrest of the absconding accused, the trial against eight accused i.e. original accused Nos. 1 to 8, was separated by the Trial Court and the charge was framed against these eight accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 r/w 34. 302 r/w 34 and Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.All these accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.As already indicated, the Trial Court acquitted four accused persons i.e. original accused No. 2 Vasudeo Anant @ Shankar Mali @ Kanjarbhat, original accused No. 3 Firoz Khan Salim @ Rajput @ Kanjarbhat, original accused No. 6 Anil @ Ankush & Bacehaya Newale and original accused No. 8 Deokany Kashinath Banjara @ Rajput @ Kanjarbhat.The Trial Court convicted the original accused No. 1 Sagar @ Dharamsingh @ Motilal @ Daku Jain @ Rajput @ Kanjarbhat, original accused No. 4 Charansingh @ Charu Ramesh Varaskar and original accused No. 5 Ram Basnya @ Hari & Chavan @ Choudhari @ Kanjarbhat for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 457 r/w 34 and 396 r/w 397 of the Indian Penal Code.The Trial Court convicted accused No. 7 for the offence under Section 412 of the I.P.C. and sentenced her to 7 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R. I. for six months.The other accused namely accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 8 were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.So also accused No. 7 was acquitted of the other offences with which she was charged.Before the Trial Court in all 13 witnesses were examined.P.W. 1 Nalini, P.W. 2 Sujata and P.W. 3 Santosh were examined as eye witnesses.P.W. 4 Eknath, P.W. 5 Muktar and P.W. 10 Pradeep Ambre are the Panch witnesses.P.W. 11 Ravi Patil is the Executive Magistrate who conducted the Identification Parade.P.W. 7 Shriram Janvalkar, P.W. 12 Arjun Rane and P.W. 13 Gajanan Juikar are the Police Officers.P.W. 5 Vidhyadhar Karade is a passenger travelling to Kolhapur from Chiplun by the S. T. Bus in which the accused were travelling and has been examined as regards accosting of the accused by the police when they were travelling by the said Bus.P.W. 6 Deepak Chavan, an Iron Smith, has been examined for providing the purchase of the axe by accused No. 1-Sagar and accused No. 6 Anil and for identification of the axe.Lastly P.W. 8 Rajaram Chavan, the Conductor of the Bus concerned was also examined as regards accosting of the accused by P.S.I. Rane and as regards throwing out gold ornament by one of the passengers sitting in the front side of the Bus.The doctor who conducted the autopsy has not been examined.The fact that Ashok met homicidal death was not disputed before the Trial Court nor before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants.Even otherwise having gone through the evidence of P.W. 1 Nalini, P.W. 2 Sujata and P.W. 3 Santosh and the Post-Mortem Report, Exh. 54 it gives us little room for differing with the conclusion arrived at in this regard by the Trial Court that the prosecution has proved that the deceased Ashok met with homicidal death as a result of assault on him.We, therefore, uphold the finding in this regard as recorded by the Trial Court.The aspect of the commission of dacoity, was not disputed by the appellant either before the Trial Court or even before us in this appeal.What is necessary in this Appeal for us now is to find out whether the appellants original accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 along with others are involved in the commission of dacoity and are responsible for causing the homicidal death of deceased Dr. Ashok as alleged by the prosecution.For the sake of convenience they shall be referred to as accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 respectively.We have heard Mr. C. M. Kothari the learned Counsel appearing for original accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Mr. Dhakephalkar learned Counsel appearing for original accused No. 7 and learned A.P.P. for the State.We have also perused the entire material on record.Thereafter, blows of iron bar were given on her back by those persons.Her mother-in-law, her maid Shobha.Sujata (P.W. 2) and Santosh (P.W. 3) also came to the said room.They were also assaulted by those persons by rods.Those persons demanded the keys of the cupboard and from the said cupboard they took gold ornaments, cash and other valuables.P.W. 2 Sujata Tambe is the daughter of the maid servant of Dr. Ashok.Her deposition is similar to that of Nalini Ambre.Thereafter, all these three persons were called for Identification Parade in which P.W. 1 has identified some of the accused persons.However, before the Court, P.W. 1 did not identify any of the accused persons.P.W. 2 Sujata Tambe has identified accused Nos. 1 and 4 before the Court as well as in the Identification Parade.She has identified accused No. 4 as the person who was holding an iron bar with him at the time of incident.She has identified accused No. 1 as the person who was having an axe with him.P.W. 3 Santosh Tambe was also called for the Identification Parade.He has identified accused Nos. 1. 4 and 5 in the Test Identification Parade as well as in the Court.He has identified the accused No. 1 as a person holding an axe, accused No. 4 as the person holding an iron bar and accused No. 5 as the person who was holding a stick at the time of the incident.In our opinion in view of the fact that no such contradiction has been specifically put to Nalini by following the necessary procedure of drawing the witnesses attention to the specific part in her statement and seeking her explanation thereon, and as no such contradiction has been got proved by the defence as required, hence the defence cannot make use of any such contradiction.It is well settled that a F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence.A statement in an F.I.R. can normally be used only to contradict its maker as provided in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. In view of the contradiction not being got proved by the defence there is no legally admissible evidence to show that cloth was tied on the face of the accused.(1) There was an opportunity for the witnesses to see the accused before the Parade.In fact, the Identification Parades of accused Nos. 1 to 6 were all held on that day.One of the dummies in the Parade relating to the accused No. 4 was Sanjay Dadba Ambre.P.W. 1 has specifically stated in her cross-examination that he was her nephew.Thus, in such a case, when one of dummies was the nephew of P.W. 1 no reliance can be placed on identification of accused No. 4 in such Parade.P.W. 1 has stated that she knew Sanjay Dagadu Nalavade and Dilip Nagu Nalavade.P.W. 1 has stated that she knew Govind Sitaram Gamare.Thus it is contended that in each of the Parades relating to accused No. 1, accused No. 4 and accused No. 5, out of the five dummies at least one of the dummies was known to the witnesses.The learned Counsel has further pointed out that five separate Identification Parades were held on 2.4.1996 for accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, however many of the dummies were repeated in the Parades.Out of the five dummies, three of the dummies in the Parade relating to accused Nos. 1 and 5 were the same.Four out of the five dummies in the Parades relating to accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the same.No care was taken to see that dummies were similar to that of the accused persons.In respect of Identification Parade, P.W. 2 has specifically stated that the accused persons were handcuffed.In such case, it was urged that no reliance could be placed on the identification of any of the accused persons by the witnesses.The S.E.M. had not followed the guidelines for holding the Identification Parades.The S.E.M. has specifically admitted that instructions and the form provided in Criminal Manual regarding Identification Parades were not followed by him.The S.E.M. had not asked any of the witnesses whether the accused persons were shown to them earlier nor had he asked the accused persons whether they were shown to the witnesses earlier.The witnesses who had already identified the accused in the Parade and the witnesses who were yet.to identify the accused were made to sit in one room.7 a.m. Chiplun-Kolhapur S. T. Bus came to the said spot.He stopped the said Bus.He was then standing near the door of the driver's cabin and he sent police staff from the passengers' door in the said Bus for checking.There were six male and two female passengers.He brought them out of the Bus and made them sit in a police vehicle.Panchas were called and thereafter, these accused persons were searched and certain articles were found with them.The learned Advocate for the accused has pointed out that the panch witness relating to the seizure i. e. P.W. 4 Eknath Labhye has specifically stated that when he went to the spot, the accused persons were handcuffed and in front of each of the accused persons, the articles were kept.It was contended that in such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the seizure of any of these articles from accused Nos.The panch witness does not specifically state anywhere as to which of the articles were seized from which of the accused, so also, witness P.S.I. Rane has stated that it was not possible for him to state as to which of the articles were seized from which persons and from belongings of which accused.He has admitted that the belongings of the accused were found under the seat in the Bus.It was contended that nothing was found on the search of the accused persons but the articles were found under the seats of the Bus, hence, it was possible that some other passenger may have kept it there, more specifically the three passengers who ran away from the Bus may have kept it there.Moreover, 160 articles were seized in this case, therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence showing which articles were seized from which particular accused, it would not be possible to connect any specific article with any particular accused.The case of the accused No. 1 however, stands on a different footing.P.W. 1 Nalini has identified the Mangalsutra.In the case of accused No. 1 even if the pancha stated that when he came the articles were in front of the accused it would not affect the prosecution case as far as seizure of Mangalsutra from accused No. 1 is concerned.Unfortunately, for him P.W. 12 saw him throwing it out of the Bus.P.S.I. Rane-P.W. 12 has specifically stated that it was Accused No. 1 who had thrown out the Mangalsutra out of the Bus.As far as accused No. 7 is concerned she has only been convicted under Section 412 of the I.P.C. It was urged that evidence in this case, does not reflect that she had taken part in the incident and she was not present at.The only material gathered against her is that 7 to 8 accused persons were accosted in the Bus when the Bus was proceeding towards Chlplun from Karad in Kumbharali Ghat.The accused No. 7 was one of them and she was found with certain ornaments.However, in view of the categorical statement of the panch witness P.W. 4 Eknath Labhye that when he reached the place, he found that all the accused persons were sitting in handcuffed position and the articles were kept in front of each of the accused, and in view of the fact that no witness including P.S.I. Rane or the I.O. was able to say as which article is seized from accused No. 7, no reliance can be placed on such seizure.However, none of these weapons were shown to any of the eye witnesses and thus none of the witnesses identified that these weapons were used at the time of incident.There is nothing concrete and specific on record which would connect the weapons recovered to the crime.Hence, no importance can be given to the recovery of these weapons,The prosecution has examined P.W. 6 Deepak Chavan who is an Ironsmith.He has stated that, axe article No. 139 was got prepared by accused No. 1 about three years prior.Three contentions were raised on this aspect.The C, A. Report shows Human blood and blood of 'A' Group on some of the articles.We have carefully reflected over this submission and we found that the said articles were seized from these accused persons and other accused who were acquitted.In this case a large number of articles have been seized i.e. 160 articles were seized in this case.None of the witnesses have stated which article is seized from which accused nor is the letter forwarding the articles to the C. A. on record.In such circumstances, it is difficult to connect any of the present four accused with any of these articles which were sent to the C. A. Hence, this circumstance cannot be held against them.On the said date, a message was received from the control room regarding offence of dacoity at the house of Dr. Ambre and instructions for nakabandi were given.The said message was received on 23rd March, 1996 at 4.45 a.m. On receiving the message, immediately this officer alongwith staff went to Kumbharli Ghat near Pophali village.In the said Ghat alongwith police staff he was checking the vehicles.At about 7 a.m. Chiplun-Kolhapur S.T. Bus came to the said spot.He stopped the said bus.He was then standing near the door of the driver's cabin and he sent police staff from the passengers' door in the said Bus for checking.At that time, he had seen a passenger from the said Bus, throwing a white handkerchief out of the S. T. Bus from the window.The said handkerchief was picked up by him and in the said handkerchief there was a 'Mangalsutra'.He immediately suspected the offenders were in the said Bus.By that time, three passengers sitting in the said Bus near passengers' door had jumped from S. T. Bus and they ran away in the nearby hill area.Thereafter, the rest of the accused who were in the Bus were accosted by this witness.There were six male and two female passengers.He brought them out of the Bus and made them sit in a police vehicle.Panchas were called and thereafter, these accused persons were searched and certain articles were found with them.He has identified the accused No. 1 as the person who threw out the Mangalsutra.The accused had thrown out Mangalsutra Article 19 because that was the only article he had in his possession which would have connected him with the crime.Unfortunately for him P.W. 12 saw him throwing it out of the bus.a.m. and the accused No. 1 was found in possession of article 19 Mangalsutra at 7 a. m. It has been identified by P.W. 1 Nalini as belonging to her.The stolen property was recovered from the house of appellant or at his instance within a week's time from the date of commission of offence.The appellant was given an opportunity to explain his possession, as well as his conduct in decoying the persons who died at his hand, but he was unable to do so.In our view the said recoveries irresistibly lead to the inference that the appellants from whom they were made committed the offences for which they have been convicted".In the instant case, as stated earlier, the incident had occurred at 2 a.m. and on the very same morning at 7 a.m. i.e. just after five hours, accused No. 1 was in possession of the 'Mangalsutra' of the complainant.For the said reasons, we feel that this is a fit case wherein the accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 should be extended the benefit of doubt and they should be acquitted of the offences for which they have been convicted.In the result, we allow this appeal partly and pass the following order :Order The judgment and order of conviction dated 21.8.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1997 against accused No. 1 Sagar @ Dharmasingh @ Motilal @ Daku Jain @ Rajput @ Kanjarbhat for the offence under Sections 302, 396 and 457 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is confirmed so also sentence and fine imposed upon him by the Trial Court.The accused No. 1 Sagar is in jail.He shall serve out the remaining sentence.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,860,481 |
/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Nirmal Mondal & Anr.... ... Petitioners.Ms. Minoti Gomes, Mr. Jisan Iqbal Hossain ... for the petitioners.Mr. Antarikhya Basu ... ... for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is a land dispute between the parties and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission relating to pre-existing dispute over land between the parties, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of 2 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on condition that the petitioners shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date and on further condition that the petitioner no.1 shall meet the investigating officer once in a week or until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,865,540 |
I, Sivagangai.It is a private complaint instituted by the respondent/Ms.The 1/11http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).No.7278 of 2016 case of the complainant is that she got married to the first petitioner herein on 01.07.1999 at Keelapoongodi Gramam, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District, as per Hindu rites and customs.No child was born through the wedlock.The marital relationship between the parties had come under strain.The respondent herein filed O.P No.910 of 2006, on the file of the I- Additional Family Court, Madras, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.51 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The first petitioner herein filed O.P.No.440 of 2005, seeking dissolution of marriage.Both these petitions were heard together and by decrees dated 10.01.2007, the petition for divorce filed by the first petitioner herein was allowed, while the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the complainant herein was dismissed.Aggrieved by the same, the complainant herein filed C.M.A.Nos.1455 and 1456 of 2007 before this Court.According to her, in clear breach of the said interim order of stay granted by this Court, the first petitioner herein had contracted a bigamous marriage on 07.05.2008 with the second petitioner herein.Therefore, she filed the impugned private complaint in C.C.No.51 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial 2/11http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).No.7278 of 2016 Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai against the petitioner herein and others for having committed the offences under Section 494 r/w 104 IPC.4.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent.4.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed for more than one ground.He would point out that the respondent herein had arrayed as many as 9 persons as accused in the complaint.During the pendency of the proceedings, two persons had already died.The other accused had filed Crl.12116 and 15451 of 2012 for quashing the proceedings.The reasons for allowing the said petition are set out in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said order which read as follows:- 3/11http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).No.7278 of 2016 “..10.This Court perused the complaint where in there is absolutely no averments as to whether the petitioners were aware of either the pendency of the appeal or the interim stay granted by this Court.The admitted fact is that the first accused is yet to be served.It is also stated that the first accused has been living abroad with sixth accused along with the child born out of the subsequent wedlock.11.It is also admitted the fact that the petitioners are not party in the divorce proceedings, though Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, prescribed a period before the subsequent marriage.But the same cannot be put against the petitioners, especially when the appeal was filed on 09.07.2007 and at the time of the second marriage on 07.05.2008, neither the notice in the appeal nor the stay order was served on first accused.There is absolutely no material to hold that the petitioners have the knowledge of the pendency of the appeal with interim order..”5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners' contented that the petitioners herein were also not aware of the grant of interim stay in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and that the reason, which led the learned Judge to quash the impugned complaint insofar as the other accused are concerned should hold good in the case on hand also and that this Court following the said order dated 07.07.2015 ought to quash the impugned proceedings.No.7278 of 2016Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein had moved the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.While ordering notice in the Special Leave Petition, vide order dated 02.08.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it clear that notice was being issued only to determine the quantum or alimony.7.The other contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that when the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been finally disposed of, an interim order granted earlier cannot survive.He also wanted this Court to take a larger view of the matter.Admittedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had declined to admit the Special Leave Petition with regard to the issue of dissolution of marriage.Notice has been issued in the Special Leave Petition only to determine alimony.Thus, the order dissolving the marriage of the first petitioner herein with the complainant had become final.Therefore, it would be an abuse of 5/11http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).During the course of arguments, an issue arose as to whether the first petitioner had furnished the correct address, so that the summons could have been served.The learned Senior Counsel drew my attention to the fact that even according to the complainant, the permanent address was given as Kurinchi Street, Gomathipuram, Melamadai, Madurai, but in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by her, she did not take any notice to the said address.He would also point out that the first petitioner had contracted the marriage with the second petitioner only after a lapse of almost 14 months.The question whether the first petitioner had knowingly contracted the second marriage or not should be determined only in a regular trial.He also seriously faulted the conduct of the first petitioner.He further submitted that the conduct of the first petitioner is such that he must be non- suited at the very threshold.He also drew my attention to a few case-laws in this regard.10.I carefully considered the rival contentions.Therefore, the reasons assigned in the order dated 07.07.2015 made in Crl.O.P. 7/11http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).On the said date, the marriage between the first petitioner and the complainant was very much subsisting.The matrimonial proceedings between the parties was one or contest.The first petitioner does not appear to have made any verification as to whether any appeal was filed by the respondent herein challenging the decree of divorce.She had correctly mentioned the address that was given by the first petitioner himself during the course of his cross examination.However, I make it clear that the observations now made are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and they will not have any bearing on the merits of the matter.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the personal appearance of the first petitioner before the Court below stands dispensed with.The Court below will insist on the personal appearance of the first petitioner only on three occasions namely, to answer the charge, during examination under Section 313 of 9/11http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).No.7278 of 2016 Cr.P.C., and at the time of pronouncing Judgment.On all other occasions, the first petitioner need not appear before the Court below.However, on those occasions, the first petitioner will have to be represented by his counsel.If the first petitioner's counsel is also absent, the benefit of dispensing with the personal appearance of the first petitioner will stand automatically vacated.Therefore, leaving open all the contentions and defences available to the first petitioner, this petition stands dismissed as far as the first petitioner is concerned and allowed as far as the second petitioner is concerned.14.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.20.11.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sji To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai.10/11http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).No.7278 of 2016 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.No.7278 of 2016 20.11.2019 11/11http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,866,363 |
The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. J.N. Chatterjee Mr. Kaushik Choudhury For the Petitioners Mr. Partha Pratim Das For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tapan Police Station Case No. 79 of 2013 dated 02.04.2013 under sections 448/435/436/379/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have also considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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.
|
1,208,736 |
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Anis Ahmad lodged an FIR at police station Chandpur on 12th of April 1990 at 10:00 p.m. alleging that his sister Sahnaz Parveen was married with Intzar Husain son oOf Sharafat Husain on 24th of February 1989 according to Muslim rites.Since Intzar Husain was in the habit of not doing any job with sincerity the couple used to face financial crisis and the household expenses were used to be met by father-in-law of Sahnaz Parveen resulting in family clashes.Relations between Sahnaz Parveen and Intzar Husain got strained On 22nd of November 1989 Sahnaz Parveen gave birth to a male issue and their household expenses escalated.Since Sahnaz Parveen was used to be ill-treated and tormented in her in-laws' house she went to her parents' house on 26th of January 1990 and complained about the ill-treatment afflicted upon her by her husband and in-laws.Then her parents wanted to lodge a report regarding ill-treatment suffered by her at the hands of her husband and in-laws at the police station but on the intervention of some influential persons the report was not lodged at the police station and Israr Husain, 'Jeth' of Sahnaz Parveen went to her parents' house and on the assurance given by him to her parents that she would not be ill-treated or tormented in future she was sent with him to her matrimonial home.At about 8:00 p.m. on 12th of April 90 Nazakat Husain who happened to be the son-in-law of Ashfaq Ahmad in relation went to his house and told that huge crowd was collected at the house of in-laws of Sahnaz Parveen and as he tried to go inside the house he was pushed and turned out.Thereon Anis Ahmad and his father Ashfaq Ahmad alongwith some persons of the locality went to the matrimonial home of Sahnaz Parveen where Smt Nazma told them that since Sahnaz Parveen got burnt she was taken to Civil Hospital.Then Anis Ahmad and his companions went to the Civil Hospital where they saw Sahnaz Parveen lying in burnt condition wrapped in a quilt.Since the doctors were on strike no treatment was being provided and then Rais Ahmad took her to L L R Meerut Medical College for treatment.The police registered a crime against Intzar Husain and his family members under Section 498A IPC and made entry regarding registration of the crime in GD.3. SI Hoshiar Singh to whom investigation of the crime was entrusted went at the scene of occurrence and collected empty container of kerosene lying near the bed in the bed room of Intzar Husain , a match box lying on the bed and a wooden 'petti' containing some rough wooden planks kept on the 'chhajli' in front of the house of Sarfaraj and prepared their memo (Ext Ka 8).He inspected the site and prepared its site plan map (Ext Ka 5).He also recorded statements of the witnesses.Then he went to LLR Meerut Medical College where he learnt that Sahnaz Parveen had succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her.Then the case was altered under Section 306 IPC.Inquest proceedings on the dead body of Sahnaz Parveen were drawn by SI Netra Pal Singh, police station Meerut Kotwali who prepared the inquest report (Ext Ka 8) and other necessary papers.Autopsy on the dead body of Sahnaz Parveen conducted by Dr P.N. Khanna Medical Officer LLR Medical College Meerut on 13.4.90 at 4:00 p.m. revealed 100% burns (1st and 2nd degree) present all over the body and sooty blackening of particles present.Vesicles were present at places.Scalp hairs, pubic and axillary hairs were partly burnt and singed.Brain and its membranes, both the lungs and pleurae were congested.Passages of trachea and bronchi were full of soot particles.Liver, spleen and both the kidneys were congested.The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and asphyxia as a result of ante mortem burn injuries about one day ago.On 14th of Aprill, 1990 Ashfaq Ahmad, father of the deceased gave a report to the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor alleging that since the very inception of her marriage Shahnaz Parveen was used to be ill-treated and tormented by her husband and in-laws as they were not satisfied with the dowry provided in the marriage.Since Intzar Husain wanted to run a taxi he used to pressurize his wife Shahnaz Parveen to bring Rs. 20,000. 00 in dowry for purchasing a taxi.On 26thof January, 1990 she was turned out of her matrimonial home to bring Rs. 20,000. 00 cash from her parents and her infant child was retained by her in-laws.Then she went to her parents' house and told them about the ill-treatment suffered by her at the hands of her husband and in-laws for want of dowry.00 cash in dowry could not be satisfied.After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheet against accused Intzar Husain and Sharafat Husain under Section 498A and 306 IPC.JUDGMENT M. Chaudhary, J.This is a government appeal filed on behalf of the State from the judgment and order dated 3rd of August 2000 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge Bijnor in sessions trial no. 397 of 1992 State v. Intzar Husain and Ors.acquitting them of the charge levelled against them under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 IPC.After framing of the charge against both the accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC the prosecution examined Anis Ahmad (PW 1) the first informant.Then on the application of the prosecution accused Sarfaraj Husain was summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stand trial alongwith the accused abovenamed.10 Then after completing the statement of PW 1 Anis Ahmad the prosecution examined Ashfaq Ahmad (PW 2) and Smt Khurshida (PW 3) in its support.Testimony of rest of the witnesses is more or less of formal nature.PW 4 HC Vinod Prakash who prepared check report on the basis of the written report handed over to him by Anis Ahmad and made entry regarding registration of the crime in the GD has proved these papers (Exts Ka 3 & Ka4).PW 5 SI Hoshiar Singh who investigated the crime and submitted charge sheet against accused Intzar Husain and Sharafat Husain has proved the police papers.Subsequently additional charge was framed against all the three accused under Section 304B IPC and an opportunity was given to the prosecution to re-examine the prosecution witnesses and lead additional evidence in its support.The accused denied the alleged occurrence altogether stating that they were got implicated in the case falsely.However accused Sarfaraj Husain stated that he happened to be the 'Jeth' of the deceased and he tried to save Sahnaz Parveen and in that effort he also received burn injuries.The accused examined Dr Hari Om Bansal (DW 1) and Dr A.S. Yadav (DW 2) in their defence.DW 1 Dr Hari Om Bansal, a private medical practitioner practising at Chandpur stated that at about 9:00 p.m. the alleged night Sharafat Husain came to his house and told that his daughter in-law got burnt and he wanted to get her treated and that then he expressed his inability and advised him to take her to some higher centre.DW 2 Dr A.S.Yadav the then Medical Officer in-charge Primary Health Centre Zalilpur deposed that at 2:30 p.m. on 18th of April 90 he medically examined accused Sarfraj Husain and found below noted injuries on his person:1. Burn injury on face from middle of forehead to the chin and from right pre auricular area to left pre auricular area with sloughing of superficial layer of skin with red colour of deeper skin with singeing of hairs of eye brows and moustaches.No pus was present in the wound.2. Burn injury on the sternum 9 cm x 3 cm without any breach in layer of skin or blister formation.Slight red colour of skin.3. Burn injury on whole of the dorsal aspect of right forearm just below the elbow joint up to finger tips.Skin sloughed out below the elbow joint and on the dorsum of right palm.Rest of the skin shows mild effect of heat on skin.4. Burn injury on anterior, medial and lateral aspect of left forearm and dorsum of left wrist and palm upto the middle phalanx of all the fingers with sloughing of superficial layer of skin in rest of the burnt area with a blister on the middle finger dorsal aspect.Colour of skin was dark brown.The doctor opined that the injuries were caused by dry heat.The injuries were simple in nature and about 6-7 days old in duration.On an appraisal of the parties' evidence and material on the record the learned trial judge disbelieving the prosecution case and evidence held that demand of Rs.20,000.00 cash in dowry for purchasing taxi by husband and in-laws of the victim was not established.He further held that the accused did not abet suicide by Shahnaz Parveen nor she was subjected to cruelty in that connection resultantly the accused were held not guilty of the charge levelled against them and acquitted.Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order the State preferred this appeal assailing acquittal of the accused respondents.We have heard learned AGA for the State appellant and Sri P.N. Misra learned counsel for the accused respondents and gone through the record.Learned AGA for the State appellant argued vehemently that since the impugned judgment is perverse and unreasonable as relevant and convincing evidence and material have been unjustifiably eliminated evidence has to be reappreciated for the purpose of ascertaining if any of the accused really committed any offence or not.He also contended that accused Intzar Husain kept absconding upto 23rd of April, 1990 as he was not traceable to the police till then and accused Sharafat Husain was also absconding upto 19th of May, 1990 and proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had to be resorted to for procuring his presence and this conduct of the accused goes against them.On the other hand learned counsel for the accused respondents argued that the learned trial judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused and there is no good ground to interfere therewith.A perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence on the record goes to show that the learned trial Court committed grave error in doubting the prosecution case and evidence and findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on faulty and erroneous appreciation of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice.98 and that only then for the first time he stated that some 8-10 days prior to the incident the accused had subjected his sister to cruelty as their demand of Rs 20,000. 00 cash in dowry could not be fulfilled.In fact additional charge under Section 304B IPC was framed against all the three accused on 1.12.98 and it was thereafter that an opportunity was given to the prosecution to re-examine its witnesses and lead additional evidence, if any.00 cash could not be satisfied by her parents; that whenever Shahnaz Parveen used to visit her parents' house she used to complain about ill-treatment suffered by her at the hands of her husband and in-laws on that account and that feeling harassed on 26th of January 90 Shahnaz Parveen went to her parents' house and complained about the ill-treatment heaped upon her by her husband and in-laws.Then her father and brothers wanted to lodge an FIR about her sufferings with the police but some seasoned persons of the locality intervened and that thereafter Israr Husain 'Jeth' of Shahnaz Parveen and others went to his house and on the assurance given by Israr Husain that now she would be provided proper food and clothing and they would not ask for any dowry Shahnaz Parveen was sent to her matrimonial home.PW 2 Ashfaq Ahmad, father of the deceased corroborated him deposing likewise.However since there is no whisper regarding demand of dowry in the FIR lodged by Anis Ahmad, brother of the victim at the police station on 12th of April 1990 that part of prosecution evidence could not inspire confidence in this regard and has been left out of consideration.However this much is established by the testimony of the three witnesses namely PW 1 Anis Ahmad, PW 2 Ashfaq Ahmad and PW 3 Smt Khurshida that since Intzar Husain was not sincere to his job he had no regular income and the couple had to face financial crisis and Shahnaz Parveen was used to be ill-treated and subjected to cruelty as she was not provided even bare necessities of life.She could not get milk even for her infant issue in her lap.It goes without saying that cruelty or harassment may not only be physical but also mental.Being a young able bodied person Intzar Husain was bound to earn money even by putting labour so as to meet the bare necessities of his wife and provide nourishment to her infant child.There is no dispute that Shahnaz Parveen used to do entire household work in her matrimonial home to her capacity and discharge her marital obligations.Under the circumstances it was the bounden moral and legal duty of Intzar Husain, husband of the victim to see that his wife and her infant child were being provided proper food and clothing at least according to their requirement.PW 3 Khurshida stated that Shahnaz had told her that even milk was not available for the child on account of financial crisis.Statements of PW 1 Anis Ahmad and PW 2 Ashfaq Ahmad in their examination-in-chief that Shahnaz Parveen was not getting even proper food and clothing have gone unchallenged.None of these two witnesses was given a suggestion even in cross-examination that she and her infant child were provided proper food according to their necessary requirements.If a married girl used to perform her duties in her matrimonial home faithfully but was not being provided even proper food and clothing and milk even for her infant child and was being harassed therefor by her husband who was young and healthy with earning potentiality it amounted to mental cruelty to her as she was being pestered, nagged and tormented for bare necessities of life.Obviously so harassed and tortured she committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon herself and litting with matchstick.Much emphasis has been laid down by the learned counsel for the accused respondents upon the fact that PW 1 Anis Ahmad did not mention in the FIR lodged at the police station Chandpur on 12th of April, 1990 at 10:00 p.m. that his sister Shahnaz Parveen was used to be ill-treated and tormented by her husband and in-laws and was not provided proper food and clothing even.We may mention here that since Ashfaq Ahmad, father of Shahnaz Parveen used to earn his livelihood by putting labour as he was a mason she was brought up and got grown up in a most ordinary family she would have needed only that much which was necessary for her sustenance.To say the other way, she would have had no expectations greater than bare necessities of life which too were denied to her and her infant child.The investigating officer found empty container of kerosene lying near the bed of Shahnaz Parveen in her bed room and match box lying on the bed.Since the post mortem did not reveal any ante mortem injury on the dead body excepting burn injuries and her 'Jeth' Sarfaraj Husain also received burn injuries in the effort of saving her it appears that in all probability compelled by the circumstances she was driven to commit suicide .Accused Intzar Husain kept absconding upto 23rd of April, 1990 as he was not traceabale to the police till then.It has come in evidence that when Anis Ahmad (PW 1) and Ashfaq Ahmad (PW 2) reached the Civil Hospital, Bijnor Shahnaz Parveen having received burn injuries wrapped in a quilt was lying at the gate of the Hospital and neither her husband nor any of his family members was present there.This conduct of the accused Intzar Husain , husband of the victim soon after the incident cannot be termed to be normal conduct of innocent person.Accused Intzar Husain did not offer any explanation as to why his wife Shahnaz Parveen was driven to commit suicide almost within 14 months of her marriage nor did he adduce any evidence in this regard.Accused Sharafat Husain who happened to be the father-in-law of the victim and accused Sarfaraj Husain, who happened to be her 'Jeth' were not legally dutybound to see if Shahnaz Parveen and her infant child were being provided bare necessities of life in presence of her husband who was young and healthy having earning potentiality.Moreover contention of accused Sarfaraj Husain, 'Jeth' of the deceased is that he received burn injuries in the effort of saving the victim which is supported by medical evidence on the record.Accused respondents Sharafat Husain and Sarfaraj Husain are therefore held not guilty of any of the charges levelled against them and they are entitled to acquittal.Since the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective the impugned judgment acquitting accused Intzar Husain can not be maintained in law and is liable to be set aside.The impugned judgment and order acquitting accused Intzar Husain is hereby set aside.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon him.Acquittal of accused Sarfaraj Husain and Sharafat Husain is hereby confirmed.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,877,364 |
And In the matter of : Kalyan Bala & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Minoti Gomes For the Petitioners Mrs. Sima Biswas For the State Mr. Sumanta Das For the Complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 558 of 2013 dated 29.08.2013 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 application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty,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.
|
84,533,413 |
JUDGMENT :-It has been alleged on behalf of prosecution that on 15-11- 2018 first informant Dipali Narayan Thoke lodged the report to the Police of Jintur Police Station and ventilated the grievance that on 09-11-2018, when she was at home, at that time co- accused of the crime, namely, Bhaskar Rathod, labour contractor resident of Jam tanda informed the brother in law of the first informant on his cell pone that his brother Ramesh Pandurang Thoke did not repay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- paid to him in advance for harvesting the sugar cane crop nor he completed the agricultural work.Therefore, they kidnapped the Narayan Pandurang Thoke, husband of the first informant in a bid to recover the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- remained outstanding towards his brother Ramesh Thoke.He further informed that his vehicle Scooty was also given to somebody else by the accused and he was confined in the premises of Kranti Agragani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Kundal Tq.Palus District Sangli.According to first informant, her husband informed her to make necessary arrangement for payment of amount received from accused Bhaskar Rathod and others and get him release from the custody of accused.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::Pursuant to FIR of first informant Dipali Thoke, Police of Jintur Police Station registered the crime No. 417 of 2018 for the offence punishable under section 365 read with section 34 of IPC and under section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(a) of the Act of 1989 and set the penal law in motion.Investigating Officer (IO) visited to the spot of incident and drawn the panchnama of scene of occurrence.1. Heard.The present appeal is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both sides.The appellant preferred present appeal under Section 14- A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1989"::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::2 CriAl-18-19-J for the sake of brevity) for the relief of pre-arrest bail in crime No. 417 of 2018 registered at Police Station Jintur, District Parbhani under section 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(for short "IPC") and under Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(a) of the Act of 1989 and agitated the validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 31-12-2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani rebuffing relief of anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc.He recorded the statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.The IO also collected caste certificates of the first informant and others.The IO apprehended in all eight accused in this case for the sake of investigation.During the course of investigation, it was transpired that the vehicle cruiser Jeep bearing No. MH-22- U-6278 used in the crime was owned by present appellant.The IO was on trail of appellant for the sake of investigation.Therefore, apprehending the arrest, appellant knocked the door::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 ::: 4 CriAl-18-19-J of Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani for the relief of pre-arrest bail as envisaged under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).But, the learned Sessions Judge found reluctant to grant relief in favour of appellant and rejected the application.The impugned order of rejection of application bearing Criminal Misc.(Bail) Application No. 775 of 2018 is challenged in this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::The learned counsel for appellant vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the attending circumstances on record in its proper perspective and committed error while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail.There are no allegations against appellant in regard to commission of crime of kidnapping of the husband of first informant.It has been alleged that the appellant is owner of the vehicle, which was used for commission of crime.He is ready to abide condition, if any imposed on him and also co-operate with the IO for the sake of investigation.Learned counsel further added that other co- accused in this crime were released on bail.Therefore, in view of rule of parity, present appellant be released on anticipatory bail.Learned APP raised objection and submits that Section 18A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercising powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant committed crime against person, who is a member of Scheduled::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 ::: 5 CriAl-18-19-J Caste community.The appellant and his accomplices are aware that victim Narayan was from "Buddha" community.Therefore, the application for relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained for anticipatory bail prayed on behalf of appellant.Learned APP produced on record the relevant documents of investigation of the crime for perusal.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::The exposition of law as referred above unequivocally pointer to the inference that the application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him.Therefore, the Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant.Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law.In the instant appeal, the prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(a) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellant, which reads as under :Punishments for offences of atrocities :-(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860) for such offence and shall also be liable to fine."Punishments for offences of atrocities :-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-(a) puts any inedible or obnoxious substance into the mouth of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 ::: 7 CriAl-18-19-J Scheduled Tribe or forces such member to drink or eat such inedible or obnoxious substance."::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::In the present complaint, absolutely there is no averment to the effect that appellant-applicant is belonging to higher caste or atleast that he is not a member of Scheduled Caste.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::8 CriAl-18-19-JIn the matter-in-hand, averments in regard to appellant that he is not the member of SC or ST community or he is belonging from higher caste, is totally absent in the alleged FIR.Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and in spite of bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989, for invocation of power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., it is still open to the Court to find out looking to the FIR of the case itself as to whether prima facie case is made out by the complainant against the appellant.The circumstances on record are not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that there are material prima facie on record to draw adverse inference against the appellants.Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the application of appellant for the relief of his pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.In regard to the offence under Section 365 read with Section 34 of the IPC, it is to be noted that IO has apprehended in all eight co-accused in this case.The most of the part of investigation has already been completed.IO availed the custodial interrogation of the prime accused of the crime.There are no allegations against the appellant in regard to his participation or overt-act in the commission of crime of::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 ::: 9 CriAl-18-19-J kidnapping except allegation that he is the owner of vehicle used in the crime.These circumstances do not permit to curtail the valuable liberty of appellant for the sake of investigation.It has been alleged that, vehicle is yet to be seized in this crime, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the appellant-accused is necessary.I do not find any substance in this contention propounded on behalf of prosecution.Appellant has shown inclination to co-operate with the IO during the course of investigation.There is also inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.Hence, there is no impediment to allow the application.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::In sequel, the appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 31-12-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Misc.(Bail) Application No. 775 of 2018 filed by the appellant is hereby quashed and set-aside.The application of the appellant-applicant filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for his pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court is hereby allowed.The appellant- Udhav Gyanoba Budhwant be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. I-417 of 2018 registered at Jintur Police Station for the offence punishable under section 365 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(a) of the Act of 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount.It is stipulated that appellant-applicant shall not indulge, directly or indirectly, in::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 ::: 10 CriAl-18-19-J any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness.The appellant/applicant shall attend the Jintur Police Station, on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.***::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:01 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,533,793 |
The petitioner was issued with a fire arm licence and on the strengthof which, he was in possession of one SBBL gun bearing No.According to the petitioner, the licence has expired on 31.12.2016 and he hassubmitted an application for renewal of application.While so, thepetitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to therespondent police to return the fire arm to him.Ms.A.K.Latha, Sub Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Police Station, ispresent before this Court.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAdditional Government Pleader for the respondents.On instructions, the learned Additional Government Pleader submittedthat there are two cases pending against the petitioner, namely, CrimeNo.10/2015 under Sections 120(b), 465, 467, 471, 420 IPC and Crime No.65/2016 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and therefore, the police cannot returnthe weapon.In the considered opinion of this Court, two cases registeredagainst the petitioner are not for offences under the Arms Act, but forordinary offences under the Indian Penal Code, for which, the weapon that washanded over by the petitioner cannot be retained indefinitely by the police.However, since the licence of the petitioner has expired, this Court cannotdirect the police to hand over the weapon to the petitioner, at this stage.It is open to the petitioner to request for return of the weapon, after thelicence is extended by the authorities.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.No costs.The District Revenue Officer/Additional District Magistrate Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.The Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Police Station, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi DistrictThe Sub Inspector of Police Pudukottai Police Station, Pudukottai Thoothukudi District.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
845,354 |
In about May 1960, he started residing and practising atAkodiya Mandi.He issued a pamphlet advertising that, amongother things, he treated Naru (guinea worm).Lured by this,Smt.Deobi, aged about 20 years, who had been sufferingfrom guinea worm for six weeks, accompanied by her uncleChisaji (P.W. 3), mother Daryaobai _(P.W. 4) and aunt GulabBai (P. W. 6) went to the clinic of the appellant on May 30,1961, at about 8 a.m. She was examined by the appellant andadministered 24 drops of mother tincture stramonium and aleaf of dhatura.After taking this medicine she startedfeeling restless and ill; various antidote,-, were given butshe was not relieved.She vomited twice but the vomits werenot preserved and sent for examination to the chemicalexaminer.Ultimately at about 5 p.m. she died.One hundred dried datura seeds weigh 20 to 20- 1/2 grains.A decoction of 125 seeds of datura stramonium has proved fatal to a woman."According to Taylor (p. 55 1, Vol.11) "Toxicity and Fatal Dose.The active principle, a mixture of hyoscine, atropine and hyoscyamine, is extremely toxic, and as the plant contains approxi mately 1 to 1 per cent of alkaloids, it must be considered extremely dangerous.The seeds are highly poisonous, inasmuch as they contain a larger proportion of alkaloids than other parts of the plant.A child of 2 swallowed about 100 see& of stra- monium weighing 16 grains.The usual symptoms were manifested in an hour, and the child died in 24 hours although twenty seeds had been ejected by vomiting and eighty by purging.Sufficient alkaloid to destroy life had been absorbed from the entire seeds and carried into the blood.She very soon became delirious, threw her arms about and spoke incoherently; she died in 7 hours."Stramonium and a dhatura leaf arepoisonous.The appellant was registered as a Homoeopath,and in Homoeopathy a dhatura leaf is never administered assuch.This much he admits himself.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedMay 10, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Benchat Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 1961.S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D.P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant.I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySikri J. This is an appeal by special leave directed againstthe judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh con-firming the conviction and sentence of the appellant unders.302, I.P.C.The case of the prosecution, in brief, which has beenaccepted both by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, isas follows.The appellant is a registered Homoeopathicmedical practitioner tinder Madhya Pradesh Homoeopathic andBio-chemic Practitioners Act (Madhya Pradesh Act 26 of1951).He furtherurges that what was administered was not fatal dose and hehas seriously challenged the calculations made by thelearned Sessions Judge of the contents of poison in the leafalleged to have been given to the deceased.He has alsochallenged the concurrent findings of the courts below thata dhatura leaf and 24 drops of mother tincture of stramoniumwas administered to the deceased.His final contention isthat on the facts found it was not a case of murder under s.302, I.P.C., but of an offence under s. 304A,I.P.C.We have looked into the evidence bur we are unable to saythat the concurrent finding of the courts below that 24drops of stramonium and a leaf of dhatura were administeredis mani-festly wrong.They have relied on the evidence of Chisaji,deceased's uncle, P14, a register of patients maintained bythe appellant, P10, the prescription written by theappellant, and the evidence of Shyam Swaroop Mishra, P.W.14, who recognized the handwriting of the appellant.The deceased, according toChisaji, P.W. 3, was a healthy woman, and had not taken anyother medicine before arriving at the clinic.She was atthe clinic from 9 a.m. till she died.The only medicine shetook, apart from antidotes, was what was administered, i.e.,24 drops of stramonium and a dhatura leaf.She startedfeeling restless and ill soon after taking these things.Dr. Choudhary, P.W. 17, a registered medical practitioner,in the course of his evidence, stated:A ripe fruit weighs, on an average, about 2 drachms, and contains the seeds which weigh about 1-1/2 drachms.Chisajidescribed the leaf as a big one but it was green and fresh.According to Dr. R. K. Singh, P.W. 16, mother tincturestramonium can be given for removing foreign bodies, thoughit is not specifically mentioned in Materia Medica ofHomeopathy that it_ can be used for treatment of guinea-worm.But it will be remembered that in this systemtreatment is by symptoms.On these facts, it appears to us that S. 299, I.P.C., doesnot apply.It cannot be held that the appellantadministered the stramonium drops and the dhatura leaf withthe knowledge that he was likely by such an act to cause thedeath of the deceased.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,540,165 |
In order to establish the factum of wrong mention of aforesaid fields in the cause title of Mcrc No.2920/2016, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the order dated 02.03.2016 by which the bail of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,543,205 |
In brief, the prosecution story is that accused as well as Sunderlal, deceased, belonged to one family.There was dispute between the two parties about the ownership and possession of the agricultural land.It is said that at the relevant time Sunderlal had sown crops in the field.On 15.2.1992, after reaping some crop when Sunderlal, Satyabhan and Motilal were returning to their house, on way, all the accused persons armed with Lathi and Danda confronted them.After a brief altercation, they assaulted Sunderlal.Motilal and Satyabhan ran away leaving Sunderlal at the spot.On their raising hue and cry, Chakradhar Prasad (PW-5) and Bhura reached at the spot and asked the accused persons to not to beat Sunderlal.Accused persons then left the place and went away.As a result of assault, Sunderlal suffered injuries on his head, back, hands and leg.Satyabhan (PW-1) went to Police Chowki, Gaddi and lodged the report at about 12.00 O'clock.Injured Sunderlal was sent to Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rewa, where Dr. Vinayak Mishra (PW-16) examined his injuries.Dr. Vinayak Mishra(PW-16) admitted Sunderlal in male surgical ward.On X-ray examination, no fracture was found in the skull bones, however, 10 th rib of left side of Sunderlal was found fractured.On 24.2.1992 Sunderlal was discharged from hospital.However, on 16.3.1992 he died at his house.The intimation of his death was given to Police Station, Govindgarh.The incident occurred in the year 1992, since then 18 years have passed.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 13.12.1995, passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions 2 Trial No.124/1992, convicting the appellants under Section 304-II/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.100/-, each.Inquest proceedings were conducted by police and the 3 dead body was sent for postmortem examination.V.K.Sharma (PW-13) conducted autopsy and found that Sunderlal died due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from septicemia due to injury of the abdomen.Police altered case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded for investigation.After requisite investigation charge sheet was filed against four accused persons and the case was committed for trial.Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 341, 325 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused persons denied the charges.In the year in which the incident occurred they had sown the crops on the land.Sunderlal and his family members were reaping the crop, which was sown by them.When they asked them to not to cut the crop, they indulged in "Maar-Peet" and when they went to lodge the report, they were arrested.Learned trial judge, upon trial, after appreciating the evidence and material on record held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, however, held that the accused persons were guilty of the charge under Section 304-II/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused persons were accordingly convicted and sentenced.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings which have been recorded for convicting the appellants are bad in law, perverse and based on no evidence and are contrary to the material on record.Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has committed error in convicting the appellants.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and contended that no interference was called for in this appeal.It has not been disputed that Sunderlal died due to injuries received in the incident.It has been stated by Satyabhan (PW-1) and Motilal (PW-2) that Sunderlal received injuries at the hands of accused persons when they were going back from the field after cutting the crop.After receiving injuries, Sunderlal was sent to G.M. Hospital, Rewa, where Dr. Vinayak Mishra (PW-16) examined his injuries.According to Dr. Vinayak Mishra, he found following injuries on the body of Sunderlal:"(1) Lacerated wound 2.5x1/2x1/4 cm on occipital region of skull.(2) Contusion (3) 5x1.5 cm, 4x1.5 cm and 6x1.5 on left scapula region.(3)Contusion 10x1.5 cm on infra scapular region of left side of back.(4)Contusion (2) 10x1.5 cm and 8x1.5 cm in right scapular region.(5)Contusion 5x1.5 cm reddish in right scapular region.(6)Swelling on left hand."(7)Contusion 5x1.5 cm in the upper arm.(8)Lacerated wound 1.5x1/4x1/4 cm on left leg.5 All the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.In the opinion of Dr. Vinayak Mishra, apparently, these injuries were simple in nature.However, the final opinion about the nature of injuries could be given after X-ray examination.His MLC report is Ex.P/7."Dr. A.K. Mishra (PW-3), Assistant Surgeon, performed the X-ray examination of Sunderlal.He detected fracture in his 10th rib of left side.His X-ray report is Ex.After the death of Sunderlal on 16.3.1992, Dr. V.K. Sharma (PW-13) conducted postmortem examination of the dead body and found (1) infected wound on the right gluteal region; (2) healed wound on right calf; (3) multiple healed abrasions on right knee; (4) healed abrasion on left libia; (5) extensive bruise on xiphoid and sternal region; (6) multiple long bruise on both scapular region and (7) extensive bruise on right side of abdomen.On internal examination, Dr. Sharma found infected and ruptured spleen.In his opinion, the death of Sunderlal was the result of shock and haemorrhage due to septicemia caused by the injuries.Thus, it has been clearly established that deceased Sunderlal had died due to injuries received by him and his death was homicidal in nature.Now the question is whether accused persons caused injuries to Sunderlal.Prosecution examined Satyabhan (PW-1), Motilal (PW-2) and Chakradhar Prasad (PW-3) as eyewitnesses of the occurrence.Satyabhan (PW-1) categorically stated that his father had gone for cutting the crop in the field.When he came back, after answering the call of nature, he saw all the accused persons assaulting his father by 6 Dandas.His father fell down.When they saw him, they also chased him.Motilal (PW-2) who is also son of Sunderlal, deposed that he and Sunderlal both were cutting the crop in the filed.While they were returning back to their house, all the accused persons came there armed with Dandas and started beating his father.They objected the cutting of crop by them in the said field, but Sunderlal said that he was cutting the cop of his field.On their raising hue and cry, Chakradhar Prasad (PW-5) reached there and after some time, number of people came at the spot and the accused persons went away.Supporting the version given by the said two witnesses, Chakradhar Prasad (PW-5) stated that when he heard cries, he reached at the spot.He was present at his field from where he had seen accused persons beating Sunderlal.Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the land on which the deceased was cutting the crop alongwith his two sons was the ancestral property of the appellants, therefore, they had right to defend their property.From the evidence of Satyabhan (PW-1) it is seen that there had been a partition from Tahsil.He had ploughed and sown the land and, therefore, he was reaping the crop.He admitted that after partition accused persons did not let them go in the field, but on the instructions by Collector to police, police got delivered possession of the land to them.Though all these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross- examination, but nothing material could be elicited, which could render their evidence unreliable.As far as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 7 appellants that accused persons were acting in exercise of their right to defend the property is concerned, it is apparent that at the time of occurrence deceased was empty handed.Accused persons had no right to assault him by means of Dandas.Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of the aforesaid eyewitnesses, concluded that the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out and convicted accused persons under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.In my opinion, trial court rightly not accepted the plea raised by the accused persons about the right of defence of property by them.The evidence of eyewitnesses stood corroborated from the evidence of Dr. Vinayak Mishra (PW-16) and Dr. V.K. Sharma (PW-13), who found number of injuries on the body of deceased caused by hard and blunt objects.At the most, accused persons could have been held liable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.On 24.2.1992 he was discharged from the hospital and thereafter, on 16.3.1992 he died in his house.I have perused the evidence of Dr. V.K. Sharma (PW-13).He found multiple injuries on the body of Sunderlal.Injury No.7, found by him, was an extensive bruise running from right side of the abdomen to the back.On internal examination, he found that membranes of the intestine were filled with blood.Spleen was infected and ruptured.There were intra capsular and extra capsular blood clot.All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature.He opined that the spleen was ruptured due to injury received on the external spleenic part of the body, which was the result of haemorrhage and nacrosis.I am of the view that from the evidence of Dr. V.K. Sharma (PW-13) it is clearly established that Sunderlal died due to rupture of spleen and haemorrhage, which was caused due to injury received by him on his abdominal region.It is true that the injury found on the head of Sunderlal was not a serious or grievous injury, but it has been established that Sunderlal died due to injuries caused by the accused persons.There is no evidence on record to indicate as to which of the accused persons inflicted the injury, which resulted in fracture of rib and rupture of spleen, which ultimately resulted in death of deceased.From the evidence of eyewitnesses it appears that the incident occurred after some quarrel when Sunderlal was going back to his house from the field after reaping the crop.The ownership and the possession of the land was claimed by the accused persons.It is thus revealed that, the 9 incident occurred suddenly upon a quarrel.The accused persons wielded Dandas, which could not be described as any conventional weapon.No serious or dangerous injury was caused on any vital part of the body of deceased.After treatment, the deceased was discharged on 24.2.1992 and while he was residing at his house, after about thirty days he died on 16.3.1992 due to septicemia.In these circumstances, I am of the view that it could not be held with certainty that the accused persons entertained intention to cause death of Sunderlal nor it can be held that they knew that by their act Sunderlal would die.However, it can be safely inferred that they knew and intended to cause grievous hurt to him.Appellants and deceased belonged to one family.The incident occurred suddenly over a dispute about the ownership and possession of agricultural land.In these circumstances, learned counsel prayed for leniency in the matter of awarding sentence to appellants.For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, as awarded by the trial Court, is set aside, instead appellants are convicted under 10 Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.Each of them shall also pay fine of Rs.2000/-.The period of sentence already undergone by the appellants shall be taken into consideration in calculating the sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment.Fine amount shall be deposited in the trial court within a period of three months from today.On failure to deposit the fine amount, each of the appellants shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Appellants, who are on bail, shall surrender forthwith to serve out their remaining part of the sentence.Appeal Partly allowed.(RAKESH SAKSENA) JUDGE Shukla 11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.1126/2010 Kishore Samrite versus Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan & Ors.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,546,337 |
I. The application is hereby allowed.::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2019 22:51:48 :::17-BA-997-2019.odt -4- II.The applicant viz. TEJAS S/O. BALASAHEB DIWATE, in connection with Crime No.70 of 2019 registered with Supa Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.20,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, on the following conditions;The application is accordingly disposed of.(V. K. JADHAV, J.) Sam..::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2019 22:51:48 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
845,476 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-The appellants and the deceased Ramakrishnan are friends.They are allresiding at Mela Ariyappapuram.A1 was running a Chit in the village.Thedeceased Ramakrishnan and two other persons have taken the chit for Rs.60,000/-and demanded the money from the first appellant.Since there was a due ofRs.3,000/- payable to the first appellant by some other person, who is known toRamakrishnan, the first appellant sought to deduct Rs.3000/- from the chitamount, for which, the deceased objected.In this regard, there arose a quarrelbetween the appellants and the deceased on 28.05.2002 around 9.00 p.m.At about 9.45 p.m, on the same day, P.W.1 Devendran @ Thangapandian andP.W.2 Arunachalam were proceeding via the house of the appellant No.1, at whichtime, the appellants waylaid the said witnesses.While the 3rd appellantassaulted P.W.2 with an iron rod on the leg, the 2nd appellant on the ear, thefirst appellant assaulted P.W.1 with an Aruval.The 3rd appellant assaultedP.W.1 on the hand and the 4th appellant assaulted him on the hip.On witnessingthe occurrence, the deceased Ramakrishnan intervened, whereupon, the firstappellant attacked the deceased with an aruval on the stomach, due to which, hesustained 25 c.m. length cut injury.According to the prosecution, the grievously injured Ramakrishnan wasfirst taken to Pavoochatram Police Station, where he gave a complaint at 11.00pm., and from there, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi and givenfirst aid.Thereafter, he was shifted to the Government Medical CollegeHospital, Tirunelveli, where he died.4.P.W.16 was the Head Constable at Pavoochatram, who recorded thestatement of the injured/victim and registered a case in Crime No.147 of 2002for the offence Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C., and forwarded the FirstInformation Report to the Court as well as to the higher officials.5.P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, was in Additional charge ofPavoochatram Police Station.By taking up the preliminary investigation, heproceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar andsketch, examined the witnesses available there and proceeded to the GovernmentHospital, Tenkasi, where he examined the injured witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2and recorded their statements.He also went to the Government Medical CollegeHospital and examined the victim Ramakrishnan, who was taking treatment there.G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.P.W.20 examined P.W.13, the Doctor, who first examined the deceased and P.Ws.1&2and obtained the wound certificate.On 30.05.2002, the injured Ramakrishnan died.On receiving the deathintimation, the investigating officer altered the penal provisions as one underSec.302 IPC.He proceeded to the Hospital, where he conducted the inquest overthe dead body and thereafter, sent the body with his request for conductingPost-mortem.P.W.12 was the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, and he founda sutured wound of 25 c.m., on the stomach of the deceased and also foundcorresponding internal injuries involving the intestine, lever and lungs.Heopined that the death was due to shock and Haemorrhage.P.W.20 arrested the appellants between 31.05.2002 and 04.06.2002 andrecorded their confession statements, pursuant to which, he recovered theweapons and remanded the appellants.After receipt of the Post-mortem report,examination of witnesses and collection of materials in the form of medicalopinion, he concluded the investigation and laid the charge sheet for offencesunder Sections 341, 323, 324, and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.The case was taken for trial by the learned Additional District Judge,Fast Track Court, No.1, Tirunelvelei.In order to prove the case ofprosecution, 20 witnesses were examined, 32 documents marked and 6 MaterialObjects produced.After the evidence of prosecution is over, the accused were examinedunder Sec.313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing inevidence against them and the accused denied their complicity.On analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court foundA1 guilty under Sections 324 and 302 I.P.C., and A2 to A4 guilty for theoffence under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C., individually and under Section 302r/w 34 I.P.C along with A1 and imposed life imprisonment on all the appellants.Aggrieved by which, the Appellant/Accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.80 of 2004and the appellants/Accused 2 to 4 have preferred Crl.A.No.81 of 2004 before thisCourt.Kathirvel, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants,would submit that the statement given by the deceased and recorded by P.W.16 isrendered highly doubtful, as the signature of the complainant was not identifiedby any of the witnesses.The learned counsel pointed out that P.Ws.1 & 2, theeye-witnesses would admit in the cross-examination that from the Police Stationthey were directly taken to the hospital and in the light of such version, therecording of the statement by the Head constable is also rendered doubtful.The learned Senior counsel also pointed out that there arediscrepancies in the medical evidence as the injuries noticed by the post-mortemdoctor on the stomach of the deceased do not tally with the injuries as notedin the accident register.4.Marudanal Augusti Vs.State of Kerala reported in (1980 SCC (Cri) 985).On the contrary, Mr.Therefore,according to him, the well-considered judgment of the trial court does not callfor any interference.14.We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counselappearing for either side and perused the records.Charge No.1 against all the accused is that, on account of previousenmity in handling the chit amount, there was a quarrel between the appellantsand P.Ws.1 and 2, in pursuant to which, at about 9.45 p.m., again there was aquarrel, in which, the deceased, who intervened to prevent the attack onP.Ws.1and 2, was fatally attacked by the appellants.He would specifically state that the first appellant assaulted himwith the handle of aruval on the hand and the 3rd appellant beat him on theright shoulder and on the left hand above the wrist.He would further statethat the 4th appellant assaulted him on the left buttock.18.P.W.2 would state that the 1st appellant caused a stab injury to P.W.1.The 3rd appellant caused an injury below the right knee and the 4th appellantassaulted him with a stick.19.P.W.13, the Doctor, would state that he examined P.W.1 and found acontusion on the left shoulder and another contusion on the left buttock and anabrasion with a black mark on the back of the right hand.Therefore, thebenefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants for the charge under section323 and 324 I.P.C.20.Likewise P.W.2 would speak about the injuries caused to him by theappellants.Again there is contradiction in his version regarding injuries anddoes not tally with the medical evidence and the specific overt act is also notspoken.Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants forcausing injuries on P.W.2 also.The deceased Ramakrishnan sustained a single injury on the stomach.The length of the injury is 25 cms.P.W.13, the Doctor, who first examined thedeceased, would state that the injury was 25 cms x 10 cms and the intestinewas protruding.P.W.11, the Post-mortem Doctor, would state that on externalexamination he found a sutured wound with a length of 25 cms and on internalexamination he found the involvement of liver, intestine and lungs.V.Kathirvel, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellants would submit that according to Ex.P.10, Post-mortem certificate, theopinion of the Doctor was that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage onaccount of stab injury and the said single injury, although fatal, would notsuggest that the accused had intention to do away with the deceased.23.We see some force in his argument.P.11, the accident register wouldshow that the incised laceration was a running wound, measuring 25 cms, therebyit could be easily inferred that the accused, while inflicting such an injury,might not have had the knowledge that it would cause the death.The evidence ofP.Ws.1 & 2 would show that there was a wordy quarrel around 9.00 p.m., betweenthe first appellant and the deceased and the evidence is very cogent to theeffect that around 9.45 p.m, there was a further scuffle in which, theappellants were attacking P.Ws.1&2 and while the deceased intervened, a singleincised wound was caused by the first appellant to the deceased with M.O.5,billhook.The medical evidence would show that in spite of treatment thedeceased succumbed to injuries and died.The decisions relied on by thelearned senior counsel for the appellants do not have direct bearing to thefacts and circumstances of the case on hand and therefore, we refrain fromdiscussing those decisions.In the case on hand, the evidence of P.Ws.1& 2 are uniform to theeffect that there was a scuffle around 9.00 p.m., between the first appellantand the deceased and later, there was an altercation between the appellants andP.Ws.1&2 around 9.45 p.m., during which course, the deceased seemed to haveintervened and was inflicted with a single incised wound by the firstappellant on the stomach and therefore, it will come squarely under theexception to Section 300 of I.P.C., a culpable homicide not amounting to murderand will attract the punishment under Section 304-II I.P.C., as the act done bythe first appellant was with the knowledge that causing of such injury is likelyto cause death but, there was no intention to cause such death.25.In the result, Crl.(md)No.81 of 2004 is allowed and the conviction andsentence imposed by the the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtNo.I, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.17 of 2003, dated 30.04.2004 are set aside.If thesaid appellants are in custody, they are directed to be set at libertyforthwith, unless they are required in connection with any other case.But, ifthey are on bail, the bail bond executed by them shall stand cancelled and thefine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them.In so far as the Crl.Thesentence already undergone by the first appellant accused is ordered to be setoff.The trial Court is directed to secure the first appellant/accused and sendhim to custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.1.The Inspector of Police, Pavoorchatram Police Station Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
845,499 |
M.O.1 is the lady's bicycle and M.O.2 is the pair of slippers which his sister was wearing.P.W.2 only observed the dead body on the morning of 22.10.1995 when he came to know about it. P.W.3 also knows P.W.1 and his family.He observed the dead body of the victim in this case.He also noticed the injuries.P.W.25 is the Investigating Officer.At 11.00 a.m on 22.10.1995, he collected the express records in this case and commenced the investigation.He reached the crime scene at 11.30 a.m and in the presence of P.W.5 and another, he prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.36, the rough sketch.P.W.25 caused the crime scene and the dead body to be photographed.He sent for the finger print expert and dog squad.At 12.30 in the afternoon, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.37, the inquest report.Finger print expert arrived at the crime scene at 4.00 p.m and examined the crime scene.No clue was available.P.W.21 is the Photographer, who photographed the crime scene and the dead body.M.Os.8 and 9 series are the photographs and negatives.P.W.20 is the duty Doctor in the Government Hospital at Tiruppattur.During post mortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.21 is the report on the examination of vaginal smear and scalp hair.The report shows that no semen was detected in the vaginal smear and no blood was detected in the scalp hair.P.22 is the report on the viscera, which shows that no poison was detected in the viscera.Based on Exs.P.21 and P.22, the Doctor opined that death would have occurred 36 to 42 hours prior to autopsy due to strangulation.6. P.W.6 is employed in rolling beedi.He knows P.W.1's family.The victim in this case is working in a silk factory.Coming to know that the victim is dead, he went and observed the dead body.P.W.10 is the Village Administrative Officer of Kadhili Village.At about 9.00 a.m on 25.11.1995 when he was in his office talking with his friend (P.W.11), A1 came there and confessed that he along with Kumar (A4), Ravichandran (A2) and Jinnah (A3), murdered the victim girl after raping her and wanted to surrender.A1 was narrating the events, which P.W.10 reduced into writing.A1 made a disclosure that at about 8.00 p.m on 21.11.1995, the victim girl was murdered and when P.W.10 asked him as to why he murdered, he answered that "he was possessive of the victim girl; they used to travel in the same bus; the victim girl refused the proposal; when they were travelling in the bus, the accused pressed her legs, for which, she removed her slippers and showed; angered at that, he conspired with his friends and at about 7.00 p.m on 21.11.1995, when all the four were in the road, they saw the victim girl going in a cycle; they intercepted her and bodily lifted her to a secluded place, where she was raped and fearing that she may expose the accused, she was murdered and then her body was thrown in a different place".Later on, the Investigating Officer took this witness to the crime scene where, some sample earth was recovered under Ex.P.8 (mahazar).At that stage, he was treated as hostile.P.W.11 would state that when he went to see P.W.10, he found A1 talking with him about the murder of the victim girl.He would state that he does not know the full details.P.W.11 admitted his signature in Ex.P.W.13 is the Village Administrative Officer of Sundarampalli Village.At that stage, he was treated as hostile.P.W.15, examined to prove the arrest of A3 and A4, turned hostile.P.W.16, examined to prove that on the occurrence day evening the accused purchased some short eats from his shop, turned hostile.As noted earlier, P.W.24 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Investigating Police Station.At 11.00 a.m on 26.11.1995, when he was in the police station, P.Ws.13 and 14 appeared before him along with A2 and his statement.A2 was arrested and examined and he gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.In the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14, Ex.P.6 (letter) came to be recovered under Ex.On A2 identifying A3, he was arrested at 2.00 p.m on the same day and examined.A3 also gave a voluntary confession statement.The arrested accused and the incriminating objects recovered were brought to the police station and the accused was sent for judicial remand.The case properties were sent to the court.The fine amount, if any, paid by A2 for the said offence is directed to be refunded to him".The Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Tiruppattur, Vellore District.2. -Do-Through the Principal Sessions Judge, VelloreThe District Collector, VelloreThe Director General of Police, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Superintendent, Central Prison, VelloreThe Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Vellore District[PRV/8712]By the same judgment, the learned trial Judge convicted A1 and A2 under all the charges and accordingly, sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, carrying a default sentence, for the offence of murder; 10 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, carrying a default sentence, for the offence of gang rape and 3 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, carrying a default sentence, for screening the offence.Hence they are before this court in this appeal.Heard Mr.The prosecution case is that at about 7.00 p.m on 21.10.1995, by force, all the four accused took the victim girl to a secluded place, where, she was raped and in the course of the same transaction, A1, by throttling the neck of the victim, caused her death.According to the prosecution, after committing the crime as referred to above and with a view to screen the offence, all of them took the dead body to the agricultural land of one Jayaraman; left it there and therefore punishable under the various sections as referred to earlier.To prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 26, besides marking Exs.The defence did not let in any oral evidence but marked Ex.Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence.The entire prosecution case revolves around Ex.P.7, the extra judicial confession, stated to have been given by A1 on 25.11.1995 to P.W.10 witnessed by P.W.11 and Ex.P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased.He had only deposed on the educational qualification of his sister; her employment details and as to how she used to go for work and come back home.He would then state that his sister, who left the house at 8.15 a.m on 21.10.1995 for her work, did not return even by 6.30 p.m on that day and therefore he went in search of her.All enquiries made by him did not yield any result.In the course of such search, they found a lady's bicycle abandoned and finding that the said bicycle belongs to his sister, they tried to pursue the matter further.But however, as it was very late in the night, they did not do anything else on that night.At 6.00 a.m the following morning, they continued their search and en route, they found two hawai slippers belonging to his sister on the ground and a further search made, resulted in locating the dead body of the victim.P.W.4 also observed the dead body on the next day.P.W.24 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Investigating Police Station.At 9.30 a.m on 22.10.1995, P.W.1 appeared before him and gave a complaint, which he registered as Ex.P.1 in his police station crime No.622/1995 under section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.39 is the printed first information report.P.W.23 accordingly carried the express records to the court as well as to the higher officials.From near the crime scene, he recovered a pair of hawai slippers and some sample earth under a mahazar.P.W.5 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar and recovery of M.O.2 (pair of hawai slippers); M.O.4 (sample earth); M.O.5 (the purse); M.O.6 (pen) and M.O.7 (some cash) under Exs.P.W.25 sent the dead body with a requisition for post mortem to the Government Hospital at Tiruppattur.P.20, the post mortem report.P.19 is the requisition received by him for conducting post mortem.The symptoms noted by him in Ex.P.20 are as follows:Tongue in between the teeth and protruded out.R.M mildly present in upper limbs.Moderately present in lower limbs.External Injuries:1)An abrasion on right fore arm 2 cm x 3 mm (nail marks).2)An abrasion on left fore arm 2 cm x 3 mm (nail marks).3)Abrasion on right clavicle.4)Abrasion on left breast.5)Abrasion on left side of neck.6)Abrasion on front of neck and contusion around the area.7)Bleeding from both the ears.8)Vaginal rupture with bleeding.On Dissection: Skull Intact.No fracture.Brain Congested and becomes liquified.Hyoid bone Hyoid bone fractured on left side (left corn of hyoid bone).Chest - 2nd and 3rd ribs fractured on right side.Heart Congested.Lungs Congested.Liver Congested.Kidney Congested.Stomach Undigested food particle.Small intestine Empty.White fluid seen in uterus and vaginal canal."The viscera was preserved for examination.Vaginal smear was also taken.P.W.25 continued his investigation further.P.38 is the rough sketch prepared by him for the place where the cycle recovered in this case was found parked.P.W.25 sent the case properties to the court with a request to subject the same for chemical examination.P.W.25 continued his investigation by examining further witnesses and recording their statements.No clue was forthcoming.Those articles were produced before him by the constable present during post mortem with his special report Ex.The investigation conducted till 24.10.1995 did not give any clue at all about the culprits.All the witnesses examined till 24.11.1995 did not give any clue about any suspected culprit.The deceased, to board the bus to go to her place of employment, must come to the intersection of Nariyaneri Road and to go back home also, she must only board the bus there.On a particular day, the victim was travelling with him in the bus, which was over crowded.P.W.6 and the victim alighted at Nariyaneri.On the next day, he came to know that the victim died.P.W.7 is the Contractor in the Silk Factory and the victim was working under him on a monthly salary of Rs.800/-.The working hours for the victim is from 8.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m. P.W.7 was informed by his friend that the victim in this case died.P.W.8 knows P.W.1's family.On a day prior to the death of the victim in this case, the victim came to his shop and asked him whether her brother had come and gone? Then she left the place in a cycle.Following her, P.W.1 came to the shop and enquired about his sister and he was informed that ten minutes before that, his sister left in the cycle.P.W.9 is working under P.W.7 on a monthly salary of Rs.1,300/-.The deceased was working with him at that time.The deceased was working as a technical assistant.The deceased was initially a Hindu but later on converted into Christianity.P.W.9 is a Hindu and he proposed to the victim that he would marry her.The victim used to come to the office between 8.30 and 9.00 a.m and leave for home between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m everyday.As already stated, P.W.10 reduced into writing the narration of A1 and he had taken the signature of A1 in it.P.W.11 witnessed the preparation of the said statement by signing it.P.W.10 then took A1 to the Investigating Police Station and surrendered him along with his statement before the Inspector of Police.P.7 is the said statement.P.7 and then P.W.11, P.W.10, A1 and others went to the Investigating Police Station where, P.W.11's signature was taken.At that stage, he was treated as hostile.He verified the statements made by them.Pursuant to the same, A1 took the police party to the crime scene and pointed out the place, for which, Ex.P.41, the rough sketch, was prepared.At 12.45 p.m., from the crime scene, some sample earth was recovered under Ex.At 1.45 p.m, A1 led the police party to his house, from where, he produced M.O.3 (diary) under a mahazar.At 2.45 p.m., A1 identified A4 and accordingly, A4 was also arrested and examined.A4 also gave a voluntary confession statement.P.W.25 examined P.Ws.10 and 11 by recording their statements.The recovered incriminating objects were sent to the court.Near a cinema theatre, he noticed two persons passing him; he asked them as to from where they are coming; however he did not know them; both went without answering and on the next day morning, he came to know about the death of the victim in this case.At that stage, he was treated as hostile.In his confession statement, he gave the details as to how the crime came to be committed.At that stage, he was treated as hostile.They were talking about the death of a girl belonging to Kondappanaickenpatty.P.W.14 signed in that statement as a witness.P.W.25 examined further witnesses on the next day by recording their statements.P.W.25 referred A1 to A3 for medical examination.P.W.19 is the duty Doctor in the Government Hospital at Tiruppattur.At about 12.00 noon on 11.12.1995, A1 appeared before him along with a police medical memo and his examination showed that A1 was potent.A1 refused to give his semen and blood for examination.A3 was also brought before him by a police constable and his examination revealed that he was potent.A3 also refused to give his semen and blood for test.A2, brought by police constables, was also likewise examined by him on the same day.He was found potent and he also refused to give his semen and blood for test.As A4 wanted to confess, P.W.25 gave a requisition to the court to record his confession statement.A4 refused to confess and recording that, he closed the proceedings.P.13 is the requisition submitted by the police officer to examine A4 under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Ex.P.14 is the endorsement made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.W.17 is the driver of the bus belonging to Annai Sathya Government Transport Corporation.His duty hours is between 1.00 a.m and 1.30 p.m., the following day.At about 8.30 a.m everyday, while returning from Burgur, he would stop the bus at Nariyaneri cross road and he would state that he would remember if he sees the persons, who used to board the bus.He would further state that he does not remember the names.At that stage, he was treated as hostile.It must be noticed that he was examined to prove that the victim girl in this case used to travel in that bus.P.W.22 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties along with the requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer; sending the same to the laboratory as an enclosure to court's letter and receipt of the various reports.He sent two letters containing the admitted hand writing of the victim girl to the court to have it compared with the disputed documents.After completing all the legal formalities, he filed the final report in court against the accused on 19.11.1996 for the offences referred to earlier.When the accused were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them (we are confining only against A1 and A2), they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend that when P.Ws.10 and 13 are shown to be total strangers to A1 and A2 respectively, there is no rhyme or reason for them to confess to them separately about the crime and that too, almost 35 days after the crime.When Ex.P.7 is shown to have been given on 25.11.1995 to P.W.10 and Ex.P.11 is shown to have been given on 26.11.1995 to P.W.13 (both places separated by a long distance), it is un-understandable as to how the contents of both these statements would be the same.P.6 had come to be written by P.W.9 only a week after the occurrence.Therefore, in normal circumstances, we would have sustained the argument of the learned senior counsel that, having regard to the time and place at which two different persons came to give two separate confession statements to two different persons, there cannot be a striking similarity in the expressions used in those statements.We have already referred to their evidence.According to the prosecution, after A1 and A2, on their production on two different dates in the police station, came to be arrested by P.W.25 and when they were examined at that time, each of the accused gave a voluntary confession statement.Pursuant to the confession statement of A1, M.O.3 is shown to have been recovered from his house and pursuant to the confession of A2, Ex.P.6 (letter) is shown to have been recovered from A2's house.It must be noticed here that, as far as the recovery of Ex.P.W.9 is the author of Ex.P.6 and that letter is addressed to the victim in this case.Unless this letter is shown to have been with the victim on the day on which she was raped and murdered, it would not have been possible at all for either A1 or A2 to come into possession of the said document.The confession statements do not disclose as to how the accused came into possession of Ex.P.W.9 in his evidence had stated that at the request of the police, he wrote this letter (Ex.P.6) one week after the crime.This evidence had come when he was re-examined by the State itself with permission from the court.He affirmed the same when he was further cross-examined.P.6 came into existence.If Ex.If really P.Ws.10 and 11 on the one hand and P.Ws.13 and 14 on the other hand are obliging witnesses to the prosecution, then, they could have supported the entire prosecution case blindly.But however, it is seen that all of them have turned hostile when P.Ws.10 and 11 denied any knowledge about the recovery of M.O.3 at the instance of A1 and when P.Ws.13 and 14 denied any knowledge about the recovery of Ex.P.6 at the instance of A2 respectively as referred to above.This circumstance is a clear indication to conclude that the above referred to witnesses are not persons ready to oblige the police for the mere asking.As such we are totally impressed with the evidence of these witnesses.This means, the credibility/truthfulness of the evidence of P.Ws.10, 11, 13 and 14 cannot be doubted.It must be noticed that P.W.11, who witnessed Ex.It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the accused that while P.Ws.10 and 13 would state that when they were talking with their friends (P.Ws.11 and 14), each of the accused came to confess, while P.Ws.11 and 14 would state that as they were going towards the office of the respective Village Administrative Officers, they found the respective accused there talking with the concerned Village Administrative Officers.P.7 and P.11 can be safely acted upon.Even then one more question will survive for our consideration and that is, whether A2, on his confession statement and in the context of the confession statement of A1, could be found guilty under section 302 I.P.C? From the confession statement, it is seen that, after the accused committed rape one after the other, A1 thought that if the victim is allowed to go, she may expose all of them and therefore throttled her neck with his hands resulting in her death and on noticing this, A2 questioned him as to why he did like that? Therefore it is clear that A2 would not have even thought that A1, all of a sudden, would throttle the victim to her death.If that is the position, then, based on the confession statement referred to above, A2 cannot be found guilty of the offence of murder.Therefore he is acquitted and the appeal stands disposed of on the following lines:"The conviction and sentence of A1 under sections 376(2)(g); 302 and 201 I.P.C are sustained and the appeal as far as A1 is concerned, is dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,549,944 |
The prosecution case, in nutshell, succinctly stated are that on the date of incident i.e. 4-4-2002 at about 04:30 PM when the prosecutrix - Ku.Rinki Dubey, aged about 5 years, had gone to play in the neighbourhood to the house of one Preeti Shukla and did not return home, a search was made by her parents but of no avail.( 04.05.2017) Per: Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-In the instant appeal, assail is to the conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.366/2002 [State of M.P. vs. Sunil Singh Lodhi] whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code [for brevity `the IPC'] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 9 months; under Section 302 of the IPC rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.15000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1 years; and under Section 201 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and find of Rs.2000/-, in 2 default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, with the stipulation to run the same concurrently.On the subsequent day at about 09:00 PM the dead-body of Ku.Rinki Dubey was found lying in the open plot of one Narayan Prasad Patwa in the Village, Belkheda within the jurisdiction of the Police Station, Belkheda, District Jabalplur.To that effect an information was given to the Police Station and `Marg' No.5/2002 was registered.During `Marg' investigation statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded; after conducting necessary investigation offences were instituted against the accused-appellant; and charge- sheet was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction, which in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions.It is urged that the last seen evidence relied upon by the learned Trial Judge is a weak kind of evidence and he ought not to have given any weightage to the same.The prosecution examined PW-6, Premlal Dhobi, who stated that the accused-appellant as well as prosecutrix-Ku.Rinki Dubey, ageda bout 4-5 years were known to him and he had seen the accused-appellant going along with the deceased-victim.He also disclosed the colour of the T-shirt worn by the deceased at the time of the incident.Statement of `last seen' of this witness gets corroboration by depositions of other prosecution witnesses; seizure of articles belonging to the deceased and the accused-appellant; and presence of semen on the undergarments of the deceased and the accused-appellant on these articles.He found injuries on the person and also on private part of the deceased.Her hymen was found to be ruptured.Presence of semen and blood was also observed by him near the genital part of the deceased.The cause of death of the deceased was opined to be asphyxia and shocking due to throttling and duration of the death was within 36 hours from the time of the incident.There is nothing in the cross-examination or any material on record to disbelieve the autopsy report qua testimony of Dr. R.D. Namdev (PW-8).The prosecution also proved the seizure of `Payel' which was duly proved by the testimony of PW-3, Prashant Dubey and PW-9, D.P. Shrivastava, the investigating officer.The same was also identified by PW-3, Prashant Dubey, the father of the deceased.In the obtaining factual scenario, the plea of alibi taken by the accused-appellant was rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Judge in passing the impugned order of sentence and judgment of conviction.The testimony of PW-6, Premlal Dhobi, who had last seen the accused-appellant accompanied with the deceased in the evening, one day prior to the date of the alleged incident, which is fully corroborated by other evidence on record and is reliable in the facts of the present case.The High Court Legal Services Authority shall remit fees of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) to the learned counsel who has assisted this Court.
|
['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.
|
84,552,153 |
MANMOHAN, J:Brief facts of the case as per prosecution case are that on receipt of DD No. 21-A SI Suresh and Ct.Dharambir went to house no. 401/1, BE, Budh Vihar, Munirka and found a dead body of one girl namely Sakshi @ Pinki daughter of Sh.Pritam Singh.The deceased was taken to Safderjung Hospital where she was declared dead.On the MLC, the doctor opined gunshot injury.IO came back to the spot and found an eye witness namely Ishwar Chand and recorded his statement who told that at about 10.45 pm, when he was present at his house he heard noise like a cracker and all of a sudden his brother Bhisham Raj's grand daughter namely Archana came and told that deceased who was residing in the neighbourhood had fallen and her aunt is calling him.He reached at the house of the deceased and found the door of the deceased bolted from inside.He knocked at the door and after some time the door opened and he saw Sakshi @ Pinki lying on the floor and one boy (accused Subhash) was standing nearby and stated that the dispute was their personal matter and thereafter the accused closed the door from inside.The wife of the said Ishwar Chand had also gone to the house of the deceased to invite for a marriage and all of a sudden she saw that the accused opened the door and ran away.On the basis of the said complaint a rukka was prepared and the present case under section 302 IPC was registered.IO Inspector Ram Sahai came to the spot and conducted the investigation.He called the crime team and got the photographs of the deceased as well as the site of the incident clicked and lifted the blood samples and also the empty cartridges and also collected the other evidence including the marriage card and a newspaper carried by accused.During investigation IO searched the accused and arrested him, who disclosed that he had fallen in love with the deceased, but the deceased and her family were opposing the marriage due to which he killed her.The accused got the country made revolver recovered from his house and CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 2 of 28 confessed to his crime.During the investigation the blood sample and the semen sample of the accused were collected and sent for FSL examination for their comparison with blood and semen on the clothes of the deceased as well as vaginal swab.The country made pistol was also sent for ballistic expert examination and the accused was produced in the Court.On 3rd of August about three years back I had gone to the house of the accused in Loni to give him a birthday card as his birthday is on 4th August and thereafter I came back to my house.The witness submits that it is the same card which he had given to the accused on that day.The card Ex. P-2 as well as the marriage card Ex. P-1 are retained on the judicial record.She emphasised that there was no second live bullet in the recovered pistol.She stated that the details of messages (Ex. PW-31/A) sent from the phone of the appellant-convict proved that it was a one-sided love as there were no messages from deceased-Sakshi.Learned APP stated that though the appellant-convict had suggested multiple contrary defences during cross examination of prosecution CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 8 of 28 witnesses (including honour killing, suicide-pact etc.), yet he had led no evidence and in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. his only defence was that he was not present at the scene of crime.A. No.901/2018 Page 9 of 28 fuse or bursting.Rajesh Tai went to the room of Pinki Didi but her door was locked and she repeatedly banged on the door but there was no response from inside.She got worried and told me to go outside and bring someone to help her.I went outside and told everything to my Dadaji Ishwar Chand who rushed back to the spot alongwith me.(emphasis supplied) B. Statement of Mr. Ishwar Chand (PW-14) .... On 10.05.2013 at around 10.45 am, when I was present inside my house, I heard some sound of a cracker and one girl namely Archna who is the granddaughter of my brother came to me and said one Rajesh Tai' who is residing in the neighbourhood is calling me.I accordingly went to the house of said Rajesh Tai' who then told me that one Pinki who was the daughter of her brother in law was inside the room, and she was knocking at the door but the door was not being opened.However, when I was just entering inside my house, suddenly the said boy ran from behind me.The said boy at that time was wearing a black pant and white shirt with checks.At this stage, the witness has pointed out towards accused Subhash, present in the court today (pointed out correctly as the boy who was present inside the room with Pinki and was later on seen by him running from the gali).During that time, certain ladies were shouting that Pinki ko goli lagi hai'.(emphasis supplied)Perusal of the abovementioned testimonies reveals that these witnesses have stated in unison that the appellant-convict was present at the time and place of incident i.e. inside the deceased's room which was locked from inside.They have also stated that they had gone to the spot after hearing a loud noise i.e. the gunshot.According to their testimony, upon opening the door they had seen the deceased-Sakshi lying in the said room and the appellant-convict had shut the door stating that it was their 'personal matter'.Thereafter, the appellant-convict had fled from the spot.It is pertinent to mention that the CFSL report (Ex. PW-26/B) had found human spermatozoa on the clothes and vaginal exhibits of deceased- Sakshi.Subsequently, sperm sample of the appellant-convict was taken and CFSL report (Ex. PW-26/C) proved that the spermatozoa found on the exhibits of deceased-Sakshi were of the appellant-convict.Exhibit-4b: One light blue and white coloured striped lower having reddish brown stains at few places.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 12 of 28DNA profile generated from the male fraction DNA obtained from the Source of exhibits: 4b (Lower) and 5 (Vaginal swab) was found to be human male in origin and consistent with each other.8.1 DNA profile of Subhash source of exhibits : 1 (Blood sample) and 2 (Semen sample) is consistent with the DNA profile generated from the male fraction DNA obtained from the source of exhibits 4b (Lower) and 5 (Vaginal swab) forwarded to this laboratory vide Memo No. 2470-R/SHO/VV Dated 25.07.2013 (Ref: CFSL Report No.: CFSL-2013/B-0922 Dated: 14.11.2013).The aforesaid reports prove that the appellant-convict was with the deceased-Sakshi at the time of the incident.Further, as per the post mortem report of the deceased (Ex. PW-10/A), the cause of death was opined shock due to haemorrhage caused by firearm injury.The relevant portion of the post mortem report (Ex. PW- 10/A) is reproduced hereinbelow:-Department o Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department of Forensic Medicines and Toxicology All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110029 Post-Mortem No. 568-13 Total Pages: 4 FIR/DD Number: 157 CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 14 of 28 FIR/DD Date : 10/05/2013 Police Station : Vasant Vihar ___________________________________________________ Doctor/Autopsy Board Members Dr. SHASHANK POONIYA SENIOR RESIDENT ___________________________________________________ { Name.................................................Sakshi Father's Name..................................Preetam Singh On or the Husbands Name................................CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 14 of 28body Sex..................................................... FEMALE of Age.................................................... 18 years Religion............................................. Address..................................... H. No. 401/1 BE Budh Vihar, Munirka NEW DELHI, DELHI xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Body Identified by1. Name: Pritam Relation: Father NEW DELHI DELHI2. Name: Rohtash Singh Relation : NEW DELHI Date & Hour of Receipt of dead body....................11/5/2013 12:00 pm Date & Hour of Receipt of inquest papers.............11/5/2013 12:25 pm Date & Hour of Starting Autopsy...........................11/5/2013 12:35 pm Date & Hour of Conducting Autopsy....................11/5/2013 1:50 pm BRIEF HISTORY (as per Inquest Report)..........Alleged history of gunshot injury on 10/05/13 at about 10.45 am.She was declared brought dead in safdarjung hospital at 11.25 am on same day.Samples to detect gun powder are also preserved.A. No.901/2018 Page 17 of 28 said fact was especially within his knowledge.The relevant portion of the ballistics report (Ex. PW-27/A) on this aspect is reproduced hereinbelow:-(iii) On the basis of comparison microscopy it is opined that the head of a .315/8mm cartridges (marked C/1) contained is parcel no. 1 has been fired from the country made pistol (marked W/1(a)) & not from any other firearm even of same makes & bore because every firearm has got its own individual characteristic marks.Present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict challenging the judgment dated 29th January, 2018 and the order on sentence dated 31st January, 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 71/2017 arising out of FIR No. 157/2013 registered with Police Station Vasant Vihar, whereby he had been convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 1 of 28CASE OF THE PROSECUTIONThe accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.IO after recording statements of the witnesses and collecting the various expert reports and preparing the documents completed the investigation and filed the challan.After supplying the copies a charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURTCRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 2 of 28The Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant-convict was convicted under Section 302 IPC.Mahapatra, who has proved his biological and DNA reports which categorically proves that the sperms of the accused matched with the vaginal swab of the deceased, which clearly proves that before committing the murder of the deceased, the accused committed sexual assault upon her either putting her to fear or by her consent, but the same does not matter (as his presence get proved).It is seen that while cross examining PW 3 namely Pritam Singh suggestions have been put by the accused that the deceased and accused were having a love affair and as there was a marriage proposal and as the accused and deceased used to talk to each other and since the father of the deceased namely PW 3 refused to marry the deceased with the accused they entered into a suicide pact and since the deceased killed herself first with the country made revolver, but due to bursting of the barrel of the said revolver, the accused could not commit CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 3 of 28 suicide and therefore the case is not a murder case, but one where both entered into a suicide pact, but because the barrel of the country made revolver busted the accused could not commit suicide.It is seen that after giving this suggestion, the accused took a new defence while cross examining the investigating officer by suggesting that he was not present at the spot and had not committed any offence.He had further given a suggestion that the present case is a case of honour killing where parents and relatives of the deceased had killed her, as they were opposed to the love affair of the deceased with the accused.The defence taken by the accused is clearly a false defence for the simple reason that there cannot be two contradictory defences and suggestions as stated above.The accused cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.There is no evidence whatsoever found by the investigating officer that it was a case of the honour killing where father of the deceased or his relative had killed the deceased.The two star witnesses i.e. Ms. Archana and Ishwar Chand have categorically proved in their testimony that accused was very much present inside the room of the deceased at the time of firing of the gun shot and these witnesses are independent witnesses who are not related to the deceased or her family in any manner.There is not even slightest of evidence to show that the present case was of honour killing by family of the deceased to kill the deceased.It is also seen that the recovery of country made weapon was made from the house of the accused at his instance after his arrest.The mere absence of the other public witnesses at the time of recovery of weapon is no reason for me to not believe the testimony of the independent public witnesses, who have no reason to plant a false murder case upon the accused.It is seen that by giving suggestion that the accused and deceased were having love affair and used to frequently talk to each other and also by giving suggestion that there was a suicide pact wherein the deceased committed suicide, but as the barrel of the country made pistol busted, the accused could not commit suicide is itself an admission on the part of the accused that he was present at the spot inside a closed room and a firing incident took place in his presence.It is not believable as to how the deceased could have fired on her in middle of her chest and the CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 4 of 28 bullet pierced her chest from her back.It is not possible for a person not trained in arms and ammunition to shot herself in chest from a country made revolver.The false defence of the accused is further proved from the report of the DNA and biological expert, who categorically proved that sperms of the accused were found from vaginal swab of the deceased, which clearly shows sexual assault.The testimony of PW 3 Pritam Singh categorically proves that the accused wanted to forcibly marry his daughter and had threatened to kill her in case marriage did not take place.The other two witnesses PW 7 and PW 14 proves the presence of the accused inside the room of the deceased at the time of firing and also his immediately running away from the spot after the murder.The nodal officer had proved the call details of the accused with the deceased.It is also seen that prosecution has also proved the recovery of invitation card and the newspaper which was carried by the accused to conceal the country made revolver and the said invitation card having been given to the accused which had been proved by PW 21 Ashok.The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICTCRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 3 of 28A. No.901/2018 Page 4 of 28Mr. R.N. Mittal, learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict, submitted that the impugned judgment was a cryptic one and suffered from non application of mind.According to him, the trial court failed to apply its mind and appreciate the evidence placed before it in the correct perspective.He emphasised that the trial court was swayed by the evidence to prove the presence of appellant-convict at the spot which is not in dispute.A. No.901/2018 Page 5 of 28He stated that the appellant-convict had been denied a fair trial inasmuch as there was no effective legal representation at the Trial Court by the Amicus Curiae appointed for the appellant-convict.He pointed out that there was no cross examination of twenty five prosecution witnesses at first instance by the Amicus Curiae or his private counsel.Mr. Mittal contended that the appellant-convict and deceased-Sakshi loved each other and wanted to get married.He further contended that the present incident had occurred in pursuance to a suicide-pact between the appellant-convict and the deceased-Sakshi because father of deceased- Sakshi i.e. Pritam Singh (PW-3) was not agreeable to their marriage.He emphasized that the evidence on record supported the theory of suicide-pact and the deceased-Sakshi had died on account of a self inflicted gunshot injury.He contended that before the appellant-convict could shoot himself as per the suicide-pact, the barrel of the weapon broke and the weapon could not be used again.In view of the same, he contended that the deceased-Sakshi was a willing partner as she had not raised any alarm which could have been easily heard by her family members.He stated that the appellant-convict and deceased-Sakshi used to speak to each other frequently on their mobile phones and to prove the same, he relied upon the call detail records (CDR) of the appellant-convict's CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 6 of 28 mobile number, which was given to him by Pramod Kumar (PW-4).CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 6 of 28Consequently, according to the learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict, the prosecution had failed to establish who had fired the fatal shot from the pistol.He further stated that the initial defence taken by the appellant-convict (i.e. the incident had occurred due to a suicide pact) while cross-examining Pritam Singh (PW-3) should be accepted and all the other defences should be ignored.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATEPer contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State stated that the present case was based on eye-witness accounts of Ms. Archana (PW-7) and Mr. Ishwar Chand (PW-14) who had seen the appellant-convict inside the room where the deceased-Sakshi was found and when the gunshot was fired.She pointed out the aforesaid witnesses were independent and were CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 7 of 28 not related to deceased-Sakshi or her family in any manner whatsoever.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 7 of 28She stated that after the disclosure statement of the appellant-convict (Ex. PW-19/D) was recorded, a pistol was recovered at his instance which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-19/H. She further stated that the police had also recovered an empty cartridge from the scene of crime (vide seizure memo Ex. PW-22/E).She pointed out that the CFSL Report (Ex. PW-27/A) had confirmed that the cartridge found from the scene of crime was fired from the recovered pistol.Learned APP for the State also stated that the birthday card recovered from the scene of crime had matched with a copy of birthday card (Ex. P2), given by Mr. Ashok (PW-21) to appellant-convict.The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced hereinbelow:-CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 8 of 28Consequently, according to the learned APP, the prosecution had to prove the presence of the appellant-convict at the scene of crime only-which it successfully did.COURT'S REASONING CFSL REPORTS (WHICH PROVED THAT THE SPERMATOZOA FOUND ON THE EXHIBITS OF DECEASED-SAKSHI WERE OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT) AS WELL AS THE DEPOSITIONS OF MS.ARCHANA (PW-7) AND MR.ISHWAR CHAND (PW-14) PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT-CONVICT WAS WITH THE DECEASED-SAKSHI IN HER ROOM AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENTHaving heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that Ms. Archana (PW-7) and Mr. Ishwar Chand (PW-14) are the two 'star' witnesses of the present case who had seen the appellant-convict at the scene of crime and subsequently fleeing the spot.The relevant portions of their testimonies are reproduced hereinbelow:-A. Statement of Ms. Archana (PW-7) .....The room of Pinki @ Sakshi was at a little distance from the room of Rajesh Tai but on the same floor i.e. Ground Floor.I had gone to the house of Rajesh Tai alongwith my Dadi Sushila Devi on 10th Day of 5th Month last year as my Dadi Sushila Devi wanted to give the wedding invitation card to Rajesh Tai.We were having tea which was prepared by Sandhya Chhachi when we heard a loud sound as if some cracker had been burnt and on that Rajesh Tai shouted for Pinki Didi to see if any bulb had a CRL.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 9 of 28My Dadaji Ishwar Chand and Rajesh Tai started banging on the door and after some time the door was slightly opened from inside.I saw that Didi Pinki was lying on the floor and one boy was standing and told Dadaji and Rajesh Tai hamara aapas ka mamla hai, tum log jao.Court observation is made that the child witness has pointed out towards the accused present in the court today as the boy who was inside the room and told them to go away.There was no one else inside the room except for the accused present in the court today and Didi Pinki.Accused after telling us to go away shut the door from inside again.As soon as my Dadaji and Rajesh Tai went away, accused came out and ran away.I went inside the room and saw that blood was oozing out of the chest of Didi Pinki.Later on the police reached the house of Pinki Didi and inquired from me about the incident and I had told all the facts to the police.I also knocked at the door but it did not open but when I pushed it hard, then the door slightly opened and upon peeping inside, I saw Pinki lying on the ground with her face towards the ground.I also saw one boy standing over there inside the room and the said boy again tried to close the door stating that humara aapas CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 10 of 28 ka mamla hai'.I accordingly told Rajesh and her daughter in law about what I saw inside the room and I accordingly returned back to my house.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 10 of 28The relevant portion of the FSL reports is reproduced hereinbelow:-CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 11 of 28CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY (CBI), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS, BLOCK-4, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003 Biological Examination & DNA Profiling Report REPORT NO.: CFSL-2013/B-0922 Dated: 14.11.2013 To, The Addl.Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Distt., New DelhiReference: Case FIR/RC No.: 157/13 Dated: 10.05.2013, P.S./Branch: Vasant Vihar South District, New Delhi, Under Section: 302 IPC & 25 Arms Act.14.11.2013 (Dr. B.K. Mohapatra) SSO-I (Bio) CFSL, CBI, New Delhi (emphasis supplied) B) CFSL Report (Ex. PW-26/C) CFSL Form No.: CFSL-CBI-ND-Bio-03 BIOLOGY DIVISION CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY (CBI), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS, BLOCK-4, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003 DNA Profiling Report REPORT NO.: CFSL-2014/B-0273 Dated: 16.04.2014 To, The Station House Officer, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.Reference: Case FIR/RC No.: 157/13 Dated: 10.05.2013, P.S./Branch: Vasant Vihar South District, New Delhi, Under Section: 302 IPC & 25 Arms Act.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 13 of 28small plastic container described as semen sample of Subhash.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxResults of Examination:A. No.901/2018 Page 15 of 28CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 15 of 28Injuries (Type, size, shape, location and directions etc.) List of antemortem injuries:Oval shaped entry wound of size 1.2 x 1 cm is present over left side of chest.It is 115 cm above left heel and 32 cm below the vertex.It is below the vertex.It is 2 cm lateral to midline, 8 cm below left mid-calvicular point and 8 cm medial to left nipple.It is surrounded by abrasion collar which is 0.7 cm wide laterally, 0.5 cm wide medially and 0.3 cm wide at the upper and lower margins.It is further surrounded by tattooing above upto face, downwards upto umbilicus and over chest arms and forearms on both sides.Track is directed backward, downward and outward fracturing left 4th rib and then perforating right atrium and both right and left ventricle, then perforating left lower lobe of lung and then fracturing 9th and 10th rib and existing from the back.Chest cavity is having about 2 litres of hematoma.The exit wound is of size 2.5 x 0.7 cm, present obliquely over the left side of back with its medial end higher than lateral end, its centre is 110 cm above left heel and 37 cm below the vertex.It is 4.5 cm lateral to midline and 19 cm from left shoulder tip.(emphasis supplied)This fact corroborates the testimonies of Ms. Archana (PW-7) and Mr. Ishwar Chand (PW-14) inasmuch as they both had heard a loud noise which was the gunshot that killed Sakshi.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 16 of 28THE APPELLANT-CONVICT'S CONTENTION THAT THE GUNSHOT WAS SELF-INFLICTED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS NO RESIDUE OF GUN POWDER WAS FOUND ON THE FINGERS AND HANDS OF THE DECEASED-SAKSHI.MOREOVER, NO SUCH SUGGESTION, LEAVE ALONE ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS ASPECT, WAS GIVEN TO THE BALLISTIC EXPERT OR THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR THE DOCTOR WHO CARRIED OUT THE POST MORTEM.In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is attracted to the present case and the burden was on the appellant-convict to show how Sakshi had died of a gunshot injury as the CRL.However, he had not only failed to explain Sakshi's unnatural death, he had even denied being present at the spot.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 17 of 28Consequently, this Court is of the view that the appellant-convict's failure to adduce any explanation regarding the death of Sakshi, despite being present at the place of incident, is an additional link which constitutes an important circumstance against the appellant-convict.THE FACT THAT THE BULLET THAT HAD HIT THE DECEASED- SAKSHI WAS NOT RECOVERED IS INCONSEQUENTIAL INASMUCH AS THE EMPTY CARTRIDGE RECOVERED FROM THE SPOT WAS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE PISTOL RECOVERED AT THE INSTANCE OF APPELLANT-CONVICT WAS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME IN THE PRESENT CASE.Further, the weapon of offence i.e. a country made pistol had been recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-19/H. The learned APP has correctly pointed out that the empty cartridge recovered from the scene of crime (vide seizure memo Ex.PW-22/E) had been shot from the aforesaid recovered pistol.CFSL Form No.: CFSL-CBI-ND-BALI-03 BIOLOGY DIVISION CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY (CBI), BLOCK-IV, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 18 of 28 Fire-Arm Examination Report No CFSL-2013/F-868 Dated 06/11/2013 To, The Addl.Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 18 of 28Reference: Case FIR/RC No.: 157/13 Dated: 10.05.2013, P.S./Branch: Vasant Vihar South District, New Delhi, Under Section: 302 IPC & 25 Arms Act.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxDate of commencement of examination : 02-09-2013 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxDescription of Parcel(s)/Exhibit(s) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Parcel no. 1: It contained a head of a .315/ 8 mm cartridge (marked C/1 by me).Parcel no. 2:- It contained following exhibits:-CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 19 of 28Senior Scientific Officer-II (Ballistics) CFSL, CBI, NEW DELHI (emphasis supplied) CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 20 of 28CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 20 of 28The appellant-convict's contention that deceased-Sakshi was a willing partner in the alleged relationship and that they loved each other is contrary to facts inasmuch as the father of deceased i.e. Mr. Pritam Singh (PW-3) had deposed that the appellant-convict was keen on marrying deceased-Sakshi, but she was not interested and the appellant-convict was pursuing her against her wishes.I came to know that accused Subhash had been tormenting my deceased daughter and stalking her all the time.I had a discussion with accused and tried to make him understand that my deceased daughter was hardly 17-18 years of age and she wanted to study further and there was a big age difference between him and my daughter.A. No.901/2018 Page 22 of 28 one bullet would have been sufficient to kill both the deceased-Sakshi and appellant-convict under the suicide-pact!CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 22 of 28Also if there was a suicide pact, then there was nothing to show that the pact stipulated that if the pistol got jammed, then the appellant-convict would not have killed himself!Further, the submission that the suggestion put by the learned counsel for appellant-convict during the cross-examination of Mr. Pritam Singh (PW-3) should be taken as a defence and be accepted is flawed inasmuch as the said defence amounts to admission on behalf of the appellant-convict to the extent that he was present at the spot, whereas the appellant-convict had denied the same in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.The conviction order and the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court are confirmed.CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 27 of 28MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J MAY 08, 2020 rn CRL.A. No.901/2018 Page 28 of 28CRL. A. No.901/2018 Page 28 of 28
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,555,978 |
The said FIR was registered at the instance of a young married woman (hereafter Ms 'A').She alleged that she, along with her infant, came to stay at her sister's home and her brother-in-law (the appellant herein) raped her on 27.01.2007, while her sister was away at work.A. 832/2017 Page 1 of 15The MLC also records that Ms A had stated that she had not taken a bath and had not changed her undergarments since the incident.The MLC indicates that Ms A had no injury on her body.It also records that on a general examination, there were no signs of any struggle.Her 'High Vaginal Swab' (hereafter 'HVS') was taken and the said swab along with the undergarments were sealed and handed over to W/Ct.Sandhya (who was examined as PW3).PW 3 had testified that she had taken Ms A to SGM Hospital for her medical examination and thereafter, two sealed pullandas and one sample seal of the hospital were given by the doctor and were received by her.She had also signed the MLC as acknowledgement of having received the two pullandas.She identified her signatures on the MLC (Ex.PW3/A).Ms A's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC was recorded on 03.02.2007 (Ex.PW13/E).She stated that she resides with her husband and they have a nine month old son.She stated that on CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 2 of 15 25.01.2007, her sister had come to their house along with her husband (the appellant herein) and had stayed over for a day.On the next date when her sister was leaving for their father's place at Jahangir Puri, she asked her (Ms A) to come along with her.She stated that her husband declined.Thereafter her sister asked her to come along with her as she wanted to show her, her new house at Jain Nagar.She stated that she along with her nine month infant accompanied her sister to her house at Jain Nagar.She stayed overnight at her sister's house.The next day, her sister had a show and she left.Her husband (the appellant herein) remained in the house and he forced himself on her and raped her.She screamed but he threatened to kill her.A. 832/2017 Page 2 of 15The accused (appellant) was charged on 14.09.2007 for raping Ms A. The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial.The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses.The appellant did not examine any witness for his defence.Before proceeding further, it is relevant to briefly examine the evidence led by various witnesses and the statement of the appellant.She identified the accused in open court.Ms A came back from the hospital at about 01:00 pm.Thereafter, she along with Ms A, her husband and Ct Joginder went to the spot at around 02:00 am.She denied that the place of the incident is surrounded by other houses.There are vacant plots near the place of the incident.The wife of the accused (sister of Ms A) was present in the house.She did not record the statement of the occupant of house no. A- 462 regarding the incident.She remained there for about three to four hours.She recorded the statement of the wife of the accused on the same day.She never visited the said house again.She denied there being a scuffle between Ms A and the wife of the accused.She denied that the house of the accused has glass windows or a mesh door (jali wala darwaja).She affirmed that she had not clicked any photographs of the spot (the room and the house).A. 832/2017 Page 3 of 15He stated that on 25.01.2007, his sister-in-law (sali) came to his house.On 26.01.2007, she took his wife along with their son to her house in Jain Nagar, despite his objections.On 27.01.2007, PW8 went to Jain Nagar to bring back his wife and at that time, he found her frightened.After they had returned, she informed him that her jija, Sunil @ Salim, had raped her.A. 832/2017 Page 4 of 15PW8 stated that he told this fact to his sali, however, she abused him.Thereafter, he along with Ms A, went to the police station on 29.01.2007 and Ms A's statement was recorded.PW8 correctly identified the accused in open court.In his cross-examination, he stated that the relations between his family and that of Ms A, were normal.She stated that on 25.01.2007, her sister along with her husband Sunil (the appellant) came to her house at Nihal Vihar and thereafter, she took her along with her son to their house at Jain Nagar.Ms A stated that she remained at their house for about two days.On 27.01.2007, at about 04:00 pm Ms A's sister left for her work.Ms A alleged that her jija (Sunil - the accused) remained at home and he did zabardasti with her.He dragged her to the bed and raped her.In the evening, PW13's husband came and took her home.She informed him about the incident upon reaching her house.On 29.01.2007, they reported the matter to the police.They did not report the incident on the same day as they felt ashamed (sharam ke maare).Ms A correctly identified the accused in court.In her cross-examination, she affirmed that her wedding took place on 21.11.2004 and it was a love marriage.She denied any knowledge regarding her sister's marriage being a love marriage or an arranged marriage.She stated that her husband was doing the work of nose-pin gold at the material time.Her husband would leave for work and would come back home after two to four days.She denied that her husband was involved in gambling.However, she volunteered that he used to indulge in gambling in the past but had left that and had started CRL.She affirmed that due to her husband's gambling habit, they had fallen in debt and their valuable items such as household goods, motorcycle etc. were mortgaged/pledged by her husband.She denied the suggestion that her husband had, through her asked for an amount of 80,000 to 85,000 from her sister.She stated that no altercation had taken place between her and her sister's family on their refusal to furnish the said amount.A. 832/2017 Page 5 of 15She stated that she did not notice whether her sister's house had glass panes.She stated that her sister worked as a dancer in a club.There was no fixed time of her going to work.She had not gone to work on 26.01.2007 but on 27.01.2007, she had gone for work at about 04:00 pm.She stated that her husband had not seen her sister's residence at Jain Nagar and her sister had given him that address.She stated that the incident took place after about 1-1.5 hours of her sister going to work.She affirmed that she tried to raise an alarm, however, the appellant had gagged her.She denied having biting, scratching, piercing the accused or pulling the accused's hair.She claimed that she tried to ward him off by pushing him away.Neither the clothes worn by her nor the clothes worn by the accused were torn in the process of the scuffle (khichatani).After the incident, she neither came out of the home nor raised any alarm.He stated that Ms A had come to his house out of her own volition.He stated that the allegation of the incident was false.He affirmed that Ms A's husband came in the evening and took her back with him.He stated that the police officials came to his house and took him to the police station without disclosing anything.He stated that when Ms A's husband came, he told her to make another cup of tea for him.First, she submitted that the timeline of events, as put forth by the prosecution, was improbable.Ms A had stated that her sister had left for her work at 04.00 PM and Ms A was allegedly raped after one hour/one and a half hour thereafter.The alleged offence continued for 15 to 20 minutes and, Ms A's husband had come to take her back at about 6.00/6.15 PM.In the meanwhile, Ms A had also changed her clothes.Whereas, Ms A had stated that they tried to call her sister but could not reach her; Ms A's husband testified that he had informed her about the offence but she had abused him.She contended that it is highly unbelievable that a person who has been raped by her brother-in-law would file a complaint with the Police without informing any of the family members.She further contended that there is an inconsistency as to when Ms A changed into the clothes of her sister.According to her she had changed her clothes when her husband came to fetch her but during her MLC, which was conducted three days later she stated that she was wearing the same undergarments as on the date of the incident and had not taken a bath.Lastly, she contended that Ms A's sister's residential unit consisted of only two rooms but the site plan indicated that there were three rooms and therefore, the other room was, obviously, occupied by one Aunty, who Ms A had affirmed that she lived in the vicinity.However, Ms A had not mentioned the incident to her despite the Aunty being present in the next room or close by.She also stated that the room where the incident had allegedly taken place had three windows, which looked on to terraces/open space where women would normally sit out CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 8 of 15 in the sun as the incident had occurred in the peak of winter.Reasons and ConclusionShe had testified that her sister along with her husband had come to her house at Nihal Vihar and thereafter, had taken her along, to their house at Jain Nagar.She testified that she remained in their house for about two days.She stated that on 21.01.2007 at about 04:00 pm, she along with her son (aged around 1 years) were present at the house.Her sister had left for her work.She testified that her brother-in-law (jija) was present in the house and he had forced himself on her (zabardasti).She stated that he had dragged her to the bed and raped her.She stated that in the evening her husband came to take her back.She narrated the incident to him after reaching her home.She stated that on 29.01.2007, she reported the matter to the police.Ms A was cross-examined.In her cross-examination, she stated that at the time of the incident she was wearing pajama and kamiz (night CRL. A. 832/2017 Page 9 of 15 dress).She stated that she had taken a bath prior to the incident and after taking a bath she had worn the same clothes in which she had come to the house of her sister.She stated that the pajama and kamiz which she wore in the night belonged to her sister.A specific question was put to her as to when did she wear the pajama and kamiz.She stated that she had worn the same after her sister had left for work.There is lack of clarity in regard to the clothes worn by Ms A on that day.On one hand, she had stated that at the time of the incident she was wearing pajama and kamiz which according to her belonged to her sister.In the same breath, she had stated that she had taken a bath prior to the incident and after taking the bath, she had worn the same clothes in which she had come to the house of her sister.This is because at the time of her medical examination, she had reported that she had not had a bath after the incident and also had not changed her undergarments.It is also admitted that none of the clothes that were worn by her at the material time were torn.Thus, the undergarments worn by her at the time of the incident or immediately thereafter were available.Apart from the above, there are certain minor inconsistencies in the statements of Ms A: statement as recorded on 27.01.2007; statement under Section 164 Cr.PC recorded on 3.02.2007 and; her testimony.In her initial statement, she had stated that her sister along with her husband had come to their house on 25.01.2007 and had stayed there for the night.When they were leaving on 26.01.2007, her sister had CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 10 of 15 asked her to accompany them to see her room (karma dekh lena).She stated that despite her husband telling her not to go, she had accompanied her sister to her house and she had also carried her child with her.In her statement which was recorded on 03.02.2007 under Section 164 Cr.VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe appellant has filed the present appeal, inter alia, impugning a judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The appellant also impugns the order dated 25.07.2017, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of 75,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with a case arising from FIR No. 156/07 under Section 376 of the IPC registered CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 1 of 15 with PS Sultan Puri.She testified that on 29.01.2007, Ms A came to the police station along with her husband at about 10:00 pm and she recorded her statement.She sent Ms A to the hospital along CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 3 of 15 with WCt.She met the accused in the morning near his house but not at his house.She denied that the accused met PW1 along with his wife, when she met his wife at her house.The accused was sent for a medical examination with Ct Joginder.PW1 denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix (Ms A) demanded 85,000 from the accused and his wife.She denied that on such refusal, Ms A had filed a false case against the accused.A. 832/2017 Page 5 of 15 nose-pin work.She informed her husband regarding the incident.She stated that she changed her clothes by the time her husband came.She did not sustain any bruises or injury.She denied the suggestion that she had told other family members about the incident.A. 832/2017 Page 6 of 15The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.He stated that Ms A's husband also interacted with the neighbours.He stated that the case was filed against him because Ms A's husband wanted 80,000 to 85,000, but he was not in a position to part with such an amount.She submitted that Ms A's husband would have arrived barely minutes after the incident but Ms A had testified that he had come to her sister's place later in the evening, thus indicating that he came to the house much after the incident had taken place.She contended that it is impossible for Ms A's CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 7 of 15 husband not to have noticed anything if Ms. A had been forcibly raped a few minutes prior to his arrival.A. 832/2017 Page 7 of 15Thus, it is unbelievable that they would not have heard any commotion if the offence had taken place as alleged.PC, she stated that her sister had told her that she was going to their father's house at Jahangir Puri.In her testimony, she simply stated that her sister had taken her along, to their house at Jain Nagar.A. 832/2017 Page 10 of 15It was also pointed out that in her initial statement recorded on 29.01.2007 (on the basis of which the FIR was registered), Ms A did not mention that she had resisted the accused at the time of the incident.However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, she stated that she screamed and on her doing so, the appellant had threatened to kill her.In her examination-in-chief, she did not mention about any threat held out by the appellant or that she had tried to raise an alarm or had offered any resistance.She simply stated that the appellant had done 'zabardasti' with her.She further explained that by zabardasti she meant that he had dragged her to the bed and raped her.But, in her cross-examination, she stated that she tried to raise an alarm but the accused had placed his hand on her mouth.She also stated that she did not scratch or pull the hair of the accused but she volunteered that she tried to ward him off by pushing him away.She further testified that the entire occurrence took about 15-20 minutes and the accused had kept his hand on her mouth throughout the said period.A. 832/2017 Page 11 of 15In addition to the above inconsistencies, it was also pointed out that Ms A's testimony was not consistent with the testimony of her husband (who was examined as PW8).Whereas Ms A stated that she did not inform her sister about the incident either from the mobile of her husband or by telephone from any other place; PW8 (Ms A's husband) testified that he had told Ms A's sister regarding the incident but she started abusing him and thereafter, he along with his wife had gone to the police station where his wife's statement was recorded.However, she has attempted to give two different explanations for the same.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, she stated that CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 12 of 15 she had screamed but the accused had threatened to kill her.In her cross-examination she stated that he had placed his hand on her mouth and therefore, she could not scream.This discrepancy is not sufficient to raise any doubt regarding whether the appellant had committed the offence as alleged.A. 832/2017 Page 12 of 15Even if Ms A is not considered a sterling witness, there is also evidence that corroborates her testimony: the FSL Report.The FSL Report indicates that human semen was found on Ex.1 (vaginal swab of the prosecutrix) and on Ex.2 (undergarment of the prosecutrix).In addition, blood was also detected on Ex.2 (undergarments of the prosecutrix).Human semen was also found on Ex.3 (underwear of the accused).The Report indicates that the human semen found in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and her underwear were from a person with the same blood group - A Blood Group - as the person whose semen was found on the underwear of the accused.Since a DNA Profile was not generated from the said exhibits, it cannot be conclusively established that the semen found on the vaginal swab of Ms A and on her undergarments was that of the appellant.However, it has been established that it was of the same blood group as that of the accused.This corroborates with the allegation made by Ms A that the appellant had CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 13 of 15 engaged in a sexual intercourse with her.In the given circumstances, her testimony that the appellant had done so without her consent must be accepted.A. 832/2017 Page 13 of 15It is also relevant to note that the appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence.However, his case as is apparent from the suggestions given to various witnesses and his statement recorded under Section 313, is that the petitioner's husband had asked him for 80,000- 85000/- which he had refused to give and this led Ms A to falsely implicate him.According to the appellant, no such incident as alleged had happened.The defence as sought by the appellant is clearly unpersuasive and not sufficient to raise any doubts as to the case set up by the prosecution.There is no evidence of any enmity between Ms A and her sister or their respective husbands.Merely because the appellant refused to lend money clearly offers no reason to implicate him in a false case particularly when such implication does not benefit Ms A or her husband in any manner but on the contrary would adversely affect Ms A's reputation.The delay in filing the FIR has also been sufficiently explained.They had not reported the incident on the very next day as according to Ms A she felt ashamed, but finally on the next day i.e. on 29.01.2007, they had decided to report the incident.A. 832/2017 Page 14 of 15The contention that the evidence on record indicated that one Aunty was living in the adjoining room where the offence was committed is clearly without merit.There is no evidence on record to indicate that any person other than the petitioner's sister and her husband were residing in their residential premises.The site map (Ex PW1/D) does indicate that there were three rooms, however, the site map is not precise and the nature of the three rooms is not discernable.Ms A had testified that there was one Aunty living in the 'vicinity'.The same cannot be construed to mean that she was living in the next room.The contention that there would have been women sunning themselves outside the windows of the room where the offence was committed, is also speculative and there is no evidence to establish that at the given point of time there was anybody outside the window of the room where the offence was committed.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.All pending applications are also disposed of.VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 RK CRL.A. 832/2017 Page 15 of 15A. 832/2017 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
845,578 |
Bhagwan Sing happeals against his conviction and sentences.(2) The appellant lives in Gali Paharwali, Pahari Dheeraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.One 0m Parkash alias Khalifa deceased also used to live in the same locality.Khalifa and the appellant were at daggers drawn.Khalifa was murdered and the appellant was prosecuted for this murder.Ram Bhadur Thapa (deceased) and his brother Krishan Bahadur Thapa Public Witness Pw, who were living in Gali Jattan nearby, used to go to court with the supporters of Khalifa deceased to watch appellant's trial.The appellant was acquitted in that case.(3) It is the case of the prosecution that on July, 26, 1975 at aboat 4 P.M. Krisban Bahadur Thapa Public Witness .was going on Sadar Nala Road for his house.When he reached near the corner of Gali Pabarwali the appellant met him.The appellant abused him and threatened to teach him a lesson for p (4) At the hospital Dr. Bhupinder Nath (Public Witness 7), Casualty Medical Officer, examined Ram Bahadur Thapa at 5 P.M. He found the injured fully conscious.On local examination the doctor noticed "(1) Incised wound left lumber region, size about 1 " x "" x ? (2) Another incised wound in the right gluteal region 1" x "" x ?".The doctor sent the injured to male surgical ward for emergency operation and treatment.Autopsy was hold the same day by Dr. Bishnu Kumar (PW 21).In addition to the operational wounds and the bed sores, this doctor found that the injury in the abdomen had "entered the abdominal wall in the abdominal cavity and injured the intestines." Injury in the buttock had "entered the pelvic cavity through the secro-sciatic notch and then caused the cut in the rectum" The depth of this injury was about 6 cm.In the opinion of the doctor the death was "due to peritonIT is subsequent upon stab wounds abdomen and pelvic region" because of these injuries.He also opined that both these injuries were individually as well as collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.(5) Constable Kaptan Singh (Public Witness 19) was on duty at the hospital when Ram Bahadur Thapa was brought to the casualty.He telephoned Police-Station Sadar Bazar and informed them about the admission of the injured.Sub-Inspector C.S. Dahiya was directed to investigate.The Sub-inspector went to the hospital and on being informed that Ram Bahadur Thapa was not fit to make a statement, recorded the statement of Krishan Bahadur Thapa and sent the same for registration of a case under section 307, Indian Penal Code.He handed over further investigation to Sub-inspector Noor Ahmed (Public Witness 22).(6) Sub Inspector Noor Ahmed went to the scene of crime at about 10 P.M. He joined Krishan Bahadur in the investigation and recorded the Statements of Mohinder Pal and Om Parkash.He searched for the accused but failed to trace him.On August 5, 1975 the Sub-Inspector came to know about the death of Ram Bahadur Thapa.After holding an inquest, he sent the body for post-mortem examination.(7) On September 23, 1975 Sub-Inspector Mazahar Hussain received a secret information about the appellant and organized a picket at Pul Bhangash.At 5.45 P.M. or so the appellant was noticed coming from the Side of Subzi Mandi.He was apprehended.His person was searched and knife Exhibit P-11 Along with its sheeth Exhibit Public Witness Public Witness was recovered and taken into possession.The incident had taken place at 4.30 P.M. in the month of July.This is a time when good amount of traffic is passing on the road.JUDGMENT V.D. Misra, J.(1) Bhagwan Singh appellant has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Ram Babadur Thapa and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Mr. K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.A case under section 25 of the Arms Act knife Exhibit PI.After Completing the investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, and section 25 of the Arms Act.(8) The defense of the accused was one of total denial.He alleges that he has been roped in because of old enmity.(9) Mr. O.P. Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant assails the statements of eye-witnesses and submits that they had deposed against the appellant because of enmity.Mohinder Pal and 0m Parkash Public Witness PWs.are stated to be partisan witnesses who fall in the category of chance witnesses also.He challenges the place of crime because no blood was found at that place.(10) The evidence shows that there was an old enmity between Khalifa and the appellant.Krishan Bahadur Thapa admittedly belonged to party of Khalifa.Krishan Bahadur had in 1968 been prosecuted at Gurgaon under section 61 of the Excise Act and was imprisoned till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs.40.00 .Though he was convicted on August 4, 1971 under section 452/506, Indian Penal Code, he was acquitted in appeal.Once a case under section 324, Indian Penal Code, was also registcred against him.Om Parkash lives in the same building in which Krishan Bahadur lives.The house of Mohinder Pal's uncle is next to this building.All the three are friends.Krishan Bahadur was prosecuted Along with Mohinder Pal in a case under section 452/506, Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted in appeal.Mohinder Pal was also hauled up in a theft case of Police-Station Gandhi Nagar.(11) The enmity between Krishan Bahadur Thapa and the appellant was an old standing one.At one time the appellant was prosecuted under section 307, Indian Penal Code, on the complaint of this witness, but the appellant was acquitted.Before judgment of acquittal was announced in the Khalifa murder case, the appellant made an application to the trial court slating that the complainant party was threatening to "see him outside the court room if acquilted." The name of Krishan Bahadur was one of the names mentioned in that appeal.(12) Now enmity is a double-edged word.It can be a motive to involve falsely one's enemy and it can also be a motive for killing an adversary.In this case it is obvious that there was had blood between the appellant and Krishan Bahadur Thapa.The other two witnesses being close friends of Krishan Bahadur Thapa can be termed as partisan witnesses.In these circumstances we would very closely scrutinize the statements of all the witnesses.We may also at this stage notice that in a fight involving desperadoes, no independent person usually wants to risk his neck by coming forward to depose about the facts.(13) We will first take up the question of the place of crime.According to Mr. Malviya, since no blood was found on the alleged scene of crime, it should be concluded that the stabbing did not take place there.Sadar Nala Road is admittedly a busy thoroughfare.Information sent from the Irwin Hospital by Constable Kaptan Singh to police-station Sadar Bazar was received at 7.10 P.M. at the Police-Station.This information was coveyed to Sub-Inspector Dahiya at 7.20 P.M. Thus a period of three hours had elapsed before the police went into action.It took another two and a half hours before the police arrived on the scene.During this time there was nobody to guard the scene of crime and the blood, if any, would have been Wiped out by the traffic.Moreover, all the witnesses are unanimous that the injured did not fall after receiving the injuries but sat down on the road.The condition of the injured when he was examined by Dr. Bhupinder Narh at the hospital, does not show sympatoms of much loss of blood.It is true that the witnesses do state that blood fell on the scene of crime, but at 10 P.M. when Sub-Inspector Noor Ahmed inspected the place of crime he did not notice any blood.It is also true that the witnesses do talk of seeing blood lying at that place when they were summoned there by Sub-Inspector Noor Ahmad.But, in our opinion, this can be termed only as a mis-conception.As already stated, about 5" hours had elapsed before the police arrived on the scene of crime and it was highly improbable to find any blood because of the place being a busy thoroughfare.In these circumstances, the absence of blood on the scene of crime would not affect the prosecution case.(14) It is contended that Krishan Bahadur Thapa did not accompany his injured brother to the hospital.In this connection the statements of Constable Kaptan Singh (Public Witness 19) and Dr. Bhupinder Nath (Public Witness 7) are referred to.Now medicolegal certificate (Exhibit Public Witness PW7/A) has a column for "Name of relative or friend" bringing the injured to the hospital.In this column the name of Krishan Bahadur Thapa is mentioned.There is also a column for the name of injured's father.In this column the name of the father of the injured is written.The doctor admits that he did not fill these two columns.He states: In case where the information pertaining to the above referred columns is not readily available to the doctor conducting the examination at that particular time, those columns are left blank and normally they are filled up by the constable on duty subsequently on getting such information.2 Constable Kaptan Singh (Public Witness 19) states that he had filled these two columns.He swears that he had made these entries immediately after the doctor had conducted the medico-legal examination of the injured.He states: "The doctor asked me to fill in the above said entires after verification from the person who had brought the injured to the hospital.Accordingly, I asked about the above said particulars from the person who had brought the injured Ram Bahadur Thapa." The constable identified Krishan Bahadur Thapa as the person who had given him those particulars.(15) It is unfortunate indeed that the job of entering those particulars has been left by the doctor to the constable on duty.The medico-legal certificate is a very important document and, in our opinion, it must always be completed by the doctor.However, it is possible that when there is a rush of patients in the Casualty, the doctor may have to give priority to attending the patients instead of spending time to find out the particulars.. Be that as it may, we see no reason in this case to disbelieve that the entries were not duly filled in immediately after the injured had been examined by the doctor.(16) Grievance is also made of the fact that Constable Kaptan Singh did not inform the police-station soon after the admission of the injured at 5.00 P.M. and took two hours to send this information at 7.10 P.M. We have gone through the statement of Constable Kaptan Singh.We find that no one questioned the constable about the delay in informing the police- station, It is not suggested to us that the constable was in fact not present on duty at the hospital.It is, however, conjectured by Mr.Malviya that perhaps the constable was waiting for the arrival of some relation of the injured and was not willing to inform the police-station till then.We would not be justified in condemning the constable for this delay since he was not asked about the delay.After all the constable might have a perfect answer for the delay e.g. the telephone of the hospital or of the police-station being out of order.Moreover, the constable had no axe to grind in delaying the information.He was a disinterested person and had no reason for not performing his duties in the normal course.(17) The statement of Krishan Bahadur Thapa is assailed on the ground that in case he had witnessed the stabbing of his brother, he would have informed the police immediately since the police-station was at a distance of about 3 or 4 furlongs from the scene of crime.This witness admits that while going to the hospital he did pass police-station Sadar Bazar.However, he states that he never thought of stopping at the PoliceStation to report the incident before proceeding to the hospital.In our opinion, this was a natural behavior.The first priority in such cases must be to take the injured to the hospital immediately in order to save a life.; Every moment is precious and no time has to be lost in getting the medical attention.The moment Krishan Bahadur Thapa reached the Casualty Ward of the Hospital, he met Constable Kaptan Singh.In these circumstances he justified in assuming that the police would perform its duty in due., course.(18) It is also contended that had Krishan Bahadur been threatened by the appellant at 4 P.M. that day he should have straightway gone to the police-station to report instead of going to his house and discussing the matter with his brother.The witness explains that the distance to his house and to the police-station from the place of the incident which took place at 4 P.M. is the same.In these circumstances, there was nothing strange in the witness discussing the matter with his brother and thereafter going with him to the police-station to lodge a report.(19) Minor contradictions in the statement of this witness in the court and his police statement Exhibit P.A. have been highlighted before us.Whereas in the court he talked of directing Mohinder Pal and Om Parkash to inform his family about the incident, he did not tell the police about it.Again, as in the court he talks about lifting his injured brother and putting him in a scooter with the help of Mohinder Pal and 0m Parkash, be did not say so in his statement Exhibit P A. Similarly he did not tell the police that in the earlier incident at 4 P.M. the appellant had hurled filthy abuses.In our opinion, these contradictions are such as are likely to occur in the statements of only truthful witness.These are minor details indeed and might not be given importance by a witness in his police-statement.Having closely scrutinized the statement of Krishan Bahadur Thapa we find no reason to disbelieve him.We may repeat that the enmity was between the appellant and Krishan Bahadur Thapa.This is evidence also from the application Exhibit D-1 made by the appellant before the court in which the appellant was being tried for the murder of Khalifa.In this application various names, including the name of Krishan Babadur Thapa, have been specifically mentioned.The name of Ram Bahadur Thapa, is conspicuous by its absence.In these circumstarces the target of the attack was bound to be Krishan Bahadur Thapa and Ram Bahadur Thapa received the injuries while saving his brother.(20) Om Parkash Public Witness PW" as already noticed, resides in the same building in which Krishan Bahadur lives.His presence at the scer.e of crime cannot be termed accidental since his house is not very far away from the place of incident.He had gone to the shop of betel seller when he witnessed the occurrence.He fully supports the prosecution version.He has been believed by the trial Judge and we see no reason to take a different view.(21) Mohinder Pal's presence is challenged on the ground that he is a resident of Gandhi Nagar which is a very far off locality across the Jamuna.But till 1965 he was residing in the same Gali in which lives Krishan Bhadur Thapa.The house of his uncle Ram Dass adjoins the building in which Krishan Bahadur lives.He is in the habit of going to that house almost every day.While going to his uncle's house he had stopped at the betelseller's shop at the crossing for buying cigarettes.He has frankly admitted his friendship with Krishan Bahadur Thapa as well as the various prosecutions which were launched against him by the police.There is nothing: on record to show that he was ever convicted.It may be noticed that this witness is a goldsmith by profession and his ancestral shop is situated in Gali Mandirwali in the locality in which the occurrence took place.In fact, the distance between Gali Mandirwali and Gali Jattan is about 35/40 feet.No grievance can, therefore, be made of the fact that this witness was residing at Gandhi Nagar across the Jamuna and could not be present at the scene of crime.We, therefore, see no reason to take a view different from that of the trial Judge.(22) The arrest of the appellant and the recovery of knife Exhibit P I from him are assailed on the ground that no independent person was joined at the time of the arrest and the recovery.It is in evidence that for practigaily a period of two months after the date of crime the appellant was not traceable.OnSeptember23, 1975 the police had organized a picket in Chowk Azad Market on the basis of a secret information.They had waited for about half an hour before the appellant was seen passing that day.Now organizing a picket for the apprehension of an accused wanted in a murder case has to be kept a closely guarded secret indeed.And then persons from the public are very reluctant to join such a picket.No one would like to run the risk of deposing against a murderer who had been absconding.It is suggested that the appellant was in fact arrested the sane morning while on his way to the courts for surrendering himself.We would, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentences of the appellant and dismiss the appeal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,561,787 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this First application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dharnavada, District Guna, in connection with Crime No.379/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506 of the IPC.As per prosecution story, on the date of incident, at about 11 AM, the complainant along with her son Shahzade (since deceased) and her daughter-in-law Lekhra Bai were going on a Motorcycle to a dispensary for medical treatment.On the way, the applicant along with co-accused armed with weapons tried to stop them, but when the complainant party did not stop, the accused persons fired gun shot, due to which, the complainant party fell down on the earth.Thereafter, the applicant along with co-accused surrounded them and the deceased Shahzade was caught hold by the applicant Raj and co-accused persons Ramgopal, Yuvraj, etc. while co-accused Rocky Pardi fired gun shot on the head of the deceased Shahzade, due to which, he died on the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Yuvraj Pardi Vs.State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 28829/2019 spot.Thereafter, when the complainant screamed loudly, the accused persons ran away from the spot, hurling life threats.On the basis of aforesaid, the present applicant has been implicated in the present case.2 M.Cr.C. No. 28829/2019Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated.PW4 and PW5, who are the eye-witnesses, have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.Allegation of firing is against Rocky, therefore, no offence under section 302, IPC is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 20/09/2018 and early conclusion of trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Yuvraj Pardi Vs.State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 28829/2019 only) with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.3 M.Cr.C. No. 28829/2019as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* SANJAY N.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
|
84,567,770 |
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail.It is alleged, in the FIR, that, between 11 a.m. and 12 noon on 16th May, 2020, Kuldeep Sejwal, who was the landlord of the premises at F-213/C, 2nd Floor, Old M.B. Road, Lado Sarai, Delhi, arrived with six or seven bouncers, who broke out the door of the said premises and assaulted, inter alia, the complainant Sachin Dev as well as other Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.08.2020 BAIL APPLN.2112/2020 Page 1 of 6 13:58:51 persons located therein, including the wife of the proprietor of the establishment, Mrs. Navmallika.It is also alleged that the said group of persons destroyed the office furniture and threatened to kill the complainant.Signing Date:18.08.2020 BAIL APPLN.2112/2020 Page 1 of 6It is further alleged that the said group of persons tore the dress of Mrs. Navmallika and misbehaved with her and attacked the complainant with a sharp instrument.The name of the applicant does not figure in the said FIR; however, consequent to information received subsequently, he has been arrayed as an accused in the said offences.During investigation, Kuldeep Sejwal, the main accused, i.e., the landlord of the premises, was arrested.He applied for bail, vide Bail Appln.A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 8th June, 2020, granted regular bail to Kuldeep Sejwal, inter alia, on the ground that the assaults suffered were merely simple in nature, i.e., lacerations in the elbow and injuries on the forehead.This Court noted that charge-sheet is yet to be filed and trial would take time.Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State, does not dispute the fact that, in the present FIR, the main accused was Kuldeep Sejwal, and that, on merits, the case of the applicant cannot be treated as more severe than that of Kuldeep Sejwal.At the same time, she impresses, on the court, the fact that the applicant was in the habit of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.08.2020 BAIL APPLN.2112/2020 Page 2 of 6 13:58:51 providing bouncers to vacate premises, and submits, therefore, this Court should keep this factor in mind, while considering the request of the applicant.2112/2020 Page 2 of 6In any event, she submits, even if anticipatory bail were to be granted to the applicant, he ought to be directed to cooperate with the investigative process and respond to any summons issued to him in that regard.Consequent on the passing of the aforesaid order, dated 8th June, 2020, by this Court in Kuldeep Sejwal v. State (Bail Appln.997/20), three of the co-accused persons, whose cases are indistinguishable from that of the applicant, were granted anticipatory bail, by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saket, vide order dated 7th July, 2020, which reads thus:"07.07.2020 Present: Sh.Nischal Singh, Ld.PP for the State.Rajesh Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.These are the three applications for bail filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC by the three different applicants arising out of the same FIR bearing no. 202/2020 whereby applicants seek protection from this court from being arrested.Counsel for the applicants submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.They have nothing to do with the present case.They were persuaded by their known person for participating in the event organized by them.He submitted they have no role to play at the crime.They have further submitted that injury sustained to the complainant is simple in nature.Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait while granting bail to the main accused Kuldeep Signature Not Verified Sejwal had observed that injuries were lacerations on the Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.08.2020 BAIL APPLN.2112/2020 Page 3 of 6 13:58:51 elbow and forehead of the complainant which were simple in nature as per the MLC and injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day.Signing Date:18.08.2020 BAIL APPLN.2112/2020 Page 3 of 6On the other hand, Ld. Addl.PP for the State accompanied with the investigating officer has opposed the prayer stating that though the applicants have joined the investigation, but they have given the contradictory statement for their presence at the spot.They submitted that they are henchman brought at the spot by one Kuldeep Dadhwal who wanted to get vacated the property from the complainant.I have heard the arguments at bar.Considering the fact that the main applicant who had brought the applicant at the spot had been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and nothing has to be recovered from the applicants, all the three applicants are ordered to be admitted on bail in the event of their arrest subject to furnishing the personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each along with two surety of a like amount to the satisfaction of IO/ SHO of PS concerned.A copy of this order be uploaded on the website as well as sent to the counsel for the applicant and IO.A copy of this order is placed in each of the case file.(Atul Kumar Garg) Additional District & Sessions Judge South District/Saket Courts, New Delhi/07.07.2020"No doubt, the learned trial court has, in the case of the present applicant, rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail, vide order dated 23rd July, 2020; however, the ground on which the prayer has been rejected does not commend itself readily to acceptance, as the observation, of the learned trial court, that the role of the present applicant is "totally different" from that of the other accused, is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.08.2020 BAIL APPLN.The applicant is also directed to cooperate with the investigations and to respond to the summons, as and when called.In the event of any want of cooperation, by the applicant, during the investigation process, or any misuse by the applicant of the facility of anticipatory bail granted to him, this facility would be liable to be withdrawn, and the State would be at liberty to move this Court in that regard.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.08.2020 BAIL APPLN.2112/2020 Page 5 of 6 13:58:51The applicant is also directed not to leave the territory of Delhi without obtaining prior permission by this Court, and to furnish, to the SHO, PS Saket, during the course of the day, the Mobile numbers of two responsible persons, who can be contacted at any time, by the police authorities, should the need arise.These mobile numbers would be kept active, during the course of the investigation.Subject to the above directions, the application is allowed.C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,569,838 |
M.P.Nos.5530 & 5531 of 2020 17.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/82.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner is named in the FIR, his rank has not been mentioned.The petitioner has been impleaded as an accused only on the statement recorded from the first and second accused.According to the confession statement, the first and second accused, as per the instruction of the petitioner herein, they have taken river sand from Palar river without any permission or license.He further submitted that the petitioner is the Civil Contract worker under the Public Work Department as well as the Highways Department.Therefore, he is no way connected with the other accused persons and only due to vengeance ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.No.14488 of 2020 against the petitioner, the other accused persons have falsely implicated the petitioner in the crime committed by them.Therefore, he sought for quashment of the FIR.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the FIR was registered only on 27.08.2020 and investigation is pending with the first respondent.Though the petitioner has been implicated as an accused on the statement recorded from the first and second accused, after investigation only it will come to light whether the petitioner had instructed the first and second accused to take river sand from Palar river or not.Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.5.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.6.There are totally four accused one Manikandan and Karthik are ranked as first and second accused insofar as the petitioner and another one Samual, they are not ranked as accused in the FIR.On a perusal of the FIR and the statement recorded from the first and second accused, the petitioner has been implicated ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.No.14488 of 2020 an accused.According to the first and second accused, as instructed by the petitioner herein, they have taken river sand from the Palar river.Therefore, there is a specific overtact as against the petitioner herein.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.The second respondent is directed to file a final report accordingly within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the jurisdiction Magistrate.Further till the filing of final report the petitioner shall not be arrested.10.With the above direction this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.17.09.2020 Internet:Yes Speaking/Non speaking order vsnhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.No.14488 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J vsn To1.The Inspector of Police, Sathuvacheri Police Station, Vellore District.2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathuvacheri Police Station, Vellore District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.14488 of 2020 and Crl.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,575,706 |
Sl No.17 b.das Allowed CRM 698 of 2020 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.01.20 in connection with Nalhati P.S. Case No.277 of 2019 dated 11.08.2019 under Sections 147/148/149/325/307/332/333/186/353/427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act and Section 8(B) of the National Highway Act.And In Re: Mir Meheabubul Haque @ Mir Mehebubul Haque & Ors.... ... Petitioners.Ms. Minoti Gomes Mr. Md. Zeeshanuddin ... for the Petitioner.Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ... ... for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no overt act has been attributed to them by any of the witnesses.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that police personnel had been assaulted and were hospitalized.No doubt the allegations are grave.However, it appears that the injured witnesses have not named the petitioners as their assailants.Statements of other witnesses appear to be hearsay in nature.Hence, we are inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as 2 laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on condition that the petitioners shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,580,800 |
BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 125/2018, under Sections 323/341/354/354A/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, W.P.(Crl.) 290/2020 Page 1 of 3 1860, registered at P.S.: Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.W.P.(Crl.) 290/2020 Page 1 of 3Learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State submits that the petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 4 are neighbours.A dispute over a trivial issue led to the registration of the aforementioned FIR against the petitioners.Learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State submits that there is a cross FIR No. 130/2018 under Sections 323/341/34 registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi.Respondent nos. 2 to 4 reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that they have amicably settled their dispute without any pressure or coercion from any source whatsoever.Respondent nos.2 to 4 have further submitted that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed and the petition is allowed.W.P.(Crl.) 290/2020 Page 2 of 3In view of the above settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the parties entangled in the criminal proceedings.Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 125/2018, under Sections 323/341/354/354A/354B/506/34 of the IPC registered at P.S.: Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.Petition stands disposed of accordingly.(BRIJESH SETHI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2020 savita W.P.(Crl.) 290/2020 Page 3 of 3W.P.(Crl.) 290/2020 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,582,755 |
In brief, it is the case of prosecution that,both the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention,committed house trespass to commit robbery in the house ofPW-18 Rupesh s/o.Dayaji Bariya @ Patel and in the course ofsame transaction, committed murder of his wife deceasedPriti and attempted to commit murder of their son Bhavya.PW-Rupesh Bariya was having a small unit manufacturingSoda water at Bhandara and at the time of incident, was::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 5 Conf4.18.odtresident of Samrudhi Nagar, Plot No.5, Takiya ward,Bhandara.He was residing with his wife, aged 30 years andminor son Bhavya, aged 8 years.Both the appellants beingAir Conditioner Mechanics working within Bhandara township,were familiar with the Bariya family as, prior to incident, theyhad visited their house for repairing Air Conditioner.In thebackground of above, it is the case of prosecution that, on30.7.2015, Bhavya, after visiting his father's unit, returnedback home at around 7.15 p.m. by his cycle.PW-Rupeshfollowed him and reached the house at about 8.00 p.m. andranged the door bell.However, the same was not responded.Thus, he pushed the door which was not latched from insideto notice that his son Bhavya was lying in a pool of blood inthe front room having bleeding injuries on his head.On hisentering the kitchen room in the house, PW-Rupesh saw thathis wife Priti lying on the floor in a pool of blood havingsustained bleeding injuries.He also noticed that house holdarticles from his bed room were lying scattered.Havingshocked on witnessing the scene, he informed about it onphone to his brother Jitubhai, who immediately arrived in hishouse along with other relatives and arranged to shift boththe victims to Civil hospital, Bhandara.The doctors at the::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 6 Conf4.18.odthospital gave information to police.On the basis of report(Exh.32) lodged by PW-1 Mahesh s/o.Girdharlal Ruparel,offence came to be registered vide Crime No.224 of 2015(Printed F.I.R. at Exh.33) under Sections 307 and 452 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code by PW-24 Jivandas s/o.Namdeo Lakde, P.S.I. against unknown persons, whoimmediately visited the spot and in presence of panchas,drew Spot Panchanama (Exh.37) and collected incriminatingarticles from the spot under Seizure Panchanamas (Exh. Nos.38 and 39).At that time, PW-Lakde, P.S.I. arranged for FingerPrint Expert, who was already in Bhandara in connection withanother crime, who collected chance finger prints found onthe mirror and handle of cupboard in the bed room.AsBhavya was unconscious, his statement could not be recordedon the day of incident.It is further case of prosecution that both theappellants were already in police custody in Crime No.223 of215 for attempting to commit murder of one Ashwini Shinde,which was registered on the same day i.e. on 30.7.2015 at1.30 p.m., which was also investigated by PW-Kolwadkar P.I.in which, on interrogating appellant no.1 Amir, he madedisclosure to produce hammer, his clothes, cash andornaments involved in present Crime No.224 of 2015, whichwas reduced into writing proved on record (as per Exh.50).Inpursuance to such Memorandum Statement, appellant no.1Amir led police and panchas to his house and removed oneblack coloured rexine bag kept on iron cupboard and from thesaid bag, produced one scarf, one shirt having blood stains onboth of its sleeves, one jeans pant having blood stains on itsthigh portion, currency notes of Rs.1,73,000/- in differentdenominations, yellow and white metal ornaments consistingof ear tops, one silver locket, ring, idol of Lord Ganesh etc.,::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 8 Conf4.18.odtwhich came to be seized under Panchanama (Exh.51).::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::On the same day, on 5.8.2015, PW-23Gaurav s/o.Krishnarao Gawande, A.P.I., recordedMemorandum Statement of appellant no.2 Sachin (proved atExh.58) to discover three silver coins and cash of Rs.10,000/-.In pursuance of said Memorandum Statement, appellant no.2Sachin led police to his house and produced one tin boxwherefrom he took out currency notes in variousdenominations and three silver coins, which were seizedunder Panchanama (Exh.59).During the course of investigation, PW-Kolwadkar, P.I., after bringing of the seized articles in thePolice Station, arranged for a Jeweller PW-11 Anil s/o.Ashokrao Maske who, on verifying the ornaments, issuedCertificate (Exh.82).PW-Kolwadkar, P.I. issued requisitionmemos (Exh.91 and 101) to Medical Officer making query ifthe injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured werepossible by hammer, to which query, opinions are received(vide Exh. Nos.92 and 102) on the back side of requisitionletters itself.On 10.8.2015, since involvement of both theappellants was found in present Crime no.224 of 2015, theirarrest was effected under Arrest panchanams (Exh.148 and149), who were already in custody in Crime No.223 of 2015.Statement of injured Bhavya could not be recorded as,according to opinion of Medical Officer, he was still unable tomake statement.Seized muddemal articles were forwarded toChemical Analyser under Requisition memo (Exh.65), of whichacknowledgment is on record (at Exh.66).Viscera ofdeceased Priti was forwarded to Chemical Analyser underrequisition memo (Exh.50), of which acknowledgement is onrecord (at Exh.152).On 11.8.2015, blood samples of both theappellants collected by Police Constable Krishna Borkar, wereseized under Panchanamas (Exh.53 and 54).Sketch of sceneof offence is on record (at Exh.168).On 31 st August, 2015,P.I. Kolwadkar issued letter (Exh.158) to Chemical Analyserfor obtaining D.N.A. profiles of injured Bhavya and appellants::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 10 Conf4.18.odtand to conduct D.N.A. test of all seized articles, of whichChemical Analyser's reports and D.N.A. reports are on record(at Exh. Nos. 159 to 162 and 163).Again requisition memo(Exh.164) was issued to Medical Officer, Meditrina hospital,Nagpur for recording statement of injured Bhavya, but hisstatement could not be recorded as he was still not fit tomake his statement.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::On 13.9.2015, requisition memo (Exh.165)was issued to the Forest Office, Bhandara.Two panchas weremade available, whose services were utilized on 16.9.2015 foreffecting Panchanama of identification of seized muddemalarticles consisting of idol of Lord Ganesh and Yellow metalchain, which was already in the Office of L.C.B., Bhandara,where PW-18 Rupesh, in presence of panchas, identified saidseized muddemal articles as idol of Lord Ganesh was used byhim for puja and the yellow metal chain was used by hisdeceased wife, of which panchanama is on record (at Exh.62).The chance Finger Print report was received and is on record(at Exh.123).Grips of handle of two wheeler bearingRegistration No.MH-36/M-8399 owned by PW-14 NutanSarangpure, who was residing in neighbourhood of appellants,::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 11 Conf4.18.odthaving blood stains over them were seized underPanchanama (Exh.170).Perusal of evidence of PW-18 Rupesh,husband of deceased would reveal that he along with his wifeand minor son Bhavya were residing in their house situated atSamrudhi Nagar, Plot No.5, Takiya Ward, Bhandara.On theday of incident, on 30.7.2015, Bhavya had visited him in hisfactory Office and returned back home at about 7.15 p.m, towhom he followed within half an hour and on reaching home,saw Bhavya lying in pool of blood in the front room havingbleeding injuries to his head, while his wife Priti was lying onthe floor in the kitchen room having similar injuries and notedthat all the house hold articles in bed room were scattered.He, therefore, informed of the incident to his brother JitubaiBariya (not examined) who, in turn, informed his otherrelatives, who arrived on the spot and arranged to carry boththe victims to hospital, where Priti succumbed to her injurieswhile Bhavya was referred from Government hospital,::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 34 Conf4.18.odtBhandara to Medical College, Nagpur.However, he was takento Meditrina hospital, Nagpur where he was unconscious for along time.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::PW-18 Rupesh has further deposed that, twodays after the incident, he learnt of recovery of white andyellow metal ornaments and cash amount, which were robbedfrom his house, from appellants as informed by police whowere identified by him as, prior to incident, both theappellants had visited his house for repairing Air Conditioner.It has further come in the evidence of PW-Rupesh that, duringthe course of investigation, he visited the Office of L.C.B. atBhandara wherein, in presence of independent panchwitnesses, he identified one yellow metal chain out of foursuch chains kept for identification as he had purchased thesame for his wife and white metal idol of Ganesh as it wasused by him in puja and has proved the Seizure panchanama(Exh.62).Evidence of PW-Rupesh thus establish fact ofhis arrival in house immediately after the incident which tookplace on 30.7.2015 at about 7.30 p.m. as he arrived in his::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 35 Conf4.18.odthouse half an hour after arrival of his son in the house atabout 7.15 p.m. and found the victims having brutally injuredand commission of robbery in his house.In the background of evidence of PW-Rupesh, evidence of PW-1 Mahesh would reveal that, onknowing about the incident, he visited house of Rupesh andsaw him crying asking him to save lives of his wife and son,who were by then taken to the hospital and noted that thefloor of his house was having pool of blood and house holdarticles were lying scattered having broken cupboards in theroom.Accordingly, he lodged report (Exh.32).Evidence of PW-24 Jivandas Lakade, P.S.I.then attached to Police Station, Bhandara corroboratesevidence of Complainant Mahesh when he deposed that, on::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 36 Conf4.18.odt30.7.2015, he was on duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. PW-1Mahesh lodged his report (Exh.32), upon which he registeredCrime No.224 of 2015 for the offences punishable underSections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code againstunknown persons and on registering the same, visited thespot situated at Samruddhi Nagar and on arranging for twopanch witnesses, drew Spot panchanama (Exh.37) and alsoseized cotton swabs of blood and one napkin having bloodstains under Panchanamas (Exh.38 and 39).He has deposedthat, on his arrival to the scene of offence, PW-Rupesh wasfound in shocked mental condition and was, as such, unableto make his statement.This evidence is found corroboratedby evidence of PW-2 Nitin Sony, when he has deposed that,on 30.7.2015, police had called him to act as panch in thehouse of Rupesh where he found blood lying on the floor inthe house and the household articles were lying scatteredwith broken cupboards and in his presence, Seizurepanchanamas (Exh.37 to 39) came to be drawn.The said vehiclewas brought to her by appellant no.2 at about 8.00 p.m. Inthe same night, she received a phone call from policedirecting her to come to Police Station in the morning, whereshe learnt about the incident and informed police of hervehicle being used by appellant no.1 Amir, which was thenseized and on inspecting the same, blood stains were found::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 55 Conf4.18.odton the grip covers of its handle which grip covers were,therefore, seized.PW-Nutan had identified the grip covers ofher vehicle which are marked as Article 'J' and has alsoidentified both the appellants at the time of trial.Nothingincriminating could be brought on record in her cross-examination.Evidence of this witness, a lady PoliceConstable, is worthy to be relied upon who, even otherwise,has no reason to depose against the appellants, who, in fact,in her capacity as a neighbour, on request of appellant no.1Amir, had made her vehicle available to him, which vehiclewas, however, used by said appellant in commission ofpresent crime.Human blood is detected in the nail clippingsand hair of deceased.While, according to ChemicalAnalyser's report (Exh.162), clothes of deceased andappellant no.1 Amir and hammer is found stained with humanblood.Learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara videJudgment in Sessions Trial No.65 of 2015, delivered on30.6.2018 convicted appellant no.1 Amir Aziz Shaikh andappellant no.2 Sachin Kundalik Raut for the offencespunishable under Sections 302, 307, 397, 452 and 460 read::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 3 Conf4.18.odtwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded death sentenceto both the appellants for the offence punishable underSection 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code directingthat they shall be hanged by neck till they are dead ascontemplated under Section 354(5) of the Code of CriminalProcedure.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Both the appellants are further convicted forthe offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in defaultto suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Both the abovenamed appellants are further convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 397 read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment forseven years.For the offence punishable under Section 452read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the appellantsare sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to sufferrigorous imprisonment for six months.And lastly, on thecount of Section 460 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,the appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 4 Conf4.18.odtfor seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in defaultto suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.All thesubstantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.Boththe appellants are also held entitled for set off of the periodalready undergone by them under the provisions of Section428 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::As required under Section 366 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, a reference is made to this Court bythe learned trial Court for confirmation of death sentence, asawarded.While the appellants, as stated aforesaid, havepreferred Criminal Appeal No.603 of 2018 having beenaggrieved by the Judgment recorded as above.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Since deceased Priti succumbed to theinjuries while undergoing treatment at Civil hospital,Bhandara at 11.45 p.m., offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added in the presentcrime.Further investigation was handed over to PW-25::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 7 Conf4.18.odtPrashant s/o.Prabhakar Kolwadkar, Police Inspector, LocalCrime Branch, Bhandara on 3.8.2015, who re-visited the spot,recorded statements of witnesses and collected bloodsamples of injured Bhavya.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::After receipt of hammer from the Medical::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 9 Conf4.18.odtOfficer, same was re-sealed in presence of panchas underPanchanama (Exh.52).::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::During the course of investigation,Investigating Officer also collected copies of F.I.R. in CrimeNo.40 of 2015 registered against the appellants earlier withArjuni Mor.Police Station, District Gondia, which are on record(at Exh.187) and the Final Report Form (at Exh.188).Asstated earlier, apart from present crime, appellants werealready involved in Crime No.223 of 2015 registered withPolice Station, Bhandara, on the same day of incidentcommitted in the house of one Ravindra Shinde having samemodus operandi as in the present crime.On completion ofinvestigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Courtof Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhandara.In the course of time, case came to becommitted to the Court of Sessions for trial.Charge is framedagainst the appellants (vide Exh.16) for the offencespunishable under Sections 302, 307, 397, 454, 460 read with34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder ofdeceased Priti, for attempting to commit murder of Bhavya::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 12 Conf4.18.odtand for committing house trespass and robbery, which theappellants denied and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::To prove the charge, prosecution in allexamined 26 witnesses and commenced its evidence byexamining PW-1 Mahesh Ruparel, the Complainant, PW-2 NitinSony, panch on Spot panchanama (Exh.37), PW-3 JevinkumarMakdiya, panch on Inquest panchanama (Exh.41), PW-4Khetal Sawariya, panch witness on seizure of blood sample ofdeceased under panchanama Exh.44, PW-5 Devidas Chafaleon Memorandum Statement and recovery of articles at theinstance of appellant no.1, PW-6 Sudhakar Sarve, panchwitness on Memorandum Statement of recovery of articles atthe instance of appellant no.2, PW-7 Jagdish Nandurkar,panch on Panchanama (Exh.62) on identification of articles,PW-8 Jaideo Navkhare, Carrier who deposited seized articleswith Chemical Analyser, PW-9 Satish Hajare oncircumstances, PW-10 Baban Atkari, Photographer, PW-11 AnilMaske, who runs Jewelery shop, PW-12 Dr.Pradip Anand,Medical Officer who examined injured Bhavya, PW-13Dr.Sunita Badhe, Civil Surgeon, who, on replying query,::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 13 Conf4.18.odtopined of injuries if possible by hammer, PW-14 Ku.NutanSarangpure, owner of motorcycle seized by police, PW-15Pramod Yellajwar, panch on seizure of clothes of deceased,PW-16 Dr.Madhuri Meshram, Medical Officer who performedPost Mortem and has replied query, PW-17 DinendraAmbedare, Photographer, PW-18 Rupesh Bariya, husband ofdeceased Priti, PW-19 Rajendra Thakur, A.P.I. who haspartially investigated the crime, PW-20 Bandu Nandanwar,Police Head Constable who produced blood sample of injuredBhavya, PW-21 Sanjay Bhorade, Finger Print Expert, PW-22Dr.Ninad Gawande, Medical Officer who provided treatment toinjured Bhavya, PW-23 Gaurav Gawande, A.P.I. InvestigatingOfficer, who recorded Memorandum of appellant no.2 Sachinand effected recovery of muddemal articles at his instance,PW-24 Jivandas Lakde, P.S.I. who had drawn SpotPanchanama (Exh.37), PW-25 Prashant Kolwadkar, P.I., theInvestigating Officer and concluded evidence on examiningPW-26 Nandkumar Godbole, who has drawn sketch (Exh.168).::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Statements of appellants under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded.Noneof the appellants examined any witness in support of their::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 14 Conf4.18.odtdefence.After considering the evidence, documents onrecord and the submissions made, the learned trial Judgeconvicted both the appellants, as aforesaid.Hence, presentConfirmation Case is submitted by the trial court forconfirmation of death sentence awarded by the trial Court asper section 366 of the Code and the present Criminal Appealis preferred by the appellants challenging the sameJudgment.Pending appeal, appellants amended the prayerclause, challenging the appeal only on the point of sentence.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Heard Mr.N.B.Jawade, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor in the Confirmation Case who, beforecommencing his submissions, had tendered on recordJudgments in Sessions Trial No.64 of 2015, dt.29.6.2018arising out of Crime No.223 of 2015 and in Sessions TrialNo.89 of 2015, dt.15.11.2018 against the appellants hereinwho are convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for life in both the cases.Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor referred to charge in Sessions Trial No.64 of2015, wherein appellant no.1 Amir is convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to suffer life imprisonment and appellant no.2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 15 Conf4.18.odtSachin is convicted for the offence punishable under Section397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for seven years.Learned Additional PublicProsecutor also referred to charge in Sessions Trial No.89 of2015 wherein both the appellants are convicted for theoffences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the IndianPenal Code and are sentenced to suffer life imprisonment andthe sentences are directed to run concurrently.The incidentsin both these cases are dated 9 th July, 2015 and 30th July,2015 respectively; while the incident involved in the appeal inhand is dated 30.7.2015, between 7.45 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.,which took place in the house of deceased at Bhandara whenshe was brutally murdered by assault by Hammer on herhead.Similarly, in the course of same transaction, both theappellants, in furtherance of their common intention,committed house trespass by entering into the house ofdeceased and committed robbery and intentionally causedgrievous injuries to Bhavya, knowing that, under suchcircumstances, if they, by that act, cause death, would beguilty of murder.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, byreferring to the Judgments in Session Trial No.64 of 2015 and89 of 2015 afore-stated, contended that the modus operandi::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 16 Conf4.18.odtadopted by both the appellants in the present crime, as wellas in the above referred two crimes is similar, since thevictims of assaults were female and the brutal assaults werecommitted by the appellants within a span of one month,which shows criminal mindset of both the appellants andhence, urged that there is no possibility of their reforms.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that all the charges levelled against the appellantsare established beyond reasonable doubt.Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor firstly referred to evidence of PW-16Dr.Madhuri Meshram and P.M. notes (Exh.100) along withquery and her opinion and had contended that, from herevidence, prosecution has established its case of deceasedsustaining three fracture injuries to her skull, which arecertified to be the cause of death of deceased, which factgoes to establish that Priti died of homicidal death.Byreferring to evidence of PW-12 Dr.Pradip, who had initiallyexamined minor injured Bhavya, it is submitted that, from hisevidence, it is established that the injuries sustained by himon his scalp were caused within six hours and were possibleby hard and blunt object.The minor was referred to this::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 17 Conf4.18.odtMedical Officer while he was unconscious having bleedingfrom his nose and having considering seriousness on hisinjuries, he was referred to Government Medical College andHospital, Nagpur.However, his family members preferred totake him to Meditrina hospital at Nagpur where he wasattended by PW-22 Dr.Ninad Gawande and by referring to hisevidence, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended thatthe injured had sustained grievous injuries endangering hislife, which could prove fatal if not surgically interfered andhas opined that the injuries were possible by hard and bluntobject having impact of very high velocity.Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor thereafter, by referring to evidence of PW-13 Dr.Sunita Badhe, submitted that, on confronting with themuddemal article Hammer, said Medical Officer had opinedthat the injuries sustained by injured Bhavya were possible bythis weapon.With this evidence, learned Additional PublicProsecutor further submitted that above evidence establishthat heinous crime is committed by both the appellants,which needs to be considered by keeping in mind that boththe appellants, since prior to incident, had earlier visited thehouse of deceased and were knowing that she is alone in thehouse at a particular time and as such, taking advantage of::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 18 Conf4.18.odtsuch a situation, committed her murder when she was unableto resist since alone in the house and when her minor son,aged eight years had arrived, was also brutally assaulted,though there was no fault of either of the victims.LearnedAdditional Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted that the actof appellants does not deserve any leniency to be shown toeither of them.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Learned Additional Public Prosecutorreferred to evidence of PW-18 Rupesh, husband of deceased,who happens to be the first person to reach the scene ofoffence after the incident and has come out with a case thatboth the appellants were known to deceased as AirConditioner Mechanics and since they had visited their housefor repairing Air Conditioner earlier, they were given access inthe house.Presence of appellants on the spot is said to befurther established on the basis of blood stains found on themuddemal articles and their finger prints found on the articlesin the house of deceased.It is further submitted that thiswitness has even identified the stolen muddemal articleswhich came to be recovered at the instance of both theappellants which, according to prosecution, is a strong::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 19 Conf4.18.odtcircumstance established against both the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::PW-1 Mahesh Ruparel is Complainant whohas proved his report (Exh.32), while PW-24 Jivandas Lakde,P.S.I. is the witness who, at the material time, received reportand on its basis, registered offence and drew Spotpanchanama (Exh.37).Learned Additional Public Prosecutorthereafter referred to evidence of Investigating Officer andpanchas to connect the chain of circumstances establishinginvolvement of both the appellants and submitted byreferring to material evidence of these witnesses that, whenthe entire evidence is collectively considered along with C.A.reports, D.N.A. reports and Panchanamas of identification ofstolen property seized at the instance of both the appellants,involvement of both the appellants is clearly established asthe assailants in the present crime.From the availableevidence on record, thus, learned Additional Public Prosecutorcontended that prosecution has even established motive onthe part of both the appellants for commission of presentcrime which, from the evidence on record, is to commitrobbery in the house of deceased and on committing thesame, had caused death of Priti and brutally injured Bhavya,::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 20 Conf4.18.odtwhich aspect has been clearly established from the seizedmuddemal i.e. white metal and gold metal ornaments, idolsas well as currency notes which are recovered at the instanceof the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES :i. The offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the accused with a prior record of conviction for capital felony or offences committed by the person having a substantial history of serious assaults and criminal convictions.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::offender was engaged in the commission of another serious offence.The offence was committed with the intention to create a fear psychosis in the public at large and was committed in a public place by a weapon or device which clearly could be hazardous to the life of more than one person.The offence of murder was committed for ransom or like offences to receive money or monetary benefits.MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.i. The manner and circumstances in and under which the offence was committed, for example mental or emotional disturbance or extreme provocation in contradiction to all these situations in normal course.The age of the accused is a relevant consideration but not a determinative factor by itself.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::The condition of the accused shows that he was mentally defective and the defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the circumstances of his criminal conduct.Accordingly, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor contended that in the background of above factsand law, with regards to consider the aggravating andmitigating circumstances, no case is made out for showingany leniency to either of the appellants inasmuch as presenceof both the appellants in the house of deceased, apart fromfinding of blood stains on their clothes, is established from thefinger prints found inside the house of deceased and both theappellants, apart from present case, have indulged in similaract having similar modus operandi in commission of same bycommitting murderous assault on helpless women within ashort span of time of about one month.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::23 Conf4.18.odt So far as incident involved in this case isconcerned, it is submitted that, while allowing appellants inthe house, deceased Priti could not have sensed of any doubtas they had already visited her house for repairing AirConditioner earlier who, however, on taking advantage oflonely lady in the house, apart from committing robbery doneher to death.It is submitted that the offence of murder in aheinous and brutal manner came to be caused apart fromserious injury to minor to receive money or monetary benefit.From the evidence brought on record, gravity of the injuriessustained by deceased as well as injured has beenestablished, which injuries are caused by the appellants toboth the victims involved in this crime and hence, murder ofPriti can only said to be a cold blooded murder withoutprovocation on her part.With this, learned Additional PublicProsecutor concluded his arguments submitting that, asagainst these aggravating circumstances, the only mitigatingcircumstance which could be considered in favour ofappellants can be their age who, on the day of incident, wereaged 19 and 22 years old respectively.However, it iscontended that, this by itself can be no determinative factorand apart from having indulged in series of crimes wherein::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 24 Conf4.18.odtthey are convicted for life, behaviour of accused no.1 Amirwhile in jail was also not satisfactory and in fact, on acomplaint made by Superintendent of Jail, he was subjectedto inquiry by Judicial Magistrate, whose report is on record.The Confirmation appeal is, therefore, prayed to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::On the point of confirmation of the deathpenalty to the appellants, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, relied upon the following Authorities :a) Bachan Singh .vs.b) Macchi Singh and Others .vs.c) Surja Ram .vs.d) Sushil Murmu .vs.State of Jharkhad, 2004 Cri.e) Bantu .vs.f) B.A. Umesh .vs.g) Mofil Khan and another .vs.h) Shabnam .vs.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::j) Khushwinder Singh .vs.k) Judgment in Confirmation Case No.2 of 2016, State, through Wanwadi Police Station .vs.l) Judgment in Confirmation Case No.3 of 2017, State, through Sarkarwada Police Station .vs.n) Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik .vs.o) State of Orissa .vs.Dayanidhi Bisoi, 2003 Cri.p) M. A. Antony @ Antappan .vs.State of Kerala, 2009 (4) Mh.As already stated above, Mr.O.W.Gupta,learned Counsel for both the appellants restricted hisarguments only on the point of sentence since did notchallenge the convictions.Learned Counsel further submitted that bothappellants are young, educated upto matriculation and areunmarried having no criminal history, except for abovereferred two crimes which circumstances fall in their favourfor considering them for awarding lesser punishment.Oncommenting upon case of appellant no.2 Sachin, it issubmitted that there is no evidence establishing actual role ofsaid appellant and thus, contended that prosecution could notestablish its case as to who had assaulted deceased byhammer nor there is anything on record to establishsequence of incidents if deceased was done to death first andthen robbery was committed or vice versa.It is furthercontended that, in the background of above facts, theappellants are entitled for leniency.In support of abovesubmissions, the learned Counsel for the appellants has reliedupon the following cases :::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::I) M.A.Antony @ Antappan .vs.State of Kerala,2018 (4) Crimes 515 (also relied by learned A.P.P.) II) Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik .vs.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::In the background of above submissions andfacts involved in these appeals, based on circumstantialevidence, we find that Hon'ble Apex Court in its variouspronouncements has issued guidelines showing how toevaluate and consider the case of prosecution when it issolely based on circumstantial evidence.v. Hodge,(1838) 2 Lewin 227) where he said:::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 29 Conf4.18.odt as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.In spite of the forceful arguments addressed to us by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the State we have not been able to discover any such evidence either intrinsic within Ex.P-3A or outside and we are constrained to observe that the Courts below have just fallen into the error against which, warning was uttered by Baron Alderson in the above mentioned case."::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::His evidence furtherestablishes identification of both the appellants by him whowere arrested in this crime within two days of the incident, towhom he identified as Air Conditioner mechanics since theyhad visited his house for repairing of Air Conditioner earlier,from whom the muddemal articles were recovered, whichwere identified by him including currency notes.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Evidence of PW-19 Rajendra Thakur, A.P.I.would reveal about his drawing Inquest Panchanama on thebody of deceased (as per Exh.42) in Civil Hospital, Bhandara::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 37 Conf4.18.odtand about forwarding it for post mortem under Requisitionmemo (Exh.115).He further deposed that Police ConstableSarode produced blood sample, nail sample, hair sample andclothes of deceased Priti, which he seized under Panchanama(Exh.96).After considering the evidence of above witnesseswho established preliminary part of investigation, on perusalof evidence of PW-16 Dr. Madhuri Meshram, her evidencewould establish homicidal death of deceased as it has comein her evidence that, on performing post portem, she notedthe following external injuries.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::I) There was CLW on left side of temporal parietal region underline depressed fractures to skull, size 2 x 3 x 6 cm.2) There was CLW on left side of occipital region, size 6 x 3 x 3 cm.with underline depressed fractures to skull, 2 x 2 x 8 cm.3) There was CLW lateral to above injury of occipital region, size 5 x 3 x 3 cm.associated with depressed underline fractures to skull, 3 x 2 x 8 cm.orbital region (eye lid) extending up to 1 cm.In frontal forehead.6) There was CLW lateral end of left clavicle.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::PW-16 Dr. Madhuri has further deposed thatall the fracture injuries sustained by deceased were havingunderline haematoma and that cause of death of Priti washead injuries sustained by her, which were ante morteminjuries, possible by hard and blunt object.She has provedpost mortem report (Exh.100).The Medical Officer furtherdeposed that, on 6.8.2015, she received one query viderequisition letter from the Investigating Officer along withweapon 'hammer'.She has given opinion (vide Exh.102) thatthe injuries sustained by deceased are possible by the saidhammer.Evidence of Dr.Madhuri, therefore, goes to establishthat the deceased did not die a natural death, but died due tosustaining injuries to her head, which injuries are possible byhammer, which are also certified to be cause of her death,which evidence, thus, goes to establish that the deceaseddied of homicidal death.Evidence of PW-12 Dr.Pradip Anandestablishes fact of Bhavya having sustained grievous injurieswhen he was examined by this Medical Officer initially at Civilhospital, Bhandara on 30.7.2015, at about 9.00 p.m., who wasfound to have sustained the following internal injuries.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::parietal frontal region on the scalp.With query of skull bond.Size of it was 6 x 2 cm approximately.2) Abrasion with contusion left temporal region of scalp, size 3 x 3 cm.According to PW-13 Dr.Pradip, MedicalOfficer, the injuries were caused within six hours and werepossible by hard and blunt object.The patient was referred inunconscious state of health and was having nasal bleeding,who was referred by this doctor to G.M.C., Nagpur for furthertreatment.As per evidence of this doctor, both the injuriessustained by injured were serious in nature, possible to causedeath, and has, accordingly, issued Medico-legal Certificate(Exh.87) on record and on being confronted with hammer(Article 'C'), deposed that the injuries sustained by minorBhavya were possible by said weapon.As per his evidence, atthe same time, Priti was also admitted to hospital in deadcondition, of which he gave intimation to police.Evidence ofboth these doctors i.e. PW-16 Dr. Madhuri and PW-12Dr.Pradip, thus, establish fact of deceased having died ofhomicidal death and of minor Bhavya having sustained::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 40 Conf4.18.odtinjuries which were sufficient to cause death, which injuriessustained by both of them were possible by hammer.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::In the line of this evidence when evidence ofPW-22 Dr.,injured Bhavya was brought by PW-Rupesh.Said MedicalOfficer, thus, gave intimation to Sitabuldi Police Station andon examination, he found him to have sustained followinginjuries :a) lacerated wound present over high parietal area near vertex of size 10 x 1.5 cm.X bone deep.On CT scan of brain multiple comminuted depressed fractures of bilateral high parietal bones extending upto temporal and frontal bone of left ide was seen.Comminuted displaced fracture of roof of right orbit was seen.Under lying extra dural haematoma with multiple haemorrhagic contusions were present in left fronto temporal pareital region with mass effect with signs of subfalcine herniation was seen.Diffuse cerebral edema was present.Following injuries were found on the face of Bhavya.b) contusion over left side of forehead and over left Zygoma of size 3 x 2 cm.to 1 x 1 cm.red in color, with bi-lateral peri-orbital ecchymoses present.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::41 Conf4.18.odt On examination, it was found that age of injuries were within 12 hours and fresh in nature.The injuries were of grievous type and it may endanger life of patient and may prove fatal it not surgically interfered.The injuries were caused due to hard and blunt objects with impact of very high velocity.PW-22 Dr.Ninad, the Medical Officeraccordingly issued Medical Certificate (Exh.128).As per hisfurther evidence all the injuries were caused by dangerousweapon in a brutal manner and on being confronted withhammer (Article C), deposed that such injuries are possible byit on use by force and had specifically deposed that fullrecovery of Bhavya is impossible.It has further come in hisevidence that, during the course of investigation, on31.7.2015, 1.8.2015 and 10.8.2015, he received Requisitionmemos (Exh. Nos.129 to 131) to certify if injured was in aposition to make statement, to which, on examining physicalcondition of injured Bhavya, PW-Dr.Ninad opined that he wasunable to speak and even unable to understand the nature of::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 42 Conf4.18.odtquestions put to him as his mental age was less as comparedto his physical age since he was suffering from Para Paresis,decreasing power of right side.Record reveals that, at thetime of trial when questions were put by the learned trialJudge to the injured, he was found unable to understand thesame and was even unable to walk or speak fluently.Evidence of Dr.Ninad, as such, establishes serious injuriessustained by Bhavya in a brutal attack, of which he is victimfor no fault of his except for his being present in the houseafter his mother was brutally killed by the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Lastly, evidence of PW-13 Dr.Sunita Badhefurther establishes case of prosecution when in her evidenceshe has deposed that, on 6.8.2015, she received Requisitionletter (Exh.91) alongwith hammer and had opined that theinjuries sustained by him were possible by the weaponhammer and accordingly, gave her opinion (Exh.92) and hasalso identified hammer (Article C) to be the same, which wasreferred to her for obtaining her opinion.On consideration of evidence of aboveMedical Officers collectively, brutal assault on deceased Priti::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 43 Conf4.18.odtas well as Bhavya is clearly established, which assault isabundantly proved by prosecution to have been caused toboth the victims by hammer, due to which, on sustaining fourskull fractures, deceased Priti died, while injured Bhavya hasbecome crippled for rest of his life at the age of eight as, fromthe medical evidence on record as discussed above, there areno chances of his getting recovered.In the background ofabove evidence, circumstances like appellants' knowing theparticular time when the deceased was likely to be alone inthe house and as such, helpless to defend herself and,commission of robbery by them on their getting access insidethe house easily and further causing death of deceased in thehouse as well as assaulting her son brutally are very stronglyestablishing appellants' involvement in the present crime..::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Similarly, evidence of PW-5 Devidas Chafle,an independent panch, when perused would reveal that, on5.8.2015, he attended Office of L.C.B., Bhandara as called bypolice, where two accused were in custody.In his presence,one amongst them disclosed his name as Amir Shaikh(appellant no.1), who had informed police that he had tomake his statement.Accordingly, Memorandum Statement of::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 44 Conf4.18.odtsaid appellant to the effect that he shall produce ornamentsfrom his house came to be recorded, which is proved andmarked (as Exh.50).He has further deposed that, inpursuance to Memorandum Statement as aforesaid, appellantno.1 Amir took the investigating team to Takiya ward, AshrafiNagar, Bhandara where his two storeyed house is situated.The appellant went on the first floor, to whom this witness aswell as police followed, and removed one bag which was keptabove iron cupboard and from that bag, he produced onescarf, pant, shirt and hammer, which articles were stainedwith blood, and currency notes of Rs.1,73,000/- wrapped inpolythene sheet and one purse containing in it yellow andwhite metal ornaments and chain, which articles came to beseized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.51).It has furthercome in the evidence of PW-Devidas that these acts werephotographed and during trial, the panch had identifiedhammer marked as Article 'C', one blue coloured pant asArticle 'D', one blue and yellow coloured checks shirt asArticle 'E', Purse as Article 'F', one Samsung black bag markedas Article 'G'.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::White and yellow metal ornaments including::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 45 Conf4.18.odtpair of tops etc. are identified by this witness, which arecollectively marked as Article 'H'.This witness has alsoproved seizure of hammer when this weapon was referred forquery to Medical Officer which Panchanama is on record(Exh.52) and has lastly proved Panchanamas (Exh.53 and 54)vide which two sealed bottles, as produced by one PoliceConstable, came to be seized in his presence.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Similarly, from evidence of PW-6 SudhakarSarve, another independent panch, it is revealed that, on5.8.2015, he was summoned to the Office of L.C.B., Bhandara,where he was informed by Police that one of the accusedamongst the two arrested, has to make statement andaccordingly, in his presence, appellant no.2 Sachin Raut, whodisclosed his name as such to this witness, in his presencemade a statement to police to produce ornaments and cashamount of Rs.10,000/-, three silver coins concealed by him inhis house, which Memorandum Statement is proved by thiswitness marked (as Exh.58).PW-Sudhakar has further deposed thatthereafter he along with another panch of the raiding team::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 46 Conf4.18.odtfollowed appellant Sachin in police vehicle, who took them toBhojapur Road, Takiya Ward near Majar, Bhandara where hishouse was situated, where his father Pundlik was present.Hefurther deposed that appellant no.2 Sachin thereafter enteredin his house and from one iron box, which was kept in the firstroom in his house, produced cash of Rs.10,000/- in variousdenominations and three silver coins which articles wereseized by police under Panchanama (Exh.59).During thecourse of his evidence, he has identified the muddemal coinsproduced before the Court to be the same seized in hispresence, which are collectively marked as Article 'I'.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::PW-Prashant Kolwadkar has further deposed that, inpursuance of such Memorandum Statement of appellant no.1Amir, one Scarf, blood stained shirt, jeans, yellow and whitemetal ornaments, hammer and cash to the extent ofRs.1,73,000/- in various denominations came to be seizedunder Panchanama.The Investigating Officer has alsoidentified all the above articles as deposed by PW-5 Devidas.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::PW-Sudhakar hasfurther deposed that, in pursuance of the said statement,appellant no.2 Sachin led police and independent panchas tohis house towards Bhojapur road, where his father was::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 48 Conf4.18.odtpresent and from the first room of his house, removed oneiron box wherefrom he produced three white metal coins andcurrency notes, which came to be seized under SeizurePanchanama (Exh.59).Evidence of all these witnesses, assuch, further establish involvement of both the appellants inthe present crime since the muddemal articles consisting ofornaments and currency notes came to be seized at theirinstance, which fact is also unexplained and as such, is astrong circumstance.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::In the background of above evidence, onevaluating other evidence of PW-18 Rupesh on the point ofidentification of seized muddemal, it is revealed that, on17.9.2015, he attended Office of A.C.B., Bhandara as calledfor identification of muddemal articles recovered in thepresent crime, when he identified chain of his deceased wife,silver idol which was in his home used for puja purposes, ofwhich panchanama came to be drawn (as per Exh.62).At thisjuncture, evidence of PW-7 Jagdish Nandurkar requiresconsideration as, from his evidence, it has come on recordthat, on 17.9.2015, he, on the request by police, acted aspanch when, on that day, PW-18 Rupesh had identified silver::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 49 Conf4.18.odtidol of Lord Ganesh and chain from amongst the articlesproduced before him by police, of which IdentificationPanchanama is proved by him on record (Exh.62).Aboveevidence since is materially corroborated by each other andindependent panch witness Jagdish further establishinvolvement of both the appellants in present crime.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::In the background of above stated evidence,evidence of PW-11 Anil Maske when perused, would furtherestablish case of prosecution of recovery of muddemalornaments involved in the present crime at the instance ofboth the appellants when said witness has deposed that he isrunning a jewellery shop at Mohta Bazar, Bhandara, which istheir ancestral business since he was 16 years old.He furtherdeposed that, on 5.8.2018, police arrived in his shop alongwith two persons and police had produced before him yellowand white metal ornaments, which he weighed and issuedCertificates proved on record (at Exh. Nos. 81 and 82) andhas also identified three white metal coins referred inCertificate (at Exh.81) to be that of silver and other 16articles as mentioned in Certificate (at Exh.82).His evidencefurther corroborates the case of prosecution of PW-18 Rupesh::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 50 Conf4.18.odtidentifying ornaments recovered from the possession of boththe appellants as PW-6 Anil, Gold Smith further deposed that,on 16.9.2015, he was requested by police to produced goldenchain and silver idol of Lord Ganesh, which items he supplied.The saidornaments and idol is found to be kept in the identificationparade of muddemal held in presence of PW-7 Jagdish, thepanch and identified by PW-Rupesh.When evidence ofindependent witnesses PW-5 Devidas, PW-6 Sudhakar, PW-7Jagdish, PW-11 Anil, Gold Smith coupled with evidence of PW-18 Rupesh and P.I. PW-25 Kolwadkar and PW-23 Gaurav, A.P.I.is collectively considered, prosecution can said to haveestablished appellants' involvement in the present crime as,from the above evidence, it has come on record that both theappellants, at the time of incident, apart from committingmurder of Priti and caused grievous hurt to Bhavya andcaused robbery in the house of deceased thereby robbingyellow and white metal ornaments and cash which, during thecourse of investigation, came to be recovered at theirinstance and are seized under Panchanama which areidentified by Rupesh to be the same belonging to their family.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Prosecution, while establishing case againstboth the appellants, has also relied upon evidence of PW-21Sanjay Bhorade when he has deposed that, in the year 2015,he was attached to the Office of State C.I.D., Nagpur as aFinger Print Expert and was holding additional charge forBhandara.On 30.7.2015, when he was already in Bhandaratown in connection with investigation in Crime No.223 of2015, he was informed of incident involving present crimeand had accordingly attended the house of PW-18 Rupesh,where he inspected the spot of incident and found threechance prints on mirror, wooden cupboards and on its hande,which he got lifted after applying powder and had developedon the plastic strips, of which photographs were obtainedafter comparing the photographs with the finger prints ofsuspected Criminals of which record is maintained by police,which did not match with any of the such records ofCriminals.It has further come in his evidence that, on16.8.2015, he received finger prints slips of appellants alongwith that of PW-18 Rupesh and his family members Maheshand Jitendra Bariya and noted that the finger print slip ofappellant no.1 Amir and appellant no.2 Sachin matched withthe finger prints found on the spot and PW-21 Sanjay has::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 52 Conf4.18.odtaccordingly, proved his report marked (Exh.121) and lettervide which he received finger prints of appellants as well as ofinformant Mahesh, , PW-18 Rupesh and Jitendra vide letter(Exh.122) and has proved final Finger Print Report on recordat Exh. 123.. Nothing is brought in the cross-examination ofsaid witness to doubt his evidence.On the contrary, hisevidence establishes one more circumstance involving boththe appellants in the present crime whose finger prints sincewere found at the scene of offence.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::In the background of above discussedevidence establishing involvement of appellants in thepresent crime, their involvement is further established fromthe evidence of PW-9 Satish Hajare, an independent witness,whose evidence would reveal that he happened to know boththe appellants since they were visiting his pan shop situatedat Hanuman Nagar, Bhandara.On the day of incident i.e. on30.7.2015, at 5.00 p.m., both the appellants had attended hispan shop when appellant no.1 Amir was having blackcoloured bag and both were wearing checks shirts.On thesame day, at 8.00 p.m., PW-Satish learnt about the presentincident.In his cross-examination, it has come that only::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 53 Conf4.18.odtappellant no.1 Amir was wearing checks full sleeves shirt.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::This evidence of PW-Satish stating thatappellant no.1 was wearing checks shirt on the day ofincident at 5.00 p.m. is corroborated by another independentwitness PW-5 Devidas who has proved MemorandumStatement of appellant no.1 Amir and Seizure Panchanama inrespect of clothes of said appellant along with other articlesincluding one checks shirt, which is identified by him to beseized as recovered at the instance of appellant no.1 Amirmarked as Article 'E'.With this evidence, appellant no.1 Amirhaving on his person shirt Article 'E' has been amplyestablished by prosecution.Evidence of PW-4 KhetalSawariya would reveal that, on 31.7.2015, police had seizedclothes of deceased Priti and blood sample, nail clippings andscalp hair of deceased in presence of this witness asproduced by Ashok Sarode, Police Constable, which wasseized by PW-19 Rajendra Thakur, A.P.I. under Panchanama(Exh.44).Similarly, evidence of PW-15 PramodYellajwar establishes seizure of clothes of deceased consisting::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 54 Conf4.18.odtof Kurti Payjama, underwear, brassier with blood stains alsoproduced by Ashok, Police Constable, which came to beseized by PW-19 Rajendra Thakur under Seizure Panchanama(Exh.96).::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::In the background of above evidence, fromthe evidence of PW-14 Nutan Sarangpure, it has come onrecord that, at the time of incident, appellant no.1 Amir wasresiding in front of her house and on the day of incident, hadrequested her to provide her two wheeler and accordingly,she gave her two wheeler i.e. Honda Aviator Motor Cyclebearing registration No.MH-36 M-8399 to him.Her evidencewould further reveal that appellant no.1 Amir contacted heron the day of incident at 1.20 p.m. demanding her vehicle for10 to 15 minutes.However, he did not return it back for along time and thus, she went to his house.In the backgroundof seizure of various muddemal articles involved in thepresent crime, evidence of PW-8 Jaideo Navkhare, A.S.I.establishes that, on the basis of Duty pass (Exh.64) issued byP.I. Kolwadkar, he carried 16 incriminating articles on10.8.2015 in sealed condition along with Requisition memo(Exh.65) and on depositing the same with Chemical Analyser,Nagpur, obtained acknowledgement (Exh.67).::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::PW-8 Jaideo has further deposed that, on12.8.2015, again on the basis of Duty pass issued to him videExh.67, he deposited further muddemal property underRequisition memo (Exh.68) to the Chemical Analyser, Nagpurconsisting of blood sample of both the appellants andobtained acknowledgement (Exh.69), whose evidence thusestablishes that the blood sample and other articles involvedin this crime were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser.Perusal of Chemical Analyser's report(Exh.159) on record would reveal that blood group of blood ofappellant no.1 Amir is of group 'B', while as per ChemicalAnalyser's report (Exh.160), blood group of appellant no.2Sachin is 'A'.Muddemal articles (as per Exh.161) like bloodsmaple, nail clippings and hair of deceased were referred forD.N.A. analysis.Similarly cotton swab of blood found on the floor, washbasin and napkin near the wash basin were also found stainedwith human blood.As per Chemical Analyser's report::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 57 Conf4.18.odt(Exh.163), napkin, kurta payjama, nicker, bra of deceased,clothes of appellant no.1 Amir and hammer were foundhaving thereon blood of deceased Priti as well as of injuredBhavya.Statements under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure of both the appellants did not give anysatisfactory explanation as to under what circumstancesblood of deceased was found on the clothes of appellant no.1Amir and on the hammer used for commission of the presentcrime as well as other articles found on the scene of offenceincluding napkin.From the above aspect, appellants'involvement in commission of present crime is, thus, furtherestablished, which is further substantiated from the D.N.A.report of blood stained shirt, jeans of appellant no.1 Amir aswell as blood found on the grip covers of two wheeler.According to Chemical Analyser's report, D.N.A. profileobtained from the blood detected on shirt, jeans as well ashandle grip covers are certified to be identical and from oneand the same source of female origin and matched withD.N.A. profile of blood of injured Bhavya.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Prosecution has proved recovery ofmuddemal articles and blood stained clothes of appellant no.1::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 58 Conf4.18.odtAmir at his instance including hammer and cash amount,which articles have been duly identified by PW-Rupesh, whichfact has been further substantiated by evidence of PW-11 AnilMhaske, the Gold Smith who, on examining the muddemalarticles, issued Certificate and has also identified the same tobe brought in his shop by police, which he had examined, Hisevidence also establishes of his providing similar ornamentsto police for placing the same for identification of muddemalarticles, wherefrom PW-Rupesh has identified his yellowmetal chain and white metal idol of Lord Ganesh.Anothercircumstance which strongly goes against the appellants is ofevidence of PW-21 Sanjay - the Finger Print Expert who hasdeposed that finger prints of both the appellants were foundon the articles at the scene of offence, which goes toestablish presence of both the appellants at the spot at thetime of incident.Similarly, from the evidence of PW-14Nutan, it is established that when she received back her twowheeler, which was made available by her to appellant no.1Amir on the day of incident in the noon and which wasreceived back by her on the same day in the night, was foundhaving blood stains on its grip covers.Blood on said coversas per Chemical Analyser's report is certified to be of injured::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 59 Conf4.18.odtBhavya.Similarly, blood found on the articles seized at thespot like napkin above wash basin and the blood found on thefloor was established to be of deceased.When said evidenceis collectively considered with the evidence of Medical OfficerPW-16 Dr.Madhuri, PW-12 Dr.Pradip Anand as well as PW-13Dr.Sunita and PW-22 Dr.Ninand Gawande from Meditrinahospital, involvement of both the appellants is clearlyestablished.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Since presence of both the appellants in thehouse of deceased at the time of incident has been amplyestablished, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act,burden is cast upon appellants to give cogent explanation asto how Priti died.However, no reasonable explanation isforthcoming from the appellants on any of the circumstancesas detailed above.The appellants, after having found presenton the spot at the time of incident, cannot get away by simplykeeping quiet and offering no explanation.This is a strongmitigating circumstance against the appellants indicatingtheir involvement in commission of present crime.The motive attributed to the appellants is::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 60 Conf4.18.odtcommission of robbery and in course of same transaction,appellants, however, are found to have committed murderand murderous assault on the helpless victim.As held in thecase of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, 2006 (12) SCC254, it is for the accused to explain as to what happened tothe deceased.If the accused does not throw any light on thefact which is within his knowledge, his failure to offer anyexplanation has to be considered as a circumstance againsthim.It is noted that, in the case in hand, neither of theappellants, even while recording their statements underSection 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, had given anysatisfactory explanation of the incriminating circumstanceagainst them since both have simply denied the evidencewhich is incriminating in nature and plead that they areinnocent.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::As pointed out earlier, in catena ofjudgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, if conviction isbased on circumstantial evidence, there should not be anygap in the chain of circumstances and if there is any suchgap, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.In thepresent case, by cogent and convincing evidence, prosecution::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 61 Conf4.18.odthas established the circumstance of motive as well as fact ofhomicidal death of deceased, conduct of appellants havingfound involved in similar such offences caused within shortspan of time, absence of explanation from appellants as todeath of deceased as against the circumstances relied uponby prosecution which are proved by cogent and reliableevidence.The circumstances when cumulatively consideredform a complete chain pointing out that the murder of Priti aswell as brutal assault on minor Bhavya was committed by theappellants and none else.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::As stated earlier, learned defence counselvery fairly conceded to the conviction of the appellants in thiscase.He emphasized on the point of death sentence,awarded by the learned trial Court as, according to him, thefacts and circumstances in the present case do not deserve itto be placed in the category of rarest of rare case.A perusal of the impugned judgment wouldreflect following facts which impressed the learned trial Courtto award the death sentence to the appellants:-::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::(i) The crime was committed with the motive to commit robbery with deadly weapon i.e. hammer.(ii) The appellants assaulted on vital part of the body i.e. head and face of both, the deceased Preety and Bhavya.It was not a single blow.(iii) The deceased Preety was a young housewife, aged around 30 years and Bhavya was aged around only 8 years.(iv) Both, the deceased Preety and the injured Bhavya, being women and child resp.are the weaker section of the society.(v) It was a pre-planned assault, intellectually chosen the house of the deceased for robbery.(vi) It was a cold blooded murder without any provocation.(vii) Modus operandi of the accused to commit two crimes of similar nature on the same day.(viii) They entered the house of the deceased Prity due to trust of earlier familiarity and they belied the trust.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::rehabilitation as one more case of murder pending for trial before the Sessions Court at Gondia, against these appellants.In the instant case, undisputedly, theappellants were working as Air Conditioner mechanics, whichitself suggest their socio-economic background.Evidently,except the tools which are used for air conditioner repairing,they did not carry any other deadly weapon.Hammer seemsto be one of the tools for air conditioner repairing.It is alsonot the case of the prosecution that apart from hammer, theappellants used any other deadly weapon for inflictinginjuries to the deceased - Priti and injured Bhavya.Forfacilitating the commission of robbery, they first immobilizedthe deceased - Priti by inflicting blows of hammer on herhead and face.We do not see anything uncommon in thepresent facts.It has not come on record as to which of thesetwo appellants used the weapon or played active role in::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 64 Conf4.18.odtinflicting blows with hammer either on deceased Priti or oninjured Bhavya.No doubt, assault on head with hammer mayresult in death, but the question is whether such act can bebranded as a brutal, diabolic, depraved and heinous kind ofattack attracting the capital punishment.Experience showsthat in every case of robbery with murder or dacoity withmurder, there is always a murderous attack with deadlyweapon, but in the rarest of rare case, the capital punishmentis awarded.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::Evidently, prior to the present incident, onthe same day, the accused persons had committed similarkind of crime at around 1.30 pm in another house and onemore crime of similar nature prior to one month in GondiaDistrict.Apart from these three incidents, nothing is broughton record by the prosecution to show their long standingcriminal record to brand them as hardened criminals.Theaforesaid criminal activities, as per the prosecution case, arethe happenings within a short span of one month.It appearsthat in order to earn easy money, they adopted easy course.In their first attempt, within the jurisdiction of District Gondia,they succeeded.This developed courage in them to proceed::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 65 Conf4.18.odtfor the second attempt and the third one.Their passion toearn easy money could not last even for a month and theygot apprehended at the hands of police.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::First and foremost, there is nothing on record to show thatwhich of the appellants played active part or used weapon -hammer in sustaining injuries to the deceased - Priti as wellas injured Bhavya.Age of the appellants, at the relevant time,were in the range between 19 and 22 years resp.. They wereworking as air conditioner mechanics which itself reflect theirsocio-economic status in their life.They carried with themtools for air conditioner repairing and no other deadlyweapon.In our considered view 4-5 blows with hammer onhead cannot be branded as a brutal, diabolic and heinouscrime.The three incidents of robbery in a period of onemonth without any prior long standing criminal record doesnot brand the appellants as hardened criminals.The chancesof reformation in them are at higher side.Though there was::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 66 Conf4.18.odtan inquiry by the learned Magistrate about the behavior ofthe appellants in the jail as reported by the Superintendent ofJail where the appellants have been lodged, however, nothingis found in the said inquiry as reported by the learnedMagistrate.Undisputedly, prior to one month of the incident,they were earning their livelihood by working as airconditioner mechanics.It appears that looking to thematerialistic world with all glamour of advance technology,they tried their luck to earn easy money and gotapprehended within a period of one month of their newavocation.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::We do not find this circumstance is sufficient toextinguish the appellants from this world who have just cameout of their minority and finding ways and means to earnlivelihood.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::i. The offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the accused with a prior record of conviction for capital felony or offences committed by the person having a substantial history of serious assaults and criminal convictions.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::offender was engaged in the commission of another serious offence.The offence of murder was committed for ransom or like offences to receive money or monetary benefits.outrageously for want only while involving inhumane treatment and torture to the victim.carrying out his duty like arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement of himself or::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 69 Conf4.18.odt another.For instance, murder is of a person who had acted in lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::When the crime is enormous in proportion like making an attempt of murder of the entire family or members of a particular community.The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks or shocks not only the judicial conscience but even the conscience of the society.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::(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'.TheHon'ble Apex Court gave the following four reasons for notlaying down the standards or norms:-::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::(i) There is a little agreement among penologists and jurists as to what information about the crime and criminal is relevant and what is not relevant for fixing the dose of punishment for a person convicted of a particular offence.unpredictable and unforeseeable variations.No two cases are exactly identical.They are countless permutations and combinations which are beyond the anticipatory capacity of the human calculus.Each case presents its own distinctive features, its peculiar combinations of events and its unique configuration of facts.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?Considering the overall global view of all thecircumstances in the light of the aforesaid prepositions, we do::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 75 Conf4.18.odtnot find that there is something uncommon about the crimein the present case which renders sentence of imprisonmentfor life inadequate and calls for a death sentence.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::In para16 of this judgment, the Apex Court endorsed and acceptedthat socio-economic factors must be taken into considerationwhile awarding a sentence particularly the ground realitiesrelating to access to justice and remedies to justice that arenot easily available to the poor and the needy.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::The judgments cited by the learned APP onbehalf of the State are the judgment of the Apex Courtwherein death penalty was confirmed by the Court, while thejudgments cited on behalf of the convict are the judgmentswherein death penalty was commuted into life imprisonment.We have already considered the broad principles to be takeninto consideration while deciding the sentence in murdercase.After all, it is a question of judicial discretion to beapplied on the basis of sound judicial principles.Both are of young age, who havejust came out of their minority.With a temptation to earneasy money, they adopted this way, however, they failedbefore they could enjoy the fruits of their act.The whole caseis based on circumstantial evidence.There is no evidence asto which of the appellants inflicted blows with hammer.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::78 Conf4.18.odtCertainly, to commit murder was not their prime motive.They entered the house to commit robbery.In order to de-activate the housewife, they inflicted 4-5 blows on her headwith hammer.The appeal againstconviction of the appellants is accordingly partly allowed and::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 ::: 79 Conf4.18.odtdisposed of.::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 03:57:57 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,081,891 |
Item no. 29 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.5944 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.08.2018 in connection with Bhatar Police Station Case No. 115/18 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 302/325/326/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.And In Re:-Bidyut Sk.@ Sekh Wasim & anr.... Petitioners Mr. Achin Jana, Advocate Mr. Suman Chakraborty, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld.Mr. Dipankar Paramanick, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Bhatar Police Station Case No. 115/18 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 302/325/326/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.The petitioners claim that the charges may have been levelled out of political vendetta.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,924,918 |
Shri Neeraj Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the objector.Case diary is available.Since all the Misc.Criminal Cases have arisen from the same Crime Number (Crime No.105/2019), they have been analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first applications for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.105/2019 registered by Police Station Rahli, District under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 456, 147, 148, 149 and 506 and of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.02.2019 at about 08:30 pm in the house of complainant Vikas Chourasiya situated at Charhai Bazar under the jurisdiction of Police Station Rahli, District Sagar the applicants entered into his house raising objection regarding some defamatory news against applicant Rajendra Kumar Jarouliya, who is Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 20/03/2019 06:06:35 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-9802-2019 (DILEEP & OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) MCRC-10790-2019 (RAJENDRA KUMAR JAROULIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) MCRC-11564-2019 (KAMLESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Advocate and attacked him by means of Axe, Katarna and Iron Rod.When his uncle Sanjay, brother Akash, mother Gouri Bai, wife Varsha have come there to rescue him, the applicants have also beaten them.As a result of which, the complainant party have sustained grievous injuries on their persons.Report of the incident has been lodged at Police Station Rahli, District Sagar at Crime No.105/2019 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 456 and 506 and of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants.On the basis of medical report Section 326 of IPC has been added in the already registered crime.There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the anticipatory bail applications.The injuries sustained to the injured persons seems to be simple in nature.As far as the injury of complainant Vikas Chourasiya and Sanjay Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 20/03/2019 06:06:35 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-9802-2019 (DILEEP & OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) MCRC-10790-2019 (RAJENDRA KUMAR JAROULIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) MCRC-11564-2019 (KAMLESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 Chourasiya is concerned, in this regard query has been sought from the concerning Medical Officer of District Hospital, Sagar, who has given his report and submitted that the injuries sustained by the complainant and his uncle are simple in nature.There also appears to be an old rivalry between the complainant and applicants party regarding which some documents have been filed by the applicants.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants and looking to the allegations made against the applicants, in the opinion of this Court, applicants deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, these first applications for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicants are allowed.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 20/03/2019 06:06:35
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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.
|
8,097,920 |
P.C to quash the criminal proceeding e of Crime No.73/2015 registered at Police Station, Gohparu, ad District Shahdol for offence under Sections 409 and 306 Pr read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and S.T. No. 179/2015 pending before Special Judge under SC & ST (Prevention of a Atrocities) Act, 1989, Shahdol.The prosecution case, in brief, is that Mathura ad Kewat committed suicide by consuming pesticide.The postmortem report dated 05.10.2014 reveals suspected M poisoning.There was a meeting at the house of Puran Kewat.In the meeting, it was again pressurized on the deceased to withdraw the complaint.sh The petitioner-Sujeet Singh has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.Viscera was sent for examination.Viscera report dated 05.01.2015 confirmed presence of zink phosphide.of Merg was lodged.Inquest was made.During the rt investigation, itwas found that Mathura Kewat applied for ou fund to mend his "medh," through the Gram Panchayat.The same was sanctioned.But this amount was embezzled by C the accused persons including Hetram Yadav and Nalin h Ram Yadav, Shiv Bihari Singh (Secretary), petitioner-Sujit ig Singh (Employment Assistant) Mate Ramasant, Sub- H engineer - Bhaiyalal Singh, Sarpanch- Kapasiya Bai and her husband Dhan Singh.In this regard Mathura Kewat filed a complaint before the Collector against the culprits.The accused persons pressurized him to withdraw the complaint.Because of this harassment and pressurization, Mathura Kewat committed suicide by consuming poison.Therefore, crime was registered.On behalf of the petitioner-Sujeet Singh it is claimed that no offence is made out against him.He has been falsely implicated.He has not taken out the amount.The alleged amount was withdrawn by the Secretary and the Sarpanch.Therefore, no offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C is made out against the petitioner.As regarding offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C, it is claimed that the petitioner has not abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.Neither the petitioner has sh any say in the Panchayat nor he has any control over the officers of the Panchayat.ad Per contra, learned G.A for the respondent/State opposing the contentions submits that money has been Pr withdrawn in the name of construction of "medh" through the Panchayat in the name of deceased Mathura Kewat.a However, no such amount was paid to him and no such hy construction was done but the amount was withdrawn and misappropriated by the accused persons.On the complaint ad of Mathura Kewat, Collector has initiated an enquiry which M was under process.Therefore, the accused persons pressurized the deceased to withdraw the complaint.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,049,458 |
And In the matter of : Samir Rajbanshi & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sayan De For the Petitioners Mrs. Suman Shenabish For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Santipur Police Station Case No. 466 of 2013 dated 03.08.2013 under Sections 448/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty,J )
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,276,377 |
The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation.The case is listed today for admission.Heard on the bail application.This is first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant No.1-Ramkhateek is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.347/2014 Police Station Dehat, District Bhind, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 452 and 34 of IPC.As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on 24.08.2014 at about 08:30 PM applicant along with other co-accused on the question of contesting the election entered in the house of the complainant and armed with iron rod and katta and caused injury to complainant and his wife.On the report of the complainant Crime No.347/2014 has been registered against the present applicant under Section 323, 294, 506, 452, 325, 459 read with 34 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.He has not committed any offence.He is innocent person.Applicant and M.Cr.C.No.8513/2014 Ramkhateek and others Vs.State of M.P.complainant are real uncle and nephew and they are living in the same house.There is no past criminal antecedents.Therefore, on these grounds learned counsel for the applicant prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court.C.C. as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge bj/-
|
['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', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,380 |
JUDGMENT M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.On perusal of FIR in question, it appears that the petitioner's premises were inspected by the enforcement staff of DESU on 3.1.1997, when it was discovered that the electricity was being abstracted fraudulently by tampering the meter.In Ramesh Chandra Vs.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 12/97 registered under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with 379 of the Indian Penal Code at the Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi, is quashed.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
814,568 |
Copy dusty.ORDER R.C. Chopra, J.WP (Crl.) No. 819/2005FIR No. 952/2001 was registered on the basis of the report filed by the petitioner in regard to the kidnapping of his younger brother.The status report reveals that the D.I.U. (North-West) has not succeeded in making much headway in tracing out Gyanesh Kumar, the younger brother of petitioner, who was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident.Considering the averments made in the petition, status report and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the investigations in FIR No. 952/2001 registered at Police Station Sultan Puri under Section 363, IPC should be transferred to Anti-kidnapping Cell of the Crime Branch, Delhi, so that some better efforts are made to trace the missing child and apprehend the culprits.Accordingly, the investigations in FIR No. 952/2001 registered at Police Station Sultan Puri under Section 363, IPC are ordered to be transferred to the Anti-kidnapping Cell of the Crime Branch, Delhi.The petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,534,045 |
no.1/State.This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.588/2015 registered by Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all consequential proceedings on the basis of compromise.It is submitted by the counsel for the parties, that the applicants and the respondent No.2 have decided to settle their dispute amicably.The parties had filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, but the same has been rejected on the ground that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable.This Court by order dated 30/10/2018 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the factum of compromise.The Principal Registrar of this Court after recording the statements of the parties, has given the following report:"Statement of Complainant/ Respondent No.2 Smt. Neha Sharma and accused/petitioners No.1, 2 & 3 are recorded.Matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.After verifying from Complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Neha 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37049/2018 Abhishek Sharma and others Vs.State of M.P. and another Sharma and Accused/petitioners No.1 Abhishek Sharma No.2 Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma No.3 Smt. Anjana Sharma that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,558,782 |
(i) The first informant Sushila Trivedi (PW4) is the Mausi (aunt) of Ajay (since deceased).At the relevant point of :: 2 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 time, she was residing in Sangam Colony at Jabalpur and her brothers namely Premshankar (PW3), Ramashankar and Krapashankar Shukla, the father of Anjula Shukla (PW7), were living in village Bhedaghat.(ii) To greet her brothers on the festive occasion of Bhaidooj (the second day as per lunar calendar after the festival of Holi) falling on 17/3/1987, Sushila had gone to their house on a scooter driven by Ajay.In their return trip, Anjula also joined them.At about 8.30 p.m., as they reached near Pisanhari Ki Madiya, two unacquainted lads followed them on a Luna moped and started teasing the ladies by making indecent taunts.On being objected to, the miscreants, while hurling abuses, intercepted the scooter by overtaking and after parking the moped in front of the scooter, they started beating Ajay and one of them, bearing a red coloured bush- shirt, pierced a pointed object into left thigh of Ajay.Sustaining the injury, Ajay fell down and was rendered unconscious.Although, he was immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital yet, his life could not be saved.The appellant stands convicted under Sections 304-Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months.The corresponding judgment passed on 16/3/1994 by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.226/87 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.The appellant was jointly tried with co- accused Subodh, Paras and Dalchand upon the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506-B and 302/302 read with 34 of the IPC.By that judgment only, the co-accused were acquitted of all the charges whereas the appellant was also not found guilty in respect of the other charges.Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal.2. Prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under -(iii) It was upon the FIR (Ex.P-5) lodged by Sushila at 8.45 p.m., that a case under Sections 341, 294, 506 and 307 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Garha against the unidentified assailants and consequent upon the death of Ajay, it was converted into a case under Section 302 of the IPC.(iv) During investigation, the appellant was apprehended on 19/3/1987 and at his instance, the weapon of offence, which was in the shape of a Barmi (Gimlet) and :: 3 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 bloodstained red shirt were recovered.Co-accused Subodh, Paras and Dalchand were also arrested.(v) At the test identification parade conducted by Executive Magistrate M.S. Patel (PW9), both Sushila and Anjula identified the appellant as the person who had caused the injury that ultimately proved fatal to Ajay.(vi) After due investigation, charge-sheet in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 341, 506, 307 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC was submitted in the Court of CJM, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.The appellant denied the charges and pleaded false implication at the instance of police.According to him, immediately after his arrest, Sushila and Anjula were made to identify him as the assailant at the police station only.Veracity of the evidence relating to Test Identification Parade was also questioned inter alia on the ground of his physical 40% disability in the left leg.To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all including Sushila, Anjula and Kailash Prasad as the eyewitnesses to the incident.In defence, as many as 6 witnesses including the medical experts who had occasion to treat the appellant during the period from 18.05.1979 to 30.05.1979 at the Medical College Hospital were summoned.Upon a critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, concluded that the guilt of the appellant in causing death of Ajay was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.However, observing that in absence of necessary intention, it was not possible to convict the appellant for the offence of murder, he proceeded to convict the :: 4 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 appellant for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentence him as indicated hereinabove.Legality and propriety of the conviction have been assailed on the following grounds -(i) The FIR (Ex.P-5) was not recorded at the time it is said to have been scribed.(ii) The statements of eyewitnesses were materially inconsistent to each other.(c) non-mixing of similarly handicapped persons with the appellant in the test identification parade.In response, learned Dy.Govt. Adv.In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in the right perspective, it is necessary to first advert to the medical evidence available on record.Incidentally, the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. B.M. Shrivastava (PW8) is the medical expert, who had occasion to examine Ajay before :: 5 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 admitting him to Medical College Hospital for treatment.According to him, he had noticed an incised (stab) wound measuring 1 cm x cm, depth of which was not ascertainable, on left side of pubis symphysis and also found that Ajay though conscious, getting fainting attacks.The corresponding report (Ex.P-10) was also tendered in evidence.His findings at the post-mortem examination, as recorded in the report (Ex.P-9), may be reproduced as under -"Body pale, stab wound on left pubis region, 1 cm x cm x depth as follows, it was 1" lateral to midline, piercing skin, muscle soft tissue, cutting bladder over postero-superiorly, tearing peritoneum posteriorly entering abdomen to right of midline, cutting small intestine partially, entered retro-peritonial cavity, retroperitoneal cavity was full of clotted thick blood which was more than 3 litres, soft tissue, drenched dank clotted blood vessel were injured in retro-peritonial space, partially making vent into external iliac vein"In his opinion, cause of Ajay's death was haemorrhagic shock caused by injury to bladder intestine and external iliac vein (large vessel).In the cross-examination, no dispute was raised as to the cause of death as ascertained by the autopsy surgeon.Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the injury was caused by the appellant only ?Sushila (PW4) substantially reiterated the facts as recorded in the FIR (Ex.P-5) at her instance only.She clearly deposed that the appellant, wearing a red coloured bush-shirt, was one amongst the boys who, on a moped, had started following the scooter on which she & Anjula were sitting as pillion riders and also teasing them by making indecent comments from a place situated near Dhanvantari Nagar.According to her, - Ajay, who was driving the scooter, had to stop it for resuming supply of petrol from the reserve fuel thereof and, at this point of time only, the moped was parked in front of the :: 6 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 scooter and the appellant, while hurling abuses, had beaten Ajay whereas his companions called the other accused persons from a nearby shop, wherein business in the name of Sahyogi Tent House was being carried out, and all of them assaulted Ajay and in the course of the joint assault, the appellant struck with a long pointed instrument at left thigh of Ajay who, while crying "Mausi Mausi", rushed to her and fell into her lap.Sushila was cross-examined at length with reference to the recitals of the FIR (Ex.P-5) and contents of the case diary statement (Ex.D-1) scribed by SHO Om Prakash Saxena (PW11) but nothing significant could be brought in her cross-examination as to the incriminating assertions as against the appellant.The evidence of Sushila drew ample support from the eyewitness account given by Anjula Shukla (PW7).However, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out two glaring discrepancies in their evidence -(i) As per statement of Sushila, the weapon of offence was provided to the appellant by one of the co-accused, who had come to the spot on being called by the driver of the moped whereas Anjula, after corroborating the statement of Sushila in the chief examination, refuted the same in the cross-examination.(ii) In Para 6 of her statement, Sushila clearly admitted that it was the moped driver who had dealt the blow with the pointed object on the thigh of Ajay whereas according to Anjula, the injury was inflicted by the pillion rider.In addition, he has also highlighted the fact that evidence of Sushila and Anjula as to involvement of all the co-accused in causing death of Ajay was discarded in view of serious infirmities in respect of respective roles played by each one of them.However, fact of the matter is that they, being blood relations of the deceased, :: 7 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 were not likely to spare the real assailant and implicate an innocent person.Their presence at the spot was also corroborated by Kailash Prasad Barman (PW10) who had rendered necessary assistance in taking the injured Ajay to Medical College Hospital.He further claimed to have advised Sushila to lodge a report at the police station.As per his statement, on hearing commotion, while taking meals in his house situated near Pisanhari ki Madiya, he rushed to the spot and found that the brother of a young girl who was addressing their companion as 'Mausi' was lying in an injured and unconscious condition near the culvert on the road leading to Bhedaghat and the bystanders were saying that son of Munim of the Madiya had caused the injury.Moreover, he was not cross- examined in respect of these constituent incidents of the transaction, that were relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res gestae.His evidence could not be rejected on the ground that he was declared hostile by the prosecution (See.Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 202).As the corresponding contents of the FIR (Ex.P-5) were also in conformity with his evidence, it was not possible to hold that the FIR was ante-timed.It is relevant to note that Ajnula's evidence did not suffer from any taint.She categorically stated that driver of the moped was wearing a white T-shirt whereas the appellant, who was sitting as pillion rider was clad in a red coloured bush shirt.Both Anjula and Sushila had remained consistent on the point that amongst the boys who pursued them on a Luna moped, the one wearing red bush shirt was responsible for causing death of Ajay.Executive Magistrate M.S. Patel (PW9) testified that the appellant was individually identified by Sushila (PW4) and Anjula (PW7).The recitals of corresponding memo (Ex.P-1) further reflect that on 28.04.1987 i.e. nearly 41 days after the incident in question, the appellant was identified by his face only.:: 8 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994Although Abhay Pyasi (DW1) and Vinod Kumar (DW2) came forward to support the defence that the appellant was shown to Sushila and Anjula at the police station yet, in absence of corresponding complaint to any higher authorities of police, their evidence was rightly ignored as unconvincing.In his statement on oath recorded on 04.03.1994, Dr. R.H. Balchandani clearly opined that the appellant still suffered from equinus deformity in his left leg that made him identifiable by such a distinctive feature amongst a group of persons.In the light of the e xpert evidence, too much stress has been laid on the fact that the appellant, being a handicapped person, could easily be identified by the abnormality in gait.However, as explained by Sushila as well as Anjula, none of :: 9 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 them had any occasion to notice the disability of the appellant, who was wearing a full paint.Criminal Appeal No.282/1994Thus, in the light of overwhelming evidence establishing identity of appellant as the person who had caused Ajay's death, his conviction in question deserves to be maintained as well merited.This brings me to the question of sentence.At the relevant point of time, the appellant was aged about 24 years.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.He is directed to surrender to his bail bonds before trial Court on or before 15.10.09 for being committed to the custody for undergoing remaining part of the sentence.Appeal partly allowed.(R.C. MISHRA) :: 11 ::Criminal Appeal No.282/1994 JUDGE
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,360,467 |
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. His first application M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested in Crime No. 464 of 2016 at Police Station Maharajpura District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 49 (Ka) of the M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case.Hence, prayed for grant of bail.The prayer is opposed by learned PP for the respondent/State stating that 27 other criminal cases have been registered against the applicant.I have considered the submissions.As per criminal history, 27 criminal cases under IPC are registered against the applicant out of which, two cases are under 394 of IPC, two cases under 393 read with section 11,13 of MPDVPK Act, one case under section 392 of IPC read with section 11,13 of MPDVPk Act, one under section 399 of IPC and one case is under section 307 and 353 of IPC.Fourteen other cases have been registered under section 457 and 380 of IPC.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE Rks
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,367,787 |
(Passed on the 28th day of January, 2014) The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the learned second Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T.No.79/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC were framed against the applicants.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the deceased was resident of Bikhari Mohalla, Balaghat.It was alleged that the applicant No.1 was the regular visitor to the house of the deceased.On 23.11.2011, the deceased Purwanta Bai committed suicide in her own house.On investigation it was found that the applicant No.1 took a sum of Rs.1 Lac from the deceased Purwanta Bai and on her demand, he was not returning the said sum and therefore, she committed suicide.After hearing the learned counsel for-:- 2 -:-Criminal Revision No.1368 of 2012 the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order framed the charges under section 306 or 306/34 of IPC against the applicants.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that there was no relation of the deceased with the applicants, so that presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act may apply.For framing of charges, it is the golden rule that if no rebuttal evidence is adduced then, if the accused can be convicted for any offence on the basis of the evidence collected by the prosecution then, charge of such offence shall be framed.In this case, it would be very much clear that the applicant No.1 was not residing with the deceased but, he was a regular visitor to her house and therefore, no presumption can be taken against the applicant No.1 otherwise.It is submitted that the deceased had stated in the past about that transaction but, the statement of the deceased does not fall within the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act and therefore, that statement is not admissible-:- 3 -:-It is alleged that the applicants assaulted the victim because she was demanding the money.However, no specific date of that assault has been shown.No any injury was found on the dead body of the deceased, so that it could be said that soon after the assault, she had committed suicide.Before her death, she did not lodge any FIR about the assault caused by the applicants.Under such circumstances, in case of her harassment, she would have managed for lodging the FIR against the applicant, who assaulted her but, no such evidence was found on record that before her death, she had lodged any FIR about assault etc. If a woman is found dead in her own house then, there may be several reasons for her to commit suicide.By the collected evidence, the prosecution could not connect the applicant with the alleged offence.Moreover, the overt-acts as alleged against the applicant did not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore, no-:- 4 -:-It is a good case in which the revision filed by the applicants may be accepted.The order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,368,308 |
ASJ (Fast Track Court) whereby the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the ld.ASJ granting bail to the petitioner on the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of 50% of the alleged cheated amount in the Court was affirmed.The case was lodged under Section 420, 506 IPC on 10.08.2011 by the complainant Mr. Jitender who is the Manager of M/s Nu Line Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Tripulati Aluminum ltd. alleging that his companies had supplied aluminum wire rods to the petitioner's Crl.P.No.243/2012 Page 1 of 7 company M/s Tanishka Industry.According to the complaint, the total value of the wire rods supplied to the petitioner amounts to Rs. 89,40,147/-.It has been alleged that the petitioner refused to make the payment for the material supplied to him and extended threats to the complainant when he demanded the payment.While disposing the bail application filed by the petitioner, the ld.ASJ imposed the impugned condition for grant of bail which was affirmed by ld.ASJ (Fast Track Court) .Hence the present petition.P.No.243/2012 Page 1 of 7The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the modification of the order of granting bail on the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of 50% of the alleged cheated amount in the Court terming it as onerous and as tantamounting to denial of bail, in spite of the bail order, as it is not possible for the petitioner to fulfill the condition.Reliance has been placed on Sandeep Jain Vs.State (NCT of Delhi) (2000) Crl.LJ 807 to emphasise the fact that while granting bail, the court should be cautious not to impose unreasonable conditions.It has been further submitted that the trial Court has assumed the role of a recovery forum by passing such an order which is against the canons of criminal jurisprudence.It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the offence for which an accused is charged is heinous in nature, the accused should normally be accorded the benefit of bail.Reliance has been placed on State of Rajasthan Vs.Per contra, the ld.APP for the State has, though not opposed the order of grant of bail to the petitioner, but objected to the present petition and submitted that considering the huge amount of wrongful loss to the complainant, the condition imposed on the petitioner for the grant of bail is just and should not be modified.I have heard the rival submissions and perused the impugned order.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,370,608 |
On a reading of the first information report, it is alleged that these petitioners have attacked the defacto-complainant and the defacto-complainant suffered injuries on his thigh.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the defacto-complainant has been discharged from the hospital and there are long pending civil disputes between the accused party and the defacto-complainant party.The learned Government Advocate also submitted that there were cases and counter cases registered against each other regarding the same issue.Taking into consideration the facts that the petitioners are in incarceration from 20.10.2017 and investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and on further condition that:[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.On the complaint lodged by one Mr.Sathishkumar, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.381 of 2017 on 19.10.2017 for the offence punishable under Secs.147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 307 IPC and Secs.3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of The Schedule Caste and The Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 against three named accused and unnamed others.The petitioners, who are not named in the first information report, were arrested on 20.10.2017 and were remanded to custody.Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred by the petitioners.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).[b] the petitioners shall report before Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Judge/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 Sessions Judge/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.In the result, the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in CMP No.1235 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017 is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.06-12-2017srNote: Issue Order copy todaySpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderIndex:yes/nowebsite:yesToThe Principal Sessions Judge, NamakkalThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erumpatty Police station, Namakkal District P.N. PRAKASH,J., sr Crl.A.No.758 of 2017 06-12-2017
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,371,690 |
as per rules.Heard on IA.No.8809/15 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant.Chandne (Chandane).The appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 120-B, 420 r/w Section 120-B (on two counts), 467, 468, 471, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to three years, three years, three years, five years, five years, five years, three years and three years with fine amount and default clause.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On appellant's depositing 50% of the fine amount within four weeks and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/09/2015 and on such other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, his jail sentence shall remain suspended and he be released on bail.If the fine amount as aforesaid is not deposited by the appellant within four weeks, the trial Court shall proceed to cancel the bail bond.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,372 |
During rainy reason the Garhi situated in the path on the eastern side of the house of Prabhu Dayal is flooded.The said path is also flooded.Therefore the residents of the village use the narrow path which passes in front of the house of Brijraj accused.A wordy duel took place between the parties five or six months prior to the occurrence.During the course of that duel the accused had threatened that they will break of their hands and feet if they passed through the path in front of their house.For this reason members of the complainant's party had stoppeld using the party running in front of the house of the accused.On 16-10-1975 at about 11 A.M. Kamlesh, the grand-son of Sukhram deceased and son of the brother of Dagroo, P.W. I had passed through the passage in front of the house of the accused Brijraj.Shiv Chand accused gave him 2-3 slaps.Kamlesh went to his mother while crying.His mother while standing on the corner of the house of Billar lodged a protest with Shiv Chand.Thereupon all the four accused persons namely, Shiv Chand, Brijrai.Prabhu Dayal and Sahebzada abused her.On hearing the noise Dagroo, his father Sukhram (since deceased), Manger, son of Phagoo, Ram Lachan and Gabbu reached there and scolded the accused.Sukhram protested that it was they who had beaten up Kamlesh and now they were abusing them.Thereupon Prabhu Dayal Accused brought a Ballam from his house and handed it over to Shiv Chand.Then all the accused opened an attack on the complainant party while they were retreating.Shiv Chand dealt Ballam blow on the person of Sukhram.P.W. 1 Dagroo, one of the members of the com- plainant party had wielded a Danda which he had lifted from the house of Billar.The Ballam blow had hit Sukhram on his chest as a result whereof he fell down and died at the spot.After the occurrence the accused had made good their escape.The dead body of Sukhram was removed to Police Station Hata.Dagroo, P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 in the Police Station.P.W. 5 Head Moharrir Balmiki Singh recorded the F.I.R. at 3.10 P.M. in the Police Station.At 4.30 P.M. on 16-10-1975 the Station House Officer Arvind Misra received the information of lodging of the F.I.R. At that time he was in Hata Bazar.Hurriedly he reached the police station and found the dead body of Sukhram there.Direction of the wound was form front to backward and down- ward.Under the wound 1 1/2" long oblique fracture of body of sternum was found.On internal examination the Doctor found that pericardium below the above injury was ruptured.This cavity was full of semi liquid blood.Ascending Aorta was punctured on the front side measuring about 1 1/2 " x 1/4" near the commencement of the arch of aorta.Two ounces of semi digested food was found in the stomach.Small intestine contained faecal matter whereas large intestine was empty.JUDGMENT S.K. Jain, J.This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 9-7-1987, passed by Sri R.C. Agarwal, IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, whereby the appellants Shiv Chand and Prabhu Dayal were convicted and sentenced as under and Brij Raj and Sahebzada were acquitted:The facts of this case as revealed in the testimony of there eye-witnesses, namely, Dagroo, P.W.I, Smt. Barfi, P. W. 3 and Billar, P.W. 4 are that that the accused Brij Raj and Sahebzada were cousins.Sheo Chand accused is the son of Brijraj accused, Whereas Prabhu Dayal accued is the son of Sahebzada accused.He prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-5 and caused the dead body to be sent for post mortem examination under the guard of constable Muslim.P.W. 7 Gaya accompanied the dead body for identification.The autopsy surgeon found a stabbed penetrating wound 3/4" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep 21/2" below the supra sternal notch just away from midline on left side, spindle shaped with clean cut margins.The autopsy surgeon opined: (i) that the death could have been caused at about 12 noon on 16-10- 1975 by spear; (ii) the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury which was sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature.The Investigating Officer Sri Arvind Misra, P.W. 6 on receipt of the post mortem report recorded the statements of P.Ws.Since the accused Shiv Chand and Sahebzada has surrendered in the court on 22-10-1975 and 24-10-1975 respectively, they were arrested.On 9-12-1975 he recorded the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses.In order to prove its case before the trial court the prosecution examined eye-witnesses P.W. 1 Dagroo, son of the deceased, P.W. 3 Smt. Barfi, wife of Magroo, the second son of the deceased, P.W. 4 Billar, the neighbour of the deceased.Gaya, P.W. 7 had accompanied the dead body to mortuary.P.W. 6 Arvind Misra is the investigating officer of this case.He has proved various steps that he took in the progress of investigation.After the close of prosecution case the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded.They denied all the incriminating material appearing against them and took the plea of self defence.When called upon to enter upon their defence, the accused chose to lead no evidence in defence.The trial court believing the ocular account given by Dagroo, Smt. Barfi and Billar corroborated by the medical evidence, convicted the accused Shiv Chand and Prabhu Dayal as mentioned above.He, however, acquitted Brijraj and Sahebzada accused.Shiv Chand accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. whereas Prabhu Dayal Accused was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. It is that judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 9-7-1980 which has been challenged in this appeal by Shiv Chand and Prabhu Dayal, Convicts and which requires our scrutiny for its sustainability.We have heard he learned counsel for the parties and with their help have scrutinized the evidence on record.From the trend of cross-examination of the eye witnesses and the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. it is evident that the date, time and place of occurrence is not denied by the defence.It is the manner of occurrence which has been disputed.The defence version as given by Brijraj, accused in reply to question No. 20 is that Dagroo and Sukhram caused injuries to him and then his son had dealt a Ballam blow on the person of Sukhram deceased in self defence.In order to find out as to which of the versions is established, we have surgically scrutinized the statements of the eye-witnesses.We find that all the three witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution version as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.Each one of them was subjected to lengthy and sifting cross-examination but no dent in their testimony could be created.They remained consistent on all the material points and have testified that the mother of Kamlesh lodged a protest with Shiv Chand for having given slaps to Kamlesh and all the four accused persons abused her.Being attracted by the noise, Sukhram and his son Dagroo along with Mangar and Billar etc. arrived at the spot, scolded and advised the accused.When Sukhram protested against the behaviour of the accused, Prabhu Dayal accused brought a Ballam from his house and handed it over to Shiv Chand who dealt a blow with it on the person of Sukhram thereby causing injury on his chest as a result whereof he died on the spot.The testimony of the autopsy surgeon Dr. T.P. Sharma, P.W. 2 lends support to the above ocular account given by the three eye-witnesses.It has come in his testimony that the penetrating stab wound which has been described earlier and which he found on the chest of the deceased could be caused by a spear at about 12 noon.Underneath the wound he had found that the body of sternum had oblique 1 1/4" long fracture.The pericardium below the injury had been ruptured.Ascending Aorta had been punctured on the front side.It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and the conviction of accused could not be recorded on the basis of statements of highly interested witnesses.We do not find any substance in this argument.Dagroo and Smt. Barfi are none else, but the son and wife of the other son of the deceased.They would normally be most reluctant to spare the real assasilant and falsely name another person.In a murder case it is an error to reject the evidence of witnesses on the ground that they are related to the deceased.The mere fact that the witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased is all the more a good ground for believing their statement.The third eye witness Billar, P.W. 4 is from independent source and a natural witness.He is not related to either of the parties.An examination of rough site plan Ext. K-10 Shows that his house is situated on the western side of the path and the place of occurrence.He was expected to be there in natural circumstances.There is no material on record to show that he was in any way interested to falsely implicate the accused persons or was inimically disposed towards them.Even no suggestion was put to him that he had any bias against the accused.Usually, if not invariably, the conviction in a criminal trial rests on the direct testimony and credibility and acceptability thereof.As in the present case it is primarily the unimpeachability of the evidence of P.W. 1 Dagroo, P.W. 3 Smt. Barfi and P.W. 4 Billar coupled with the medical evidence comprised of the testimony of the autopsy surgeon Dr. T.P. Sharma, P.W. 2 which forms the core of the prosecution case.The above said direct testimony of the three eye-witnesses is credible and unimpeachable and in our view is sufficient to establish the charge and a consequent conviction.It is now well settled that the trial of offences and their punishment is a matter of substance which turns on the right and credibility of direct evidence.As mentioned hereinbefore, the defence has led no direct evidence whatsoever.Now for this purpose it has be seen whether the answers elicited from the prosecution witnesses, defence statements and probabilities of this case go to show that the accused had caused the injury leading to the death of the deceased in exercise of private defence.From the evidence on record it is clear that it was Kamlesh, grand son of the deceased, who had passed through the passage in front of the house of the accused in spite of the fact that they had threatened the complainant party that they will break their bones if they use the path.When Kamlesh on receipt of slaps at the hands of Shiv Chand went to his mother, it was she who instead of informing the head of her family or the male members of the family took it on herself to lodge the protest with Shiv Chand in spite of the fact that relations between her family and that of the accused were strained.She was so much dare devil that she had gone near the house of the accused and while standing on the corner of the house of Billar remonstrated before Shiv Chand.Not only this when the accused abused, her the deceased along with his son Dagroo, Billar and others had gone there and scolded the accused.In his cross-examination, P.W. 1 Dagroo has admitted that he had lifted lathi lying near the blind mother of Billar and had wielded it.A blow thereof had landed on the person of Brijraj who had fallen down.Smt. Barfi in her cross-examination had admitted that her father-in-law had also used lathi during the course of occurrence.Thus it is evident that members of the accused party would have not come in the way of the complainant party had they not gone near their house purposefully.Brijraj accused had been medico legally examined by Dr. A.N. Singh and the injury report prepared by him has been exhibited as Ext. Kh. 1 on record as the genuineness of this document and factum of injuries has been admitted on behalf of the prosecution.A perusal of the said injury report shows that there were following injuries on the person of this accused:Lacerted wound 3 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the interior part of root side of scalp with ill defined swelling around it.(ii) Contused swelling 5 cm x 3 cm with redding of the skin of the left eye lids pinkish.(iii) Contusion 6 cm x 2 1/2 cm over the right asidle behind right Ant fold over the chest.(iv) Contused swelling over the back of left palms.According to the opinion recorded by the Doctor on this injury report, the above injuries could be caused by a blunt weapon.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,637,746 |
There also is no doubt that PW3 suffered several injuries including a grievous one, while PW1 and PW2 suffered several injuries, which were simple in nature.Mos 1 to 13 were gold ornaments recovered in the case and identified by PW1 and PW2 as belonging to them.A gold bangle was recovered from his possession and on interrogation, he tendered a voluntary confession statement in which, he admitted to his involvement in Crime No.113 of 2001 on the file of the respondent i.e. the present case.3.The Public Prosecutor,Pondicherry.4.The Station House Officer,Yanum Police Station.Through The Public ProsecutorPondicherry.The Superintendent,Central Jail,AndrapradeshThe revision petitioners and two others stood trial for offence under Sections 452 and 397 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in S.C.No.41 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pondicherry.In the trial Court the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and marked 26 exhibits and 13 material objects.On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court convicted the petitioners herein, who are accused 1, 2 and 4 for offence under Section 452 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment three months and under Sections 397 r/w 34 of IPC sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each.The sentences were to run concurrently.The other two accused were acquitted.Hence, this revision.He was also involved in another crime in AndhraPradesh.A gold bangle seized from him was found connected to the present case.He led the police party to Kottapalli village and identified the second accused.Both A1 and A2 led the police party to various places where they had pledged the gold jewels and stolen articles.He was taken into custody and on his confession statement, certain gold items were recovered from a pawnbroker shop at Kakinada.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of the witnesses including PW1 to PW3, had identified the accused in the box, except with the sole exception of PW1 pointing to the fourth accused.The prosecution witnesses neither identified nor described the gold jewelry either in Ex.P1-First Information Report or in 161 Cr.P.C. statements.PW1 and 2 had merely accepted, Mos 1 to 13 as belonging to them.Therefore, there was no material to inform that Mos 1 to 13 were the items of jewelery stolen in the course of commission of offence in the instant case.The prosecution had falsely shown recovery of Mos 1 to 13 at the hands of the accused so as to obtain their conviction.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry on the other hand submits that PW1, PW2 and PW3 have spoken to the occurrence, recoveries stand effected on the confession of the accused and Mos 1 to 13 were duly identified by PW1 and PW2 as belonging to them.Upon the confession of A1, the involvement of the other accused, has come to light.We would have been able to arrive at conviction of A2 if the confession of A1 informing his involvement found due corroboration.The involvement of A2 is sought to be established through the recoveries of some of the material objects.They have admitted to having been witness to recoveries on several occasions at the instance of police.Therefore, they are seen to be stock witnesses.Placing reliance on their evidence on the aspect of the recovery from the second accused is, in the opinion of this Court, not justified.When the recovery of material objects through the second accused is so disbelieved, the confession of A1 regards the involvement of this accused stand uncorroborated.For the said reason, this Court would set aside the conviction as against the second accused.9.Accordingly, the findings of the Courts below convicting the petitioners 2 and 3 (Accused 1 and 4) under Sections 452 and 397 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentences passed against them shall stand confirmed.The conviction as against the first petitioner/second accused shall stand set aside.1.The II Additional Sessions Judge,Pondicherry.2.The Assistant Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,Pondicherry.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,379,422 |
Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Arvind Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory on behalf of applicant Kripal, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.75/2016, for offences under sections 306-A,304-B,498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Madiyado, District Damoh.At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to Annexure A/2, at page 15, which is an order passed by this Court dated 5.12.2016 in M.Cr.C.No.21015/2016 by which the co- accused persons have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.The applicant herein is the uncle-in-law.The allegation against him is identical and omnibus in nature.Under the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the instant application on the ground of parity for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,381,254 |
[a] The deceased in this case was one Mrs.P.Ws.1 and 2 are the mother and sister respectively of the deceased.It is alleged that at the time of marriage, 40 sovereigns of gold jewels were given as presentation to the deceased and 10 sovereigns gold jewels were presented to the first accused.A sum of Rs.25,000/- was given to the first accused for purchasing a bureau and a cot.Silver vessels weighing about 4 kgs were also presented.The deceased had studied only upto fifth standard.According to the prosecution, the fact that the deceased had studied only upto fifth standard was duly intimated to all the three accused and only on knowing the same, they agreed for the marriage.[b] It is further alleged that after marriage, all the three accused gave a book to the deceased and wanted her to read the same.The deceased expressed her inability.The deceased also did not know to draw kolam.This was the cause for the initial quarrel between these accused and the deceased.After some time of the marriage, on hearing about the above quarrels, P.W.1 and other family members of the deceased had gone to the house of the accused.At that time, it is alleged that the accused informed P.W.1 that when the gold jewels presented at the time of marriage of the deceased were weighed, they found that one sovereign gold was less.Therefore, they wanted the same to be compensated.P.W.1 refused to transfer the same in the name of the deceased since she had another daughter, to whom also she should give some property.[c] It is further alleged that thereafter, under the guise that the deceased was not able to cook properly, all the three accused started harassing her.After 20 days of the marriage, it is alleged that all the three accused informed P.W.1 that the bangles presented at the time were not good looking.P.W.1 further claims that she advised the deceased and asked her to lead a happy matrimonial life.Again after one week, on a phone call from the deceased, P.W.1 visited the house of the deceased in connection with a patta matter.At that time also, there was a quarrel between all the three accused and the deceased.This time, on the request made by the first accused, P.W.1, the uncle of the first accused by name Ragupathy and one Boopalan, came to the house of the accused and mediated between the accused and the deceased.They advised P.W.1 to leave the deceased at the house of the accused, assuring that they would take care of the deceased.[d] Again after one week, the deceased called P.W.1 over phone.This time, P.W.1 along with her daughter P.W.2, went to the house of the deceased.When they visited the house of the deceased, in their very presence, all the three accused manhandled the deceased.The deceased wanted to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental home.But, all the three accused requested P.W.1 and P.W.2 not to take back the deceased and leave her in the matrimonial home.The deceased told P.W.1 that there was no consummation of marriage between her and the first accused.[e] One week thereafter, the accused took the deceased back to their house.On coming to know that the deceased had no existence of menstrual cycle, the accused 1 and 3 suspected that the deceased had become pregnant, took her to a private hospital and gave some tablets.When the deceased refused to take the same, as she was not willing to undergo abortion, the accused manhandled her again.She informed P.W.1 about the same over phone.[f] The next day morning, P.Ws.1 and 2 and one Ravi [P.W.3], the husband of P.W.2 had gone to the house of the accused.At that time, Ragupathy and Boopalan informed P.W.1 that there was no sign of all the three accused allowing the deceased to continue in the matrimonial home.They requested P.W.1 and others to take back the deceased.[g] After fifteen days of the said occurrence, again the first accused came and requested P.W.2 to take back the deceased with him.But, P.W.2 did not agree.On 28.12.2002, about 15 persons belonging to the accused [either friends or relatives] came to the house of P.W.2 at Kalpakkam.They requested P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as the deceased to forget the bitter past and to allow them to take back the deceased.At 11.00 p.m., at last, they agreed and accordingly, they took the deceased with them to the house of the accused.With reluctance, the deceased accompanied them.P.W.1 informed her that she would bring her jewels immediately.[h] Finally, on 29.12.2002, at 5.00 a.m., Mr. Ragupathy referred to herein above spoke to the house of P.W.3 over phone.P.W.3 received the phone call.Ragupathy told P.W.3 that the deceased was missing.He was informed that the deceased would not have gone anywhere and wanted him to search for the deceased.After some time, P.W.1 and her family members contacted over phone and at that time, they were informed by the family members of the accused that the deceased had fallen into a well and died.P.Ws.1 to 3 and others immediately went to the house of the accused in a car.[i] By the time they reached the house of the accused, the dead body of the deceased had been retrieved from the nearby well and the same was laid on a bench.P.Ws.1 to 3 found that there were blood stains on the wall and the floor of the house of the accused.The accused did not explain as to how and why the wall and the floor got stained with blood.P7 is the FIR.He forwarded Exs.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.287 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalput.There were two other accused arrayed as the accused 2 and 3, who are the mother and grandmother respectively of the first accused.The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the accused.The first charge was against all the three accused u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the second charge was against all the three accused u/s 498(A) IPC; the third charge was against the first accused for offence u/s 302 IPC; and the fourth charge was against the accused 2 and 3 for offence u/s 302 r/w 109 IPC.By judgment dated 18.06.2012, the trial Court has acquitted the accused 2 and 3, but convicted the appellant for offence u/s 302 IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The trial Court acquitted the appellant from other charges.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal.P.W.1 therefore, gave Rs.57,000/- for purchasing new bangles for the deceased.After one month of the marriage, the deceased called P.W.1 over phone and requested her to come to the house of the accused.P.W.1 accordingly went there.During such visit, all the three accused joined together and made lot of complaints against the accused.This gave rise to some suspicion.P.W.17 - the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.957/2002 u/s 498(A) and 304(b) IPC against all the three accused.[k] P.W.18 prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.She examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and a few more witnesses including Ragupathy and recorded their statements.No recovery was made from the place of occurrence.The body was then sent for post-mortem.P.W.14 Dr.Murugesan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 31.12.2002 at 11.30 a.m. He found the following injuries:cm on the mucous membranes of left side of upper lip above the canine teeth91 x 0.5 cm on the inner aspect of right side of lower lip101 x 0.5 cm on the inner aspect of left side lower lip in the canine teeth11On dissection the underlying tissues were bruised.2 x 1 cm on the outer and lower part of the right knee joint131 x 1 cm on the front and lower part of left upper armCONTUSIONS13 X 2 X 1cm on the inner aspect of upper part of right thigh26 x 2 x 1cm on the front of lower part of left thigh35 x 2 x 1 cm on the front of upper port of right forearm46 x 2 x 1 cm on the front and outer aspect.left forearm O/D the underlying tissues were extravagatedPOST MORTEM INJURIES110 x 3 cm post mortem abrasion on the lower part of right leg 2 cm above the right ankle joint.A oblivious 11 x 3 cm post mortem abrasion on the lower third of the left leg just above the ankle jointEx.P3 is the Post-mortem Certificate.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to smothering with multiple injuries with post-mortem drowning.During the course of investigation, on 01.01.2003, at 10.00 a.m., at Arungunam Village, P.W.18 arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession.But, no discovery of any fact was made out of the same.On the same day, at 11.00 a.m., at Arungunam Village, P.W.18 arrested the second accused in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.On such arrest, she gave a voluntary confession, but no discovery of any fact was made out of the same.At 11.30 a.m., P.W.18 arrested the third accused in the presence of the same witnesses.All the three accused were sent to the Court for judicial remand.Based on the opinion of the Doctor who conducted autopsy and the Inquest Report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.18 altered the case into one u/s 498(A), 394(b) and 302 IPC and submitted the Alteration Report under Ex.P9 to the Court.On completing the investigation, she laid charge sheet against the accused u/s 498(A) and 302 r/w 109 IPC and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against all the three accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed appropriate charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgmented.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were exhibited.No materials objects were marked on either side.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 have spoken about the demand of dowry repeatedly made by all the three accused and consequential harassment; the phone calls made by the deceased to P.W.1; and finally, the death of the deceased.P.W.1 has spoken about the complaint made by her to the police also.P.Ws.5 to 8 and 10 to 13 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.9 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch prepared by P.W.18 at the place of occurrence.P.W.14 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his Final Opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.15 has spoken about the chemical examination of the visceral organs of the deceased.She has stated that there was no poison detected in the internal organs.P.W.16 has spoken about the inquest conducted on the body of the deceased.P.W.17 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.18 has spoken about the investigation done and the Final Report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did mark any document in his favour.His defence was a total denial.As against the said judgment of acquittal, no appeal was made by the State.However, P.W.1 - the mother of the deceased filed a revision in Crl.Thus, the learned single Judge found lot of infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court.Therefore, the learned Judge set aside the judgment of acquittal and remanded the case back to the trial Court for re-trial.The matter is remitted back to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpet for retrial.The Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpet, is directed to consider the evidence already on record and an opportunity should be given to the accused, if he filed any application for recalling the witness or to cross examine the witnesses.The respondents 2 to 4/accused are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.08.2011."After the above said remand order, almost all the witnesses were recalled and they were all further cross examined.After having considered the evidence comprehensively, by judgment dated 18.06.2012, the trial Court acquitted the accused 2 and 3 from all charges, however, convicted the first accused alone for offence u/s 302 IPC.The trial Court acquitted the appellant from the other charges.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is now before this Court with this appeal.At the outset, it needs to be highlighted that as against the acquittal of the accused 2 and 3 from the charges for offences 498(A), 302 r/w 109 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, neither the State nor the victim has filed any appeal before this Court.Thus, the acquittal of the accused 2 and 3 has become final.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that no evidence has been let in to explain the said delay.In the result, the appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
156,381,464 |
Item no. 88 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.7200 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.09.2018 in connection with Mangolkote Police Station Case No. 218/18 dated 27.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Subhendu Saha ... Petitioner Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Bitasok Banerjee, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Advocate Mr. Avik Ghatak, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Mangolkote Police Station Case No. 218/18 dated 27.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner claims to have come to be associated with a first year college student in Katwa upon the efforts of the family of such woman to give her in matrimony to the petitioner.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,434,612 |
201/218, I.P.C., on the allegation that by fabricating false records/evidence he had started false cases against some offenders in a murder case by showing them arrested in those false cases, when the trial of those offenders in the alleged false and fabricated cases had ended in their conviction.The point may as well be posed somewhat differently as to whether a proceeding can be allowed to continue against a police officer on the allegation that he fabricated false records/evidence and started false cases against some accused persons with a view to screen them in a murder case when the facts in issue in the alleged false cases had already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction on trial ending in their conviction.The aforesaid questions arise, in the facts and circumstances hereunder indicated:---On 19-7-92 at 20-05 hours a G. D. Entry was recorded by the petitioner, S.I. Ramesh Chandra Biswas, being G.D.E. No. 946 dated 19-7-92 recording the fact of arrest of (1) Harishankar Yadav, (2) Jogendar Yadav, (3) Sunil Yadav, and (4) Munim Yadav, under Section 42, Cr.P.C., for commission offences punishable under Section 290, I.P.C. The petitioner had thereupon prepared two reports for prosecution on that date, being(1) N.C.R. No. 332/92 against the accused Harishankar Yadav and Jogendar Yaclav on the allegation that on 19-7-92 at about 18-45 hours they were creating "hulla" near Urbashi Cinema Hall, using filthy language to the passers-by arid had thereby caused annoyance and disturbance to the general public, peace and tranquility, and (2) N.C.R. No. 333/92 against the accused Sunil and Munim.Yadav on the allegation that on 19-7-92 at about 19-05 hours they were creating "hulla" near Roopnarayanpur H. C. Security Gate, causing nuisance and disturbance to the general public, peace and tranquility under influence of liquor.On reaching Jiutdanga they had noticed the accused persons, named in the F.l.R. (including the aforesaid four accused in the aforesaid N.C.R. Nos. 332 and 333 of 1992), coming out of a side lane and standing in front of said Lalan Prosad.They threw two bombs at him as a result of which he (Lalan Prosad) fell down on the ground, and the accused Joginder Yadav started firing at him from a pipe-gun.The informant Gopal Prosad and his companions had thereupon raised alarm as a result of which the neighbouring people had rushed to the s-pot, whereupon the aforesaid assailants had fled away.The said Lalan Prosad was immediately removed to the Assansol Sub-Divisional Hospital, where he had eventually succumbed to his injuries.It is also stated in the F.l.R. that the accused Ukil Yadav and his family were at loggerheads with the family of Lalan Prosad, and they were on the look out for an opportunity for killing him.He had eventually been attacked on that' day with the intention of murdering him.and 333 of 1.992 under Section 290, I.P.C.The Investiging Officer (hereinafter shortened into I.O.) in the aforesaid murder case, being No. 145 of 1992, had as well submitted F.l.R. with a forwarding report before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate concerned (hereinafter shortened into S.D.J.M.).The LO.On the same very day (19-7-92), Asan-sol P.S. Case No. 145/92 dated 19-7-92 under Sections.302/120B/34, I.P.C., Sections.25/27, Arms Act, and Section 9(b)(3) of the I. E. Act was started upon a written complaint by the inforrnant-Gopal Prosad, the added O.P. No. 2 herein, against the aforesaid four accused persons and seven others on the allegation that on that day (19-7-92) around 19-00 hours when he was returning home from a nearby market, along with his neighbours, one Lalan Prosad was also found proceeding towards the same direction.had as well made a prayer before the learned S.D.J.M. for showing the aforesaid four accused persons in the aforesaid two N.C.R. Cases Nos. 332 and 333 of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Petty Cases) as arrested in the said murder case, which was allowed.On the next day (21-7-92), the I.O. in the aforesaid murder case had also made a prayer before the learned S.D.J.M. for interrogating the aforesaid four accused persons in the said two Petty Cases in custody, which also allowed.The learned S.D.J.M., while rejecting the application for bail on behalf of the aforesaid four accused on 23-7-92, upon consideration of the materials placed before him, had made certain observations about interpolations etc. in the court records expressing doubts as to the allegations made therein.The wife of the aforesaid victim Lalan Prosad appears to have sent a written appeal to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 26-7-92, sending copies thereof to the various authorities, making allegations against the petitioner for giving shelter to the aforesaid four accused persons who had murdered her husband.The I.O. in the aforesaid murder case had thereafter made a prayer before the learned S.D.J.M. on 30-7-92' for adding Sections.201 and 218, I.P.C., with the prayer for tagging the records of Salanpur P.S. N.C.R. Nos. 332 and 333 of 1992, which was rejected by him (S.D.J.M.) on 1-8-92 for the reasons recorded therein.The I.O. had thereafter filed another detailed report before the learned S.D.J.M. on 3-8-92 in the relevant murder case making allegations against the petitioner that the aforesaid two Petty Cases (Nos. 332 and 333 of 1992) were falsely started and fabricated by him with a view to shield the aforesaid four accused from punishment in the said murder case by using his official capacity in consideration for money.The I.O. had also prayed for issue of warrant of arrest against the petitioner (in that case) and for adding Sections.201/218, I.P.C. against him (petitioner), which was allowed by the learned S.D.J.M.Being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned S.D.J.M. on 3-8-92 adding Sections 201/218, I.P.C., and directing issue of W.A. against him, the petitioner, S.I. Ramesh Chandra Biswas, has preferred the instant Criminal Revision on 17-8-92 for appropriate relief in terms thereof on the grounds set forth therein.During the investigation in the aforesaid relevant murder case (No. 145 of 1992) and the pendency of the instant Criminal Revision before this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate had proceeded to dispose of the said two Petty Cases (Nos. 332 and 333/92) in the absence of any step by the I.O. (in the relevant murder case) for staying the proceedings thereof.On 21-1-93, the afore said four accused persons in the aforesaid two Petty Cases had been examined by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, who had thereupon pleaded guilty to the offences alleged, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate, who had found them guilty of the offences punishable under Section 290, I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced them therefor.In view of the nature of the allegations made by the I.O. in the relevant murder ease that the petitioner (S.I. Ramesh Chandra Biswas) had started false cases by fabricating false records/evidence against the aforesaid four accused persons, being N.C.R. Nos. 332 and 333 of 1992, with a view to shield them and protect them from punishment in the relevant murder case, it was indeed the l.O.'s duty to take steps before the learned S.D.J.M. to allow him (I.O.) to take charge of the records of the alleged fabricated N.C.R. Cases Nos. 332 and 333 of 1992 in the interest of the investigation of the murder case, along with a prayer for allowing him (I.O.) to seize the records of the aforesaid two alleged fabricated Petty Cases for making investigation for ascertaining the genuineness of the allegations made in the said (Petty) Cases.It was also a bounden duty of the I.O. (in the said murder case) to make a prayer before the appropriate forum for staying further proceedings in the aforesaid two Petty (N.C.R.) Cases till completion of investigation in the murder case so that the investigation therein may not he jeopardised.The I.O. in the murder case should as well have taken step for proceeding against the petitioner (herein) under Section 340, Cr.P.C., in view of the allegations made against him.But unhappily for the prosecution, no such step appears to have been taken by the I.O. (in the murder case) and the Prosecuting Agency, who had thus allowed the aforesaid two Petty Case (Nos. 332 and 333 of 1992) to be disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate by his relevant order dated 21-1-93, the way he did, for his (I.O/s) failure to shake off his somnolence, raising question in the instant revisional case as to whether the finding offact by the learned Magistrate in the said two Petty Cases could at all be allowed to be disturbed according to law, as sought for.It would seem worth bearing in mind, as already indicated at the outset, that the allegation against the accused Harishankar and Jogindar in N.C.R. Case No. 332 of 1992 is that on 19-7-92 at about 18-45 hours they -were creating "hulla" near Urbashi Cinema Hall, using filthy language to the passers-by thereby causing annoyance and disturbance to the general public, peace and tranquillity.The allegation against the accused Sunil and Munim Yadav in N.C.R. Case No. 333 of 1992 is that on the same very day (19-7-92) at about 19-05 hours, they were creating "hulla" near Roopnarayanpur H.C. Security Gate, causing annoyance and disturbance to the general public, peace and tranquillity under influence of liquor.It would be pertinent to note in this context that the alleged places of occurrence in the aforesaid two Petty Cases are, undisputedly, at a distance of more than 30 kilometres from the alleged place of occurrence in the relevant murder case (No. 145 of 1992), as submitted by the learned Counsel's during the hearing.The allegation against the aforesaid four accused and seven others in the aforesaid relevant murder case (Case No. 145 of 1992) is that on the same very day (19-7-92) around 19-00 hours the accused persons had come out of a side lane at Jiutdanga and threw two bombs at Lalan Prosad, who was proceeding along the road, as a result of which he fell down on the ground, and the accused Jogindar started firing at him from a pipe-gun.On alarm being raised by the informant and his companions, the neighbouring people had rushed there, and the assailants had fled away.The victim Lalan Prosad was immediately shifted to Assansol Sub-Divisional Hospital, who had eventually succumbed to his injuries.In view of the nature of the allegations made in the aforesaid two Petty Cases and in the aforesaid murder case, if the facts alleged in the aforesaid two N.C.R. cases against the aforesaid four accused persons in question are established and determined by a competent court of law, the allegations against them in the relevant murder case could not clearly arise.If the findings of guilty of the said four accused by the learned Magistrate in the relevant two Petty Cases, on the allegations made against them, as stated above, stand, they could not clearly be prosecuted and convicted in the relevant murder case for the reasons already indicated.The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 21-1-93 in the aforesaid two Petty cases finding the four accused concerned guilty to the alleged offences punishable under Section 290, I.P.C., and convicting and sentencing them thereunder does not appear to have been challenged in any way by any of the parties before any appropriate forum.The same stand as such.201/218, I.P.C., against the petitioner and directing issue of warrant of arrest against him could neither be sustained on a technical ground.The learned Magistrate, upon hearing, by his relevant order dated 1-8-92 had rejected the prayer of the I.O. for tagging the case records of the aforesaid two N.C.R. cases as also the prayer for adding Section 201/218, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate having thus once rejected the I.O.'s prayer for addition of Section 201/218, I.P.C., by his aforesaid relevant order dated 1-8-92, he did, it was incompetent for him to allow the same very prayer by his subsequent order dated 3-8-92, the way he did.The Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower a Magistrate to revise or review his own order.No order for costs.Let xerox copies of this order be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties concerned, as prayed for, on usual undertakings.Let the relevant case against the accused person therein, other than the petitioner herein, proceed according to law without any unreasonable delay.
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,461,561 |
of the case reveals that a criminal case has been registered against the co-accused persons as well as against the present applicant alleging cheating of an amount to the tune of Rs.3,12,970/-.The present applicant is the broker.This Court vide order dated 02.12.2016 passed in M.Cr.The total amount involved in the case is Rs.3,12,970/-.The order dated 02.12.2016 reads as under:-"MCRC-10317-2016 (SHABBIR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 02-12-2016 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.This application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant/Shabbir, who is in custody since 29.09.2016 in connection with Crime No.236/2015 registered at P.S. Balakbada, for commission of offence punishable u/S. 420, 468, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this Court that the applicant has purchased certain goods, however as there was a dispute in the matter in HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.16341/2018 (Girish Borgaonkar Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-2-) payment of full amount.Learned counsel has argued before this Court that now between the parties dispute of Rs.12,970/- is left.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has read out the statement from the case-diary and has opposed the application for grant of bail.This Court has carefully gone through the statement available in the case diary and is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed.Applicant/Shabbir is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified Copy, as per Rules."This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, is of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest by the Police in the aforesaid case, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,466,682 |
2 The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Keelaiyur Police Station, the respondent herein, is that the appellant/accused Sudha and the deceased Murugaiyan are the residents of Erikarai Street, Karai Nagar, Tirupoondi.The land measuring 40 Kuzhi, was pledged for Rs.150/- by one Gopal, father-in- law of the deceased Murugaiyan to one Dhanapal, father of the appellant/accused and the said Dhanapal was in occupation and enjoyment of the said land.The land was situate behind the house and in between the lands of the deceased Murugaiyan.The deceased Murugaiyan had attempted to redeem the land from Dhanapal – father of the appellant/accused.But, the said Dhanapal had refused to return the property and therefore, there existed an enmity between the families of the deceased Murugaiyan and Dhanapal.While so, three days prior to the occurrence, the appellant/accused had cut the branches of acacia trees which stood on the Southern side of the said land and thereafter,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 24.04.2007, at about 7.00 a.m., the appellant/accused had tried to remove the branches already cut by her and the deceased Murugaiyan objected to, due to which, there ensued a wordy altercation between the deceased and the appellant/accused.During the quarrel, the appellant/accused, with an intention of causing the death of Murugaiyan, fisted him on the chest, as a result of which, the said Murugaiyan had fallen down.Thereafter, the appellant/accused had sat on the stomach of Murugaiyan and beat him on his chest with hands knowing well that it is likely to cause the death of Murugaiyan.Murugaiyan died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on the vital organ.The charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC.3 The case was taken on file in PRC No.9/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagapattinam and subsequently, the case was made over to the Trial Court, viz.They are the residents of Erikarai Street, Karai Nagar, Thirupoondi.She had deposed that an extent of 100 Kuzhi of lands belonged to one Nagamuthu, junior paternal father of the deceased Murugaiyan.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 The father of the appellant/accused had paid a sum of Rs.150/- to the said Nagamuthu and had taken possession and was enjoying the land belonging to the deceased family.The deceased Murugaiyan had asked for the return of the land, due to which, there was a dispute and enmity between the families of the deceased and the appellant/accused.She had further deposed that on 24.04.2007, at about 8.30 a.m., the deceased had come to his house for having food and returned to the field which was situated just behind his house.At that time, he had seen the appellant/accused cutting the thorny bushes and objected the same, due to which, there ensued a quarrel.The appellant/accused had fisted on the deceased and he fell down.Thereafter, she had sat on the deceased and punched him on his chest.The above occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2- Vijayakumari/daughter of P.W.1 and the deceased and also by P.W.3-Mariyappan and P.W.4-Gopi who are the residents of the same Village and neighbours of the deceased Murugaiyan.(2) P.W.2-Vijayakumari, daughter of P.W.1 and the deceased Murugaiyan, had deposed about her witnessing the occurrence said to have happened on 24.04.2007 at about 7.00 a.m. and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 appellant/accused running away from the scene of crime by saying ''I have killed him''.She had further deposed about taking her father/deceased to the hospital and also accompanying her mother [P.W.1] to the police station to prefer a complaint.She had also deposed about the enmity that existed between her family and the family of the appellant/accused with regard to 100 Kuzhi of land and that she had attested the Inquest Report under Ex.(3) P.W.3-Mariyappan, a resident of Karai Nagar, had deposed that on 24.04.2007, while he was having bath in the pond situate near the house of the deceased Murugaiyan, he had seen the quarrel that took place between the deceased and the appellant/accused and subsequently, the deceased falling down on account of fisting by the appellant/accused.He had further deposed that the appellant/accused sat on the chest of the deceased and punched him and thereafter, ran away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.3 had also deposed that witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and one Neethipathi, also rushed to the scene of occurrence and the deceased Murugaiyan was taken to the Government Hospital at Nagapattinam, in an auto by P.Ws.1 to 3http://www.judis.nic.in 7 and one Kumar, brother of P.W.3. P.W.3 had attested the Inquest Report under Ex.(4) P.W.4-Gopi had deposed that he had seen people gathering in the place of occurrence and had also seen the appellant/accused running away from the place, saying that ''I have killed him''.Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 3 and others had taken the victim to hospital, where the doctor, who examined him, declared him dead.(5) P.W.5-Gunasekaran was the witness to the preparation of Observation Mahazar under Ex.Ramesh Babu, Civil Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital at Nagapattinam at the relevant point of time, had deposed that he had examined the deceased Murugaiyan onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 24.04.2007 at about 8.25 a.m. and declared that he was brought dead.He had sent the body to Mortuary for postmortem and also given intimation to the police.He issued the Death Intimation under Ex.P.8 and the Accident Register under Ex.(7) P.W.9-Velayutham had deposed about the arrest of the accused and affixing his signature under Ex.P.13, in the admissible portion of the confession statement of the appellant/accused.He had preserved the viscera and sent the same to the Forensic Lab and after the receipt of Viscera Report [Ex.P.11], P.w.8 had opined that the deceased would have appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury sustained in the vital organ.This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 27.10.2010 made in SC.No.40/2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.The appellant stood charged and tried for the commission of the offence under section 302 IPC and the Trialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 Court, vide impugned judgment dated 27.10.2010, had found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under section 304[Part II] IPC and convicted and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.,the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in SC.No.40/2008 and necessary charge was framed.The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11 and also marked Exs.No oral and documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 4 On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313[1][b] Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case.5 The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, acquitted the appellant/accused for the offence under section 302 IPC and however, found her guilty for the commission of the offence under section 304[Part II] IPC and awarded punishment, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.6 The facts of the prosecution, as culled out from the evidence let in before the Trial Court, are as follows:-(1) P.W.1-Kasiyammal / defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased Murugaiyan and P.W.2-Vijayakumari is the daughter of P.W.1 and the decesaed Murugaiyan.(8) P.W.10-Selvamani, Head Constable attached to the respondent Police Station had deposed about handing over the FIR under Ex.P.14 and the complaint under Ex.P.1 to the Judicial Magistrate Court.(9) P.W.11-Rajendran, Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station had deposed that on 24.04.2007, at about 8.30 a.m., he received the intimation from the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam and went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1-wife of the deceased Murugaiyan ; returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.94/2007 for the offence under section 302 IPC.Ex.P.14 is the FIR.He sent thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 complaint [Ex.P.1] and FIR [Ex.P.14] to the Court concerned through the Head Constable.Thereafter, he went to the hospital at about 10.00 a.m., on the same day and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared the Inquest Report under Ex.P.15 and sent the body for postmortem along with a requisition [Ex.P.9].(10) P.W.8-Dr.J.J.Lankaram, was the Assistant Medical Officer at District Headquarters Government Hospital at Nagapattinam and he had deposed that on 24.04.2007, he received the requisition through one Arumugam, Head Constable for conducting postmortem on the body of Murugaiyan and commenced the same at about 4.45 p.m., on the same day.He found the following injuries:-External Injury:- An abrasion of size 1x0.5cm present in left cheek.No discharge from ear, nose and mouth jaws clenched.Tongue inside the mouth.Internal Appearance:- Thorax – well formed, no fracture ribs.Heart – weight 350 gm.C/s.Chamber contains blood.Lungs weight right 450 gms – Left 400 gms.C/s.A contusion of size 2x2 cm in base of right lung.Hyoid bone intact.Abdomen – Distended.Blood present in the peritoneal cavity.Retro Peritoneal haematome present.Liver weight 1500 gm.A laceration of sizehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 6x2x2cm present in the posterior aspect of right lobe of liver – c/s pale.Spleen – 180 gm weight.C/s.A Haematoma of size 2x1 cm in head of pancreas.Kidneys each weighing 150 gms c/s.Pale.'' Ex.P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate.(11) P.W.11-the Investigating Officer, had proceeded with the further investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.5] and a Rough Sketch [Ex.P.17] in the presence of P.W.5 [Gunasekaran] and on Neethipathi.He also recorded the statements of the witnesses.On 25.04.2007 at about 11.00 a.m., he effected the arrest of the appellant/accused in the presence of P.W.9-Velayutham and one Tamizhselvam and recorded her confession statement.Thereafter, he sent the appellant/accused to judicial custody.After completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the appellant/accused for the offence u/s.302 IPC on 02.06.2007.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 7 The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, had convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above and hence, this appeal.8 The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, made the following submissions:-a) The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge against the appellant on 29.07.2010 in SC.No.28/2010 is illegal and contrary to the evidence before the Court.b) The Trial Court having disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, ought to have disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 also.c) There was pre-existing enmity between the families of the deceased and the appellant/accused with regard to a land and further, there also existed an enmity between P.W.3 and the father of the appellant/accused and when such being so, the Trial Court ought not to have given credence to the evidence of P.W.3, who is an interested witness, for convicting the appellant/accused.P.W.8-Doctor also stated that there is a possibility that the death could have happened at 4.45 a.m., on 24.04.2007, which would suggest that the witnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all as spoken by them and that the appellant/accused was falsely implicated due to the pre-existing enmity and animosity between the parties.e) The occurrence is stated to have happened in the middle of the village where there are other houses ; but the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witnesses, more specially, the witnesses mentioned in the FIR, have been omitted to be examined for no reason.If the persons whose names are mentioned in the FIR have been examined, the real fact would have come to light.f) There is an inordinate and unexplained delay in FIR reaching the Court concerned.Though it is an admitted evidence of P.W.10, the Head Constable who had taken the FIR to the Court, that he had received the passport along with FIR at about 12.00 p.m. onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 24.04.2007 and the distance between the police station and the jurisdictional Court is only 25 Km and the travelling time is only half-an-hour.He would submit that there are frequent buses between Keelaiyur and Nagapattinam and in such circumstances, the unexplained delay in the FIR reaching the Court, creates a doubt in the entire case of the prosecution.g) Further, the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., and the other documents relating to the case, were sent to the Magistrate Court concerned, with a great delay, creating a grave doubt in the prosecution case.9 The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, apart from pointing out the above infirmities in the prosecution case, would in the alternate, submit that as per Ex.P.15-Inquest Report, the reason for the incident is stated to be that the deceased Murugaiyan said to have abused the appellant/accused in filthy language and also sexually abused her, which provoked her, as a result of which, she had pushed him down and that the deceased, who was already a chronic alcoholic for more than 30 years and whose health condition was affected due to his alcoholism, had fallen down and died.He would further submit that the act of the appellant/accused was not done either with the knowledge that it washttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 likely to cause the death or that she had any intention to cause the death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and it was only due to quarrel and the provocation by the deceased Murugaiyan abusing her in filthy language and attempting to assault her.Further, the medical evidence is not conclusive that the death of the victim was only due to the assault by the appellant/accused and thereby, the act of the appellant/accused will not come within the ambit of section 340[Part II] IPC when it is neither done with knowledge nor with any intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.He would also submit that the appellant/accused had already suffered 50 days of incarceration and taking into consideration, the plight of the appellant/accused who was 21 years old at the time of occurrence, prayed that this Court may modify the sentence to one of period already undergone.10 The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on the following decisions:-A) AIR 1976 SC 2423 [Ishwar Singh Vs.State of Haryana and another].E) AIR 2003 SC 1813 [Rajeevan and Another V. State of Kerala] F) 2016 [13] SCC 333 [Baby Alias Sebastian and another V. The Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly].The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay in despatching the FIR to the Court concerned, as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, is not that serious as the case was registered around 12.00 Noon on 24.04.2007 and the FIR had reached the Court on the same day at 6.00 p.m. He would further submit that the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused are trivial in nature and further, in the cross examination of P.W.11-Investigating Officer, the appellant/accused has confirmed her presence at the scene of occurrence and having assaulted the deceased and thereby, the Trial Court, on proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, had rightly convicted thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 appellant/accused and that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court and prays for dismissal of this criminal appeal.12 I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgement of conviction, including the relevant provisions of Law and authorities of various Courts.Point for Consideration:-13 [1] Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? ; and [2] Whether the judgment, impugned herein, warrants interference ?14 It is the admitted case of the prosecution that there existed enmity between the families of the deceased Murugaiyan and the appellant/accused with regard to the possession and occupation of a land.This aspect has been categorically spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2, who are, respectively the wife and daughter of the deceased.http://www.judis.nic.in 17 15 On a careful perusal of the evidence placed before this Court, it could be seen that there is an inordinate delay in despatching the FIR to the jurisdictional Court concerned.It is the evidence of P.W.1 in the cross-examination that she went to the respondent police station along with her daughter/P.W.2 at about 9.00 a.m., on 24.04.2007 and given a complaint under Ex.The distance between the Police Station and the jurisdictional Court is only about 25 Km and it would hardly take half-an- hour to one hour to reach the Court.However, the FIR had reached the Court only at 6.00 p.m., on 24.04.2007 with an inordinate and unexplained delay.The evidence of P.W.10-Head Constable in this regard, assumes importance as he has clearly stated that he had handed over the FIR to the Magistrate concerned only at 6.00 p.m., on the same day though he had received the passport and FIR at about 12.00 Noon itself.Hence, the delay in sending the FIR to the Court concerned casts doubt on the case of the prosecution case.16 Next comes the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the lodging of the complaint before the respondent police.It is the categorical and specific evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2http://www.judis.nic.in 18 that after admitting the victim Murugaiyan in the Government Hospital at Nagapattinam, they went to the respondent Police Station at about 9.00 a.m., and P.W.1 gave a oral complaint which was reduced into writing by the official in the police station under Ex.P.1 and that she had affixed her thumb impression in the said complaint.In the cross-examination, P.W.2 had specifically stated that her mother/P.W.1 did not give any complaint in the hospital.Whereas, it is the categorical admission of the Investigating Officer-P.W.11 that on receipt of the intimation from the hospital, he went to the hospital at about 8.30 a.m. on 24.04.2007 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and thereafter, returned to the police station and registered the case in Crime No.94/2007 for the offence u/s.302 IPC.This creates a grave doubt as to the genesis of the complaint.17 Though the above discrepancies affects the case of the prosecution at the very threshold itself, it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the overt act attributed against the appellant/accused?On the fateful day the accused went to the house of the deceased and renewed his demand.19.06.2019 Web:Yes AP To:1.The Sessions Judge Nagapattinam.2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge Nagapattinam.3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagapattinam.4.The Judicial Magistrate No.2 Nagapattinam.5.The Inspector of Police Keelaiyur Police Station Nagapattinam District.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,467 |
Respondent has stated in his complaint, that he was working as a handicapper in the Royal Western Turf Club, Bombay.Subsequent to his retirement, he was honoured by the said Club, for the meritorious services rendered by him.In January, 1990, he was appointed as Senior Racing Official by the Madras Racing Undertaking, now taken over and under the control of the Government of Tamil Nadu managed by a committee of respected public men.The averments in the complaint further show, that the petitioner with a deliberate intention to lower his reputation and dignity in the minds of right thinking people and more particularly in the minds of the Royal Western Turf Club, caused a publication by his letter dated 26-12-1989, which was sent to all the members of the aforestated Club, who were residing in Madras.The complaint also shows, that those members of the Club, who were residing at Madras, had received the said letter.He then urged that list of witnesses had not been appended to the complaint and that was against the mandate of Section 204 Cr.P.C. In passinng, he mentioned, that, on the available facts, Explanation-4 to Section 499 I.P.C., must be taken note of, as to when exactly an imputation can be said to harm a person's reputation.On these grounds, I have heard Mr. Satheesh Parasaran, learned counsel representing the respondent.To appreciate the divergent contentions, it will be necessary to have a quick look into the averments made in the complaint and the sworn statement of the respondent.Since no other document, except the alleged defamatory letter and its enclosure, have been appended to the complaint, question of considering further documentary evidence, will not arise at this stage.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,476,689 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Vijaypur, District Sheopur, in connection with Crime No.192/2017 registered in relation to the offence punishable under section 304 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that being an Ayurvedic doctor (RMP) and not authorized to administer injections or drip, he injected Saloni Shakya, a girl aged about 4-5 years, during her treatment, resulting into her death.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated.According to him, the incident took place on 18/6/17, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 20/8/17 without any plausible explanation for delay.He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not proved that Saloni died due to the treatment given by the applicant.He further submits that in view of the allegations as levelled against the applicant, offence under section 304, IPC is not made out and, at the most, offence under section 304-A would be made out, which is bailable in (2) M.Cr.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,480,133 |
A.1502/2013 Page 1 of 16Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that DD No.27A came to be recorded on 16.04.2011 at 6:43 PM at Police Station Bharat Nagar to the effect that 15-20 individuals of F Block JJ Colony, Wazirpur had brought dead body of a child aged about 10-11 years, having injury marks, at Kabristaan, Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi.The investigation was assigned to SI Deepak Dahiya who along with Ct.Devender, ASI Durga Prashad, ASI Shashi Kumar and others reached F Block, JJ Colony, Wazirpur.From there he came to know that the body of the child had been taken to Kabristaan Kewal Park from House No.F-280, JJ Colony, Wazirpur.The investigation was taken over by PW-42 (Inspector Ashok Kumar).On inspection of the body, he noticed various injuries on it.PW-25 (Rahis Khan), present at the spot, informed that the body was brought from F Block, JJ Colony, Wazirpur for its burial by 15/20 persons.Mohd. Khalilullah (since convicted), Mohd.Moti-ur-Rehman and Chamman Ahmed were present there.On inquiry, Mohd. Khalilullah informed that the body was that of the child Moim @ Chotu who worked with his elder brother Mohd.Kalimullah (the appellant) to make bindis; he also lived there.He further informed that on 16.04.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. when he had gone to see the appellant at F-280, JJ Colony, Wazirpur, he saw the dead body of a child and brought it to the graveyard at Kewal Park.The Investigating Officer along with staff went to F-280, ground floor, JJ Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 2 of 16 Colony, Wazirpur along with Mohd.The crime team was called; scene of the crime was photographed; the Investigating Officer prepared the rukka (Ex.PW42/A) and lodged the FIR.Necessary proceedings were conducted at the spot; various articles lying therein were recovered.The body was sent for post-mortem examination.A.1502/2013 Page 2 of 16During investigation, Rajav Ali, a child worker kept in the house of Shabbir Ahmad (since convicted), was recovered from there in the presence of his wife Farida.Juvenile Welfare Officer was informed; he recorded Rajav Ali's statement and after his medical examination; the child was sent to Child Welfare Committee and from there to Mukti Ashram.On 20.04.2011, the Investigating Officer received information that other children were kept at Bhalaswa at Gaffur's house.Two children, Sayeed Ansari and Nasim (who was deaf and dumb) were recovered from there.Sayeed Ansari informed that the appellant used to give beatings to the children for getting the work done from them.Statement of child Sayeed Ansari was recorded.At his instance, weapons of offence were recovered from appellant's house and seized vide seizure memo Ex.41/B. Both the children were medically examined and sent to Mukti Ashram after producing them before Child Welfare Committee.On 21.04.2011, the appellant was arrested from Inderlok Metro Station.Pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-41/F), certain recoveries were effected from his house.Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Khalilullah, Md.Shabbir and Md.Haseeb were also arrested; they were interrogated Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 3 of 16 and their disclosure statements (Ex.PW41/M, Ex.PW41/N and Ex.In her court statement, she informed that Shabir (who had his maternal uncle's residence at her native place) brought Moim to Delhi to educate and teach him.She however did not implicate the appellant or co-convicts for inflicting injuries to her son during his stay at Delhi.She rather informed that whenever she had conversation with Moim on phone, he always told her that he was 'well'.After coming to know from the villagers about Moim's death, she along with her mother-in-law came to Delhi to perform his last rites.Public Prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions as the Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 5 of 16 witness was not providing complete details.She informed that her other son Nasim had also come to Delhi along with Moim; Nasim was deaf and dumb.She denied if both the children were brought by the appellant to educate and teach them at Delhi.She volunteered to add that it was Shabir who had brought them to Delhi.She further denied that during conversation with Moim, he had informed her that he was engaged in the work of making 'bindis' and that Kallimulah (the appellant) used to frequently thrash him.Again, she volunteered to state that he had informed that Shabir was keeping him well.Public Prosecutor after seeking court's permission, cross-examined the mother.In the cross-examination, she denied if the appellant was related to her.She emphatically stated that she even did not know him.She being the victim's mother must be interested to bring the real offender to book, she is not expected to be won over by the appellant for any consideration.Needless to state, she completely exonerated the appellant.PW-21 Khanija Khatoon, deposed that it was Shabir who had brought her grandson Rajav, aged around 8/9 years to Delhi to provide proper education.She also deposed that during her conversation with Rajav on telephone, he always informed her that he was being kept properly by Shabir.She came to Delhi on the call of Delhi Police after Moim's murder.Rajav was at Ibrahim Pur that time and when she saw him there, he had injury marks on his body.As observed above, at the time of medical examination on 17.04.2011, the child Rajav Ali did not have any fresh injury on his body.The child informed about his visits twice to Delhi and no beatings were given to him during his first visit.Again, it is not clear as to what was the duration of his first visit and what was at the time of second visit.PW-25 (Rahis Khan), who had suspected something foul with the body of the child brought at the graveyard by a group of 20/22 persons on 16.04.2011 informed the PCR.He, however, did not depose as to who were the individuals who had brought the body of the child to the graveyard or if the appellant was one of them.PW-26 (Rahis Ahmed), appellant's landlord, had let out the ground floor of house No.F-280 to the appellant about 4/5 months prior to the occurrence.He was, however, unable to give details of the family members or the children who lived with him.Public Prosecutor, he denied the contents of the statement (Ex.PW-26-PX1) to have been recorded by him before the police.He categorically denied if in the night intervening 15/16.04.2011 at about 1:00 am (midnight), while returning from the house of his relative, when he reached House No.280; after hearing hue and cries of a child; he knocked and inquired from the appellant.He further denied if he was informed by the appellant that one of the children had become ill and he was being treated by him in spiritual manner.He denied if the appellant did not open the door and he went to his house.He further denied if on the said day at around 3-3:30 p.m. many public persons had gathered in front of the appellant's house and when he enquired from the co-convict Khallillulah, he responded that the child who was ill had expired.He further informed that the appellant had gone to attend the morning prayers.He also denied if the appellant was among those who had Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 11 of 16 brought the body of the child to the graveyard.The witness even did not recognize co-convict Shabir and Abdul Hasid.By an order dated 30.05.2013, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine `1,00,000/- under Section 302 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine Crl.All the sentences were to operate concurrently.PW41/O) were recorded.Rajav Ali and Sayeed Ansari recorded their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. During investigation, the post-mortem examination report was collected.The weapons of offence were sent to the examining doctor to seek opinion if injuries sustained by the victim were possible with the said crime weapons.Upon completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant- Kalimullah and co-convicts Khalilullah, Shabbir and Abdul Haseeb in the court for committing various offences.The prosecution in order to establish its case examined 42 witnesses and relied on several documents.In their 313 statement, the appellant and co-convicts denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the other co-convicts and on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court by the detailed impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty for the offences mentioned previously.It is pertinent to note that the prosecution did not challenge the appellant's acquittal under those offences.It is apt to note that co- convicts Khalilullah, Mohd.Shabir and Abdul Haseeb were held guilty for the offence under Sections 201/34 IPC only.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.A.1502/2013 Page 3 of 16We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have scrutinized the evidence on record minutely.On 16.04.2011, his dead body was taken to graveyard in haste for burial.PW-25 (Rahis Khan), a consultant with Intazimia Committee, Muslim Kadimi Kabristan, Kewal Park Road, Azadpur, became suspicious and called the PCR.Before the PCR could arrive, the individuals who had brought the body fled the spot.The child had injury marks on the body.In the post-mortem examination report (Ex.PW15/A), after observing several injuries on the body, PW- 15 (Dr.V.K.Jha) was of the opinion that cause of death was combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and asphyxia consequent to repeated blunt forced impact diverted upon the body.Post-mortem findings were consistent with repeated assault as evident from the injuries of different durations; time since death was opined approximately five days.The cause of death suggested by the expert was not challenged in the cross- examination.She did not attribute any role, whatsoever, to any of the convicts for her son's death.Learned Addl.When confronted with her statement Ex.PW24/PX1, she denied the contents recorded therein.She even declined to identify the appellant in the court.On enquiry from Rajav Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 6 of 16 about the injuries, he informed that it was the appellant who had given him beatings.In the cross-examination, she fairly admitted that the appellant was neither known nor related to her.A.1502/2013 Page 6 of 16PW-21's deposition is in the nature of hearsay evidence; no injuries were inflicted on the person of Rajav or Moim in her presence.She did not implicate the appellant-Kalimullah for inflicting injuries to Moim.It is relevant to note that PW-22 (Rajav Ali) was medically examined vide MLC PW-13/B on 17.04.2011, PW-13 Dr.Neeraj Chaudhary informed that as per local examination, no fresh injuries were seen on his body.It is not, thus, clear as to when the alleged injuries were caused to Rajav and if so by whom.The prosecution further examined another child PW-40 (Syed Ansari), aged around 11 years.At the time of his examination learned Presiding Officer observed that the witness was smelling tabacoo/gutkha.The child witness completely exonerated the appellant and did not assign any role, whatsoever, in causing victim's death.He was examined in question-answer form.In response to the questions put to him, he informed that he had come to Delhi alone to study; Shabir used to teach him at his house without charging any fee.Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions as the child did not disclose the complete facts.The witness denied to have made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW40/PX1) to the police.He denied if he used to work in the appellant's factory along with Boka, Moim and Kalim; he denied if the appellant used to get work done from them from 7:00-8:00 a.m. to 12:00-1:00 AM (midnight) and used to give beatings.He denied if the appellant had Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 7 of 16 given beatings with a hot iron rod on Rajav's hip or that the appellant used to give them beatings with stapler, iron rod and 'dal-gotni'.He further denied that on 15.04.2011, the appellant had beaten Moim tied his hands and feet with a rope and had hit his head against the wall several times as a result of which he became unconscious.He further denied if the appellant had hit Moim's chest with a 'sill-batta' as a result of which Moim expired at midnight.Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor sought court's permission to cross-examine the child as he was a hostile witness.In the cross examination, he denied if he was a tutored witness at Shabir's behest.He declined to identify the appellant to have any acquaintance with him.A.1502/2013 Page 7 of 16In the cross-examination, PW-40 merely admitted the suggestion that Rajav had left the factory to go to Shabir due to fear of beatings by the appellant.He, however, did not testify if the appellant had given beatings to Rajav any time in his presence.The deposition of the child witness is of no benefit to the prosecutionNext comes the testimony of PW-22 (Rajav Ali), aged around nine years in question-answer form.In his court statement, he disclosed that after coming to Delhi along with Shabir, he stayed with him.He disclosed that only for few days, he had lived at the appellant's residence.Thereafter, he was made to flee after beating him.(Usne muje maar peet kar bhaga diya).Shabir had got him medically treated and he incurred lot of expenses for his treatment.In response to the question 'Tum kitni baar Delhi Aaye', the witness responded that he visited Delhi twice.During his first visit, the appellant did not give him beatings; he was beaten during the second visit.In answer to the Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 8 of 16 question 'tum Kalimullah ke pass kya kaam karte the'?; the witness informed that 'main Kalim ke pass bindi ka kaam karne ke liye aaya'.He further disclosed that the appellant used to give him `10/- and his brother used to give him `20/-.In response to the question 'tumne Kalimulla ke yahhan kitne din kaam kiya'? The witness stated that 'maine uske yahan das din kaam kiya.Usne mujhe lohe se daga.Uske baad Shabir ne mera ilaj karaya'.He also disclosed that the appellant had inserted an iron pipe in his private part and he was unable to even walk; it was Shabir who took him to the toilet.To the question 'tum ko wahan lal mirch bhi dali thi'? The witness replied 'Ji.Kalimullah ne dali thi.Again, he said 'Shabir ne hi ilaj karaya tha'.The witness was specifically asked if he knew Moim and whether he lived with the appellant? The witness stated that after his departure, Moim was beaten.He, however, added that he (Moim) was not beaten in his presence.A.1502/2013 Page 8 of 16In the cross-examination, the witness was confronted with statement (Ex.PX-3) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where there were no mention that the appellant had caused any injuries to him with a hot iron rod or had put red chillies.When specifically asked as to what was inflicted on his head; the witness disclosed that it was patri'' (wooden plank).He was confronted with his statement Ex.PX-3 where there was no mention if the appellant had hit him on his head.He further admitted that the police had conversation with them outside the court and had informed as to what was to be stated in the court.He denied the suggestion that the appellant had not beaten him.On scrutinizing the testimony of the child witness, it emerges that he did not attribute any role to the appellant in causing injuries to Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 9 of 16 Moim.The witness was evasive to respond if Moim used to live with the appellant.His testimony reveals that he was given beatings at some stage by the appellant.It has, however, not come on record as to when the beatings were given.No charge for inflicting injuries to PW-22 (Rajav Ali) was framed in the present proceedings.A.1502/2013 Page 9 of 16No other witness, whatsoever, has been examined to connect the appellant with the victim's murder.The allegations that the appellant committed carnal intercourse with the victim remained unsubstantiated and it resulted in appellant's acquittal under Section 377 IPC.The prosecution examined several witnesses to prove that the appellant was guilty of commission of offence under Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence with an intention of screening the offence from legal punishment.Again, the evidence adduced on this aspect is highly deficient and no positive evidence has emerged to infer if any overt act was done by the appellant in causing Crl.He did not implicate the appellant for any crime stating that on 16.04.2011 he had gone to secure the admission for his son in a school and was not aware of the incident.In the cross-examination by the learned Addl.Apparently, the testimony of this witness does not implicate the appellant in the crime.A.1502/2013 Page 10 of 16A.1502/2013 Page 11 of 16The prosecution examined PW-30 (Mohd.He deposed that Shabir and Hashim had informed him that a boy had expired; they asked him to arrange a vehicle.He did not claim if the appellant was present at the spot or that he had any conversation with him any time.He did not elaborate as to whom the telephone call was made; who was the driver and what was the number of the vehicle that arrived at the spot.With the court's permission leadings questions were put to him.He denied if on 16.04.2011 at about 3:30-4 p.m. the co-convict Khallillulah informed him to that a child had died due to illness at the appellant's house.He further denied if he had gone to the appellant's house No.F-280, JJ colony and had seen the co-convict Khallillulah, Shabir and Mohd.Hasib, giving bath to the dead body or that when he entered the room, he became suspicious.He denied that at the burial ground co- convicts were in haste to burry the body.The witness even refused to identify the appellant and his brother co-convict Khallillulah; he, however identified Abdul Haseeb and Shabir.In the cross-examination, he denied the contents of the statement (Ex.PW-30/PX1) completely to have been given to the police.PW-31 (Chakkan Ahmed) in similar circumstances did not state any incriminating circumstance against the appellant.A.1502/2013 Page 12 of 16On examining the testimonies of the above noted witnesses, it reveals that none of them has supported the prosecution in its entirety.They all have resiled from their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. None of them has assigned any role whatsoever to the appellant in the crime.None of them saw the appellant in the victim's company before he met with death.We are now left with the statements of PW-32 (Balwan) and PW- 33 (Kamlesh Kumar).Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor urged that from the statements of PWs 32 and 33 it is crystal clear that it was the appellant who had made a telephone call to arrange the vehicle used for transporting the body of the child to the graveyard.We do not think so.PW-33 (Kamlesh Kumar) in his court's statement informed that on 16.04.2011, his owner Balwan had asked him to take the vehicle bearing No.HR-60-0334 make Tempo/TATA 407, to Wazirpur, JJ Colony for taking a funeral procession to the burial ground at Azadpur; he reached at 115 bus stop, JJ Colony, Wazipur at 4:30 p.m. and he took the coffin along with 15-20 persons to Azadpur Burial ground.After collecting hire charges, he came back to the office.PW-33's deposition does not reveal as to who had paid the hire charges; who had met the witness and who were the individuals present in the procession.PW-33 did not claim if the vehicle was taken to appellant's residence at F-280, JJ Colony, Wazirpur.This witness did not identify the appellant or co-convict in the court to be the individuals present at the time of transportation of the body to the graveyard.PW-32 (Balwan) merely Crl.A.1502/2013 Page 13 of 16 informed the court that on 16.04.2011, the appellant had sent a request to his 'office' seeking a vehicle at JJ Colony, Wazirpur for taking a funeral procession and the hire was fixed at `800/-.After about 3-4 p.m., he sent two vehicles at the given address; one vehicle was returned due to insufficient numbers of individuals to join the funeral and the vehicle bearing No. HR-60-0334 was retained.Kamlesh who drove the vehicle returned from the burial ground at about 6:00 p.m. Again, this witness was not categorical to inform if the appellant was acquainted with him or that he had contacted him to send any vehicle.He also did not clarify as to by what mode he had received the request from the appellant for the vehicle or as to which place it was to be sent.It is also unclear if the request was received personally or by some official in the office.Motiur Rehman) did not claim if the request for vehicle was made at the appellant's behest.No Call Details Record was collected during investigation to ascertain if the appellant was in touch with any individual at the relevant time and where was his location.No inference, whatsoever, can be drawn that it was the appellant who had arranged the vehicle for transportation of the body to the graveyard.No other incriminating circumstance has surfaced to point an accusing finger against the appellant.A.1502/2013 Page 13 of 16A.1502/2013 Page 14 of 16The prosecution case is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.The evidence adduced to bring home the appellant's guilt is highly scanty; no credible evidence has been collected to prove and establish as to when the appellant had brought the victim or the other children from Bihar to Delhi; when he had employed any of them in a hazardous business or had exploited them.At no stage, the victim or the other children or their family members ever complained that the children were ill-treated/maltreated by the appellant or that they were being sexually assaulted or given beatings.No MLC has been produced to ascertain if any injuries were caused by the appellant to the victim or the other children.Contrary to that, children Sayeed Ansari, Rajav Ali and victim's elder brother were medically examined vide MLC's Ex.PW-13/A to Ex.PW-13/C on 20.04.2011, 17.04.2011 and 20.4.2011 respectively; they did not have any 'fresh' injuries on their bodies, as alleged.PW-14 (Dr.Deepak Chugh) ruled out any sexual assault on their person at the time of their medical examination on 25.04.2011 vide MLC Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW-14/C. FSL report (Ex.PW42/L) is of no assistance to the prosecution.As per this report, blood could not be detected on Exhibit '1' (one dirty small sized shirt' recovered from the spot); Exhibit '6' (one iron pipe with rusty brownish stains described as 'Iron gas stove pipe'); Exhibit '7' (two wooden pieces described as 'pieces of Danda'); Exhibit 8 (one stapler) and Exhibit 9 (one small and one big piece of stone described as 'Sil and Batta').Apparently, the crime weapons with whom the victim has allegedly inflicted injuries did not have any bloodstains.Semen could not be detected on Exhibit 3 i.e. one wet foul smelling cotton wool swab described as 'Anal swab'.A.1502/2013 Page 15 of 16The appellant was not present at the graveyard till the sending of rukka (Ex.PW42/A) at 10.40 p.m. The Investigating Agency did not collect any document to show if the appellant was carrying on any business of 'bindi making' on 16.04.2011 and if so since when.It is also not clear as to how many workers were employed by the appellant and what kind of machinery was used therein.No books of accounts for the alleged business being carried out by the appellant were collected.No incriminating circumstance connecting the appellant with the crime has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Gaftoor, from whose house two children were allegedly recovered, was not produced and examined.His complicity in the crime was not investigated.It is not clear as to who was in the victim's company soon before he suffered fatal injuries.Resultantly the appellant's conviction on the basis of mere suspicion, with no acceptable and legal evidence on record, cannot be sustained.The appeal is, thus, allowed.Trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,779,001 |
The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the accused are teachers and both of them have served in same school.On 24.05.2005, at about 4 p.m., a miff has arisen in between them and their colleagues have desisted them.On the same day, at about 6 p.m., the accused has wrangled with the defacto complainant and pulled him down from 3rd floor and due to that, the defacto complainant has sustained various injuries including grievous in nature and after occurrence, he has given a complaint and the same has been marked as Ex.The complaint given by the defacto complainant has been marked as Ex.On receipt of Ex.The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, after considering the facts has found that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is triable by the sessions court, committed the case to the court of sessions, Erode Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.67/06 and subsequently made over to the trial court.The trial court, after hearing both sides has framed a charge against the appellant/accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) and the same has been read over and explained to him.The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 have been examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.7 have been marked and M.O.1 series has been marked.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.On the side of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exhibits D.1 to D.3 have been marked.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and also upon perusing the relevant evidence has found the accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- with usual default clause.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellant/accused.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has contended that due to occurrence, the accused has also sustained injuries and he has also given a separate complaint, but the Prosecuting Agency has not at all considered the case of the appellant/accused and further, the defacto complainant has simply stated to P.W.8 to the effect that he has fallen from 3rd floor and since he has not specifically stated about the alleged overtacts of the appellant/accused to P.W.8, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be thrown out, but the court below, without considering the lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution has erroneously found the appellant/accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, the defacto complainant viz., the injured witness has been examined as P.W.1 and his specific evidence is that in the place of occurrence, the accused himself has wrangled with him and consequently, he has pulled down him from 3rd floor, due to that, he sustained various injuries and further the evidence given by P.W.1 has been clearly corroborated by the doctor (P.W.9); further, the specific evidence given by P.W.9 is that P.W.1 has sustained various injuries including three grievous injuries and the trial court, after considering the overwhelming evidence, has rightly found him guilty under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not warrant interference.P.1, the complaint, wherein, it has been clearly stated that during the course of occurrence, the accused has pushed down the defacto complainant from 3rd floor and thereby, he sustained various injuries.The author of Ex.P.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and in fact he has clearly corroborated the contents of Ex.Apart from evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1, the doctors viz., P.Ws.8 and 9 have given clear evidence in support of the case of the prosecution.Further, it is seen from the evidence that P.W.1 has sustained three grievous injuries.Therefore, there is no incertitude in coming to a conclusion that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused, punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.The main argument put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that during the course of occurrence, the appellant/accused has also sustained injuries and he has also given a separate complaint and the same has not been properly enquired into.It is an admitted fact that the complaint alleged to have been given by the accused has been registered and proper investigation has been done, subsequently, referred to as mistake of fact.Therefore, the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused cannot be entertained.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, as a residual contention has argued that both the defacto complainant and appellant/accused are teachers and both of them are friends and therefore, some leniency may be shown in awarding sentence.Considering the fact that both of them are teachers and also friends, this court is of the view to modify the quantum of sentence as stated infra.In fine, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.The conviction imposed under Section 307 of the IPC by the trial court is confirmed.However, the quantum of the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified as follows:-No modification with regard to fine amount. 07.09.2015Index:Yes/nonvsri To1.The Inspector of Police Anthiyur Police Station Erode District (Cr.2.The Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Bhavani, Erode District.A.SELVAM, J.nvsri Crl.A.No.117 of 200707.09.2015
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,779,277 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.There is no injury over her person, when three able body person with impulse of lust gang raped the lady, it is not possible that the lady would remain unscratched.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 12.11.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Monu Sharma be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in involved in case crime no. 542 of 2018, under Sections 376D, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
|
['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.
|
143,785,470 |
At about 10.30 Kalpana Agrawal came and asked why she has not arrested her mother-in-law and brother-in-law.She also asked that why report of her mother-in-law was recorded.She started taking files.When complainant objected she started Jhumajhatki and gave beating.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the order passed by CJM, Indore in Case No.20009/2015 on 29.10.2015, whereby charge under Section 332 of IPC has been framed against the applicant.Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sarika Rawat was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore.On 23.6,.2015 she was on duty and was discharging her official work.She further thrown telephone kept on the table causing injuries on her forehead.At the time of incident Deepak S/o Ramesh, Deepak S/o Ravindra and Sushila were present alongwith other Police Officials.From the report of the complainant Crime No.398/2015 under Section 353, 332 of IPC has been registered and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed.There is no prima facie evidence to frame the charge.The prosecution story has been concocted as the complainant is posted as Sub-Inspector in the Police Station.In fact the applicant has gone to lodge the report, but she was asked to give a complaint in writing.The complainant told her that "tum jaisi auraton ki wajah se hi saari auraton ka character badnaam hai" and the applicant told that she will make a complaint, the lady Sub-Inspector started beating her causing injuries.Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.The prayer is opposed by the learned Govt.I have considered the submissions and perused the record.In the report lodged by the complainant Sarika Rawat it has been alleged that when she was discharging official duties, the applicant came and get 2 M.Cr.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,786,743 |
According to the facts there was an scuffle on issue of parking of Car between complainant/injured and the accused persons.Accused persons started beating the complainant, at that time accused/Deepak went inside the house and brought a sword and with an intention to kill the complainant/Manoj struck the sword on his head.Manoj was sent to Government Hospital for treatment.On information police reached to the hospital where his mother lodged the Dehatinalisi (FIR) as the injured/Manoj was unconscious at that time.Police registered the case and after investigation filed the charge-sheet under Section 294, 307, 34 of IPC and 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act.Present petition has been filed on the ground that the prosecution has not filed any document which show the commission of the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC.Though the X-ray report is not available in the record but two queries raised by the Presiding Officer and their replies are available on record.According to first query the Medical Officer opined that the injury caused to the injured was simple in nature and according to another query which was raised after seizure of sword to verify whether the injury may be caused by the sword seized by the police, the Medical Officer opined that the injury of the complainant was a lacerated wound which can be caused by hard and blunt object.3 Cr.R. No.66/2017
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,787,307 |
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of the petitioner Jitendra @ Suraj, in Crime No. 26/2017 registered by P.S. Orchha, District Tikamgarh under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, victim Omprakash Agrawal trusted co- accused Ram Bharose Yadav.He got a sale-deed of 2.396 hectares of land registered by a person impersonating for one Hari Mohan in favour of victim Om Prakash for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-.At the time of the execution of the sale-deed, Laxminarayan Kori and petitioner Jitendra who was masquerading as Sitaram Ahirwar, identified the impersonator as Hari Mohan.The victim paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the person impersonating as Hari Mohan.In the year 2013, he met real Hari Mohan and learnt that he had not sold his land.As such, the petitioner and co-accused persons conspired and cheated him of Rs.10,00,000/-.It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is only said to have identified Hari Mohan at the time of execution of the registered sale-deed.There is no explanation for delay.It has further been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 22.05.2017 and the charge sheet in the matter has been filed.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that petitioner Jitendra had impersonated as Sitaram Ahirwar and had identified another impersonator as Hari Mohan and had thus played a significant role in cheating Om Prakash.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Jitendra @ Suraj, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,789,512 |
And In the matter of : Rajjak Sk.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) 2 ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,791,477 |
It is the case of the petitioners that on 12th February, four days after the aforementioned order, they commenced the repair work in the shop.At around 3 pm on 12th February 2007, Respondent No.2, along with his son Manish Khera and his father Nand Lal started quarrelling with the petitioners.It is alleged that started abusing and physically handling the petitioners.It is alleged that Manish Khera ran to his house on the first floor, got a knife and caused a stab injury on the arm of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, the servant of Petitioner No.1 Nand Lal at that time went to his shop and hid himself there.CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 2 of 17A counter version of the incident is found in FIR No. 76/2007 registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 Subhash Chander against the petitioners, Guranditta Mal, Ram Dass and Janki Dass.Subhash Chander stated that around 2.45 p.m., Nand Lal asked the above three persons to work carefully as the wall of the shop was getting affected.This incensed the petitioners who then started abusing Nand Lal.Subhash Chander stated that he then went to his house above the shop and called the police by which time he heard loud noises of quarrelling.When he looked from above, he found that Nand Lal was being caught hold of by Guranditta Mal and Janki Dass and that along with Ram Dass they were beating him by fists and kicks.Even as Subhash Chander rushed down to save Nand Lal, he saw Janki Dass and Ram Dass hitting Nand Lal on the chest with fists.As Nand Lal fell down, the three petitioners fled away.Nand Lal became unconscious.The opinion given by Dr. Upender Kishore on 21st May 2007 in answer to the said query reads as follows:-"In this case the deceased had previous heart- attacks which leads to scarring of the heart mussels as described in the pm report.The heart was sent for Histopathological examination for further confirmation of the gross findings.In the absence of direct trauma to the heart in this case.It is not possible to comment, whether the injuries mentioned in the pm report could have precipitate the heart attack as the deceased had previous attacks."13.02.2009 S. Muralidhar, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenges an order dated 6th September 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2070 of 2007 titled "Subhash Chander v. Guranditta Mal & Others" whereby the petitioners have been summoned for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.The petitioners claim that after the death of Mangha Ram, the father of Respondent No.2 was treating the petitioners as tenants in relation to the shop in question.In 1990, however, the father of Respondent No.2 instituted proceedings to evict the petitioners.The eviction petition was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by the appellate authority.In 2000, Petitioner No.1 filed an application under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for permission to carry out repairs to the shop.The petitioners called the police and in the meanwhile Manish Khera ran away.FIR No. 75 of 2007 was registered at the instance of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary against Mansih Khera.In connection with this FIR, Manish Khera has been charged under Section 324 IPC and is facing trial.Subhash Chander took him to the BJRM Hospital where Nand Lal was declared brought dead.On the basis of the above allegations FIR No. 76 of 2007 was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC.The post-mortem of Nand Lal was conducted on 13th February 2007 around 11.45 a.m. The cause of death was indicated as "heart failure as a result of coronary artery disease & its sequalae".The report also indicated the following four external injuries on the body of Nand Lal:"(1) Reddish Abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm present on the Rt front - paneral rel (2) Lacreted wound of size 8 x 0.2 cm and xxxx CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 3 of 17 (illegible) present on the bridge of nose.(3) Xxxxx (illegible) abrasion of size 5 x 2.5 cm present in the nose (4) Reddish abrasion of size 1.0 x 0.5 cm present on the middle of upper lip."CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 3 of 17The investigation officer (IO) SI A.P. Singh of Police Station Adarsh Nagar sought a subsequent medical opinion in respect of the death of Nand Lal.In particular a query was raised "whether the injuries caused precipitated the heart attack or otherwise."A charge sheet was filed in FIR No. 76 of 2007 against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC.In this complaint he alleged that his brother- in-law (Jija) Shyam Lal Baweja had, at the time of the incident, i.e., around 2.45 p.m., on 12th February 2007, arrived at the site "in connection with some urgent financial requirement of Rs.25000/-." Thereafter in para 9 of the complaint, he stated as under:-CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 4 of 17That on reaching there, the said Sh.Shyam Lal Baweja saw the accused persons altercating and quarrelling with the father of the complainant while forcefully pushing him.The father of the complainant was requesting the accused persons not to altercate or quarrel as he was feeling pain in his chest due to heart problem and earlier heart attack and insisting the accused persons to pacify and talk to the complainant on his reaching back.However, the accused persons kept on abusing and forcefully pushing him from his chest, on which, the father of the complainant sat down and asked the said Mr. Shyam Lal Baweja to bring his medicines from his room in the house on the first floor (supra) as the chest pain was aggravating and the father of the complainant was feeling suffocation.However, the accused persons were still instigating each other to kill the father of the complainant and finish the `issue forever while saying that `Aaj isse khatam karke kissa bi khatam kar do.The said Sh.Shyam Lal Baweja requested the accused persons to calm down and talk peacefully, however, seeing the said deteriorating condition of the father of the complainant, the said Mr.Shyam Lal Baweja rushed to the first floor while requesting the CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 5 of 17 accused persons to stop the altercation etc. while also screaming for help."CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 5 of 17Subhash Chander proceeded to describe in the complaint how the petitioners beat up his father Nand Lal with fists.That due to the said fatal and deadly assault and beatings by the accused persons, the father of the complainant fell down and got unconscious, of which, the accused persons fled away.The father of the complainant was immediately taken to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital, Jahangir Puri by the complainant, and Sh.Shyam Lal Baweja but was declared `brought dead.The explanation as to why the presence of Shyam Lal Baweja did not find mention in the earlier FIR was given as under in complaint in para 15 of the complaint:"......despite the fact that the said Sh.Shyam Lal Baweja tendered himself as witness on many occasions including at the initial stage of recording of the statement of the complainant but the investigating officer put off the complainant and said witness while saying that no further statement is required for the registration of the FIR while assuring to record the same at least before the submission of the charge-sheet and further that the charge sheet would be filed for appropriate provision of law i.e., Section 302 IPC, thereby succeeded in putting off the complainant and said witness."CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 6 of 17It was stated that in para 16 of the complaint:"that the complainant visited the investigating officer on or about 17th September 2007 with Sh.Shyam Lal Baweja and requesting him to record the statement and book the accused persons under appropriate provisions of the law but the complainant jolted out of somnolence in the aftermath of the revelation by the investigating officer about the filing of the charge sheet under Sections 304/34 IPC and further without recording of the statement of the witnesses especially Sh.Shyam Lal Baweja."The complaint alleged that the police had failed to carry out a faithful and true investigation.The complaint listed as witnesses Subhash Chander, Shyam Lal Baweja, the Ahlmed of the Court of the MM with the complete charge sheet, an official of the Police Station Adarsh Nagar and the Record Clerk of the Record Room, Rohini, Delhi with the complete file of the case under Section 44 Delhi Rent Control Act.When the complaint came before the learned MM on 13th March 2008, it was stated that in relation to the same incident an FIR had already been registered and cognizance had already been taken under Section 304 IPC.Inasmuch as the complaint sought to persuade the learned MM into taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304 IPC, the learned MM noted that the charge sheet having already been filed in FIR No. 76 of 2007 and cognizance had already been taken CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 7 of 17 therein "no further cognizance of the offence can be taken." Accordingly, the complaint case was dismissed.CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 7 of 17Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint case, Subhash Chander filed Criminal Revision Petition No.26 of 2008 in the Court of the learned ASJ.By an order dated 5th July 2008 the said revision petition was allowed.It was held by the learned ASJ that the learned MM was required to follow the procedure under Section 200 to 204 CrPC.Accordingly the case was remanded to the learned MM with a direction to the complainant to remain present.On remand, on 6th September 2008 the learned MM recorded the pre-summoning evidence of both Subhash Chander and Shyam Lal Baweja.Subhash Chander more or less stuck to what he had stated in the complaint.Inter alia, he stated as under:"On the basis of the report and statement Dt 12-2-07 the FIR No. 76/07 was lodged & the copy isHowever the police has colluded with the accused persons and registered the case for milder offence.The investigation officer deliberately avoided the recording of statement of Mr. Baweja though he tendered himself on many occasions.The IO kept of assuring us that the proper investigation would be arrived out and the case would be registered u/s 302IPC and also that the statement of Mr. Baweja would be recorded before filing the charge sheet.I came to know about the filing of charge sheet on17.08.2007 and that too without the recording of statement of Mr. CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 8 of 17 Baweja and also for milder offence.I never gave my statement dt 21.507 thereby stating to the police that the accused persons were not aware of heart problem of my father.I gave only statement dt 12-2-7 & 13-2-07 and the aforesaid alleged statement Dt 21-5-07 was never given by me and the IO fabricated the same in connivance of the accused persons.Appropriate action be taken against the accused persons.My statement is correct."CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 8 of 17Shyam Lal Baweja CW-2 stated that on 12th February 2007 he called his brother-in-law on telephone for arranging the sum of Rs. 25,000/- "as I had to pay the same to someone".He claimed to have been present there and witnessed the accused persons beating his father-in-law.He then added that "although the police registered the FIR and I tendered myself as a witness on many occasions but he IO said that my statement would be recorded at the appropriate stage.I went to IO on 17-09-07 with Subhash Chander but came to know that the IO has already filed the charge sheet without recording my statement".On the basis of the above statements, the learned MM passed an order on 6th September 2008 summoning the petitioners for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.The learned MM observed: "Looking into the facts and circumstances and the specific averment against the accused persons, I am of the opinion that and considering the order of the learned ASJ, prima facie ingredient of Section 302/34 CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 9 of 17 IPC are attracted here against all three accused persons." Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.It was filed malafide only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners for a heinous crime despite the police having already investigated the FIR in depth and having field the chargesheet for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC.The impugned order of the learned MM was in the teeth of the medical opinion which ruled out the cause of death as the external injuries of the deceased.The criminal complaint was filed by Subhash Chander on 20th September 2007, more than three months thereafter.CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 13 of 17The question then arises if the learned MM was justified in coming to the conclusion that when the complainant the pre- summoning evidence were examined, a prima facie case was made for summoning the petitioners for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.Viewed in the background of the entire case including the previous litigation between the petitioners on the one hand and the CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 14 of 17 complainants on the other in the Court of the Rent Controller, the case now sought to be set up by the complainant about the presence of Shyam Baweja (the son-in-law of the deceased Nand Lal and the brother-in-law of Subhash Chander) on the fateful day appears, on the face of the complaint, to be unbelievable.A perusal of the statements made by Subhash Chander to the police earlier, and the statements made in the complaint three months after the filing of the challan show that the presence of the brother-in-law was being adverted to for the first time in the complaint only to justify the summoning of the petitioners for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 14 of 17The pre-summoning evidence of these two persons in support of the complaint cannot erase the subsequent medical opinion of the doctor which was unable to confirm categorically that the external injuries precipitated the heart attack particularly since the deceased has had previous heart attacks.That medical opinion ruled out the offence under Section 302 IPC.There is nothing in the pre- summoning evidence to contradict this.The learned MM could not have possibly ignored this material since it pertained to the same incident which when investigated in detail by the police revealed prima facie the commission of the offence under Section 304/34 IPC and not Section 302/34 IPC.And why did he wait three months after the challan was filed to come up with this version of the presence of the brother-in-law at the place and time of the incident.The attempt by both complainant witnesses to discredit the police at the subsequent stage does not impress this Court.CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 15 of 17CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 16 of 17CRL.M.C. No.3373/2008 Page 16 of 17This Court however clarifies that if during the course of the trial, the trial court considers it necessary, in the light of the evidence that emerges, to exercise its powers under Sections 311 or 319 to summon any person then this order will not preclude the trial court from doing so.Likewise, if in light of the evidence that emerges in the course of the trial, the trial court concludes that the accused should be tried for a more serious offence then it is not precluded, only by virtue of this order, from proceeding in accordance with law by following the procedure prescribed under the CrPC for the purpose.The purport of the present order is this.The learned MM erred in summoning the petitioners for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC on the basis of the complaint in Complaint Case No. 2070/07 and the pre-summoning evidence led in support thereof.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6th September 2008 passed by the learned MM in Complaint Case No. 2070/07 is hereby set aside.Complaint Case No. 2070/07 titled Subhash Chander v. Guranditta Mal and Ors and all proceedings consequent thereto hereby stand quashed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,801,433 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, as against this petitioners.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocents and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.Heard M/s.In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition.Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.vsg Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15708 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.9295 of 2019 30.10.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,802,485 |
Applicant has filed the present applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime Nos.448/2019, 449/2019 and 450/19 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 323, 506 , 353, 332, 333, 186, 307 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that for the same incident three FIRs have been registered by Police, which is illegal.Since there only one incident, therefore, on receiving subsequent information, separate FIR could not have been registered against applicant.It is prayed that no role has been ascribed to the present applicant Leela Kishan S/o Malthuram.In the circumstances, he made a prayer that applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.Counsel appearing for the State opposed the application for anticipatory bail application.It is submitted that applicant has been named in the FIR and applicant alongwith other persons had damaged public property and had done rioting in the area and also interfered in the administration of work by public servant.Offence under Section 307 of IPC is also registered against the applicant.Looking to the allegations made against the applicant, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to him.Anticipatory bail applications are rejected.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 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.
|
143,806,282 |
Both the sides are heard.2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appealscan be stated as follows :-The incident in question took place on the night between8.1.2010 and 9.1.2010 near Government godown wall which issituated at Azad Chowk, Shrirampur, District Ahmedngar.InformantManoj Gupta (PW 1) sells snacks called as 'Bhel' on his hand cartbearing name Laxmi Farsan in the evening at this spot.His cartremains there from 1.00 p.m. onwards till late hours of night.Asusual, on that day also he was present with his hand cart at the spotof ofence.Deceased Ayub Papabhai Shaikh was known to Manoj.3) At about 11.30 p.m. of 8.1.2019 deceased Ayub came tothe hand cart of Manoj and he sat on the bench kept by Manoj.Thedeceased started applying tobacco powder (Mishri) to his teeth.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::In the meantime, Iqbal Memon, another person, who was alsoknown to both Manoj and Ayub came there and there was some talkbetween Iqbal and the deceased.After that the deceased rose fromthe bench to rinse mouth.Within no time, two motorcycles camefrom Gondhavani road towards the hand cart.There were threepersons on one motorcycle and there were two persons on secondmotorcycle.These motorcycles stopped near the stall of Manoj.4) Manoj (PW 1) knew accused No. 1 Rizwan Shaikh andaccused No. 2 Sayyad Usman out of the fve persons who had comethere on two motorcycles.Manoj noticed that the riders of the twomotorcycles remained on their seats and they kept the engines ofthe motorcycles in running condition.The other three persons fromthe two motorcycles got down from the two vehicles and they cametowards deceased Ayub.Then accused No. 1 Rizwan held neck ofAyub and gave abuses to Ayub and said that he was there to fnishAyub.Then he shot bullet by using pistol on the abdomen of Ayub.Accused No. 2 Sayyad was also there and he shot another bulletfrom his pistol on the head of Ayub.company, left the spot on the same two motorcycles and theirmotorcycles went towards Shivaji Chowk.Manoj could see the threepersons who were in the company of accused Nos. 1 and 2 thoughthey were not known to him prior to the date of incident.Manojnoticed that one of the two motorcycles was of Unicorn HondaCompany.5) When the aforesaid fve persons left the spot, Manojshouted for help.Ayub Poptiya and Maulana Akbar Ali were in thevicinity and they rushed to the spot.They shifted Ayub to hospital onmotorcycle.They frst took Ayub to German Hospital and then toother private hospital.But in both the hospitals, doctors were notavailable and so, they took the deceased to Sakhar Kamgar Hospital.After examining Ayub, the doctor from Sakhar Kamgar Hospitaldeclared that Ayub was already dead.6) Police Inspector Shri.Pardeshi (PW 17) took over theinvestigation of the case.He prepared inquest panchanama in thepresence of panch witnesses in the aforesaid hospital.the spot, two caps, empty cartridges and earth mixed with bloodwere taken over and a pair of Chappals which were lying there alsowere taken over under panchanama.Some investigation was madeby Police Inspector Shri.Padole (PW 16).The dead body was referredfor post mortem (P.M.) examination.The clothes of the deceasedwere taken over under panchanama.7) After making some investigation, and recording somestatements, Shri.Padole (PW 16) got information about somepersons, who were involved in the ofence like accused RavindraTribhuwan (accused No. 5) and Rajendra Bhalerao (accused No. 6).Steps were taken to collect C.D.R. record in respect of those persons.Ravindra and Rajendra came to be traced on 12.1.2010 and theycame to be arrested.8) On the basis of information collected by police on13.1.2010 accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to be arrested after tracingthem at Chakan Phata, Talegaon Dhabhade Chowk, District Pune.9) During investigation police received information againstaccused No. 8 Nilesh Alhat.It transpired that Nilesh was arrested inPune by Pune police as he was found in possession of fre arm and hewas history sheeter.Name of accused No. 7 Sandip Waghmare alsotranspired during investigation.14) Manoj (PW 1) has deposed that he shouted for help andthen persons like Ayub Popatiya and Maulana Akbar Ali rushed to hisstall and they shifted the deceased to hospital.His evidence showsthat he had not gone with these two persons.He has deposed thatwhen he learnt that Ayub was taken to Sakhar Kamgar Hospital, hewent there and there he learnt that Ayub was dead.PRONOUNCED ON : 12/12/2019JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]1) The frst appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 223/2019 isfled by accused Nos. 1 and 2 of Sessions Case No. 24/2010, whichwas pending in the Court of learned Ad-hoc Additional SessionsJudge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar.The Trial Court hasconvicted and sentenced these accused/appellants for the ofencespunishable under section 302 r/w.120-B etc. of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for short) and also for the ofences ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::punishable under sections 3, 5 r/w. 25 of Arms Act. The sentence ofimprisonment of life is given and fne amount of Rs.10,000/- isimposed on each of them.Criminal Appeal No. 616/2018 is fled bythe State against accused No. 3 Juber Ashpak Shaikh and accusedNo.4 Abdul @ Bhaiyya Abbaskhan Pathan as they are acquitted ofthe aforesaid ofences.Criminal Appeal No. 617/2018 is fled by theinformant against accused Nos. 3 and 4 to challenge the acquittalgiven to them.Aftersome time he asked Manoj to give a glass of water to rinse the ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.When accused Nos. 1 and 2 werefring bullets at Ayub, the third man, who was having little bit lessheight and who was having medium built was showing his fre arm,pistol to the shop owners of the vicinity and he was asking them toleave the spot.When Ayub collapsed due to the aforesaid fring,accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other three persons who were in their ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.Police OfcerShri.Nikam of this police station went to the spot for preparation ofspot panchanama and spot panchanama came to be prepared.From ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::These fre arms came to be seized underpanchanama.Two live cartridges were also recovered from thepossession of accused No. 2 and they were seized.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.He also came to be arrested.Ittranspired that Wasim Gulab Shaikh one more accused was involvedin the ofence in addition to the eight accused who came to bearrested in the crime, but he could not be traced and he is shown asabsconding accused.C.D.R. record in respect of mobile phones ofthese accused came to be collected.10) Test identifcation (T.I.) parade came to be arranged togive opportunity to witnesses who were present on the spot toidentify the arrested accused persons.The two motorcycles which were used forgoing to the spot of ofence by accused, came to be discovered andthey came to be seized.11) The articles seized during investigation came to be sentto forensic laboratory and ballistic expert for getting opinion.Aftercompletion of investigation, chargesheet came to be fled againsteight accused and the case was tried against eight accused.Chargesheet was fled for the ofences punishable under sections ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 504, 506 etc. of I.P.C. and also forthe ofence punishable under sections 3, 5 r/w.Section 25 of ArmsAct.Charge was framed and plea was recorded.All the accusedpleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses toprove the ofences.Accused did not examine any witness and theytook the defence of total denial.12) Manoj Gupta (PW 1) is the main witness of prosecutionand he was having the best opportunity to witness the entireincident.The deceased was present at his stall at the relevant time.In view of this circumstance, the Trial Court has given more weight tothe evidence of Manoj (PW 1).There is another eye witness likeMaulana Sayyad (PW 2), but he had rushed to the spot after startingof the incident.The Trial Court has held that only accused Nos. 1 and2 were known to Manoj and evidence of Manoj on identifcation ofaccused No. 3 is doubtful in nature.Manoj had not identifed accusedNo.4 even in T.I. parade.As appeals are fled by accused Nos. 1 and 2and appeals are fled against accused Nos. 3 and 4, this Court isconsidering the evidence given only against these accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.13) Manoj (PW 1), the main witness of prosecution has givenevidence that the time of his business was 1.00 p.m. to 12 hours ofnight.He has given evidence that on 8.1.2010 also he was presenton the spot of ofence with his hand cart for the business, sellingsnacks, Bhel.He has deposed that the deceased came to his stall atabout 11.15 p.m. and after sitting on the bench, he started applyingMishri to the teeth.He has deposed that Iqbal Memon came thereand he had some talk with the deceased.He has deposed that thedeceased then asked for a glass of water from him and whendeceased was rising from the bench, two motorcycles came from theside of Gondhavani road to his stall.He has deposed that both themotorcycles stopped near his stall and from these two motorcyclesthree persons got down and came towards his stall.He has deposedthat the two persons who were riding the motorcycles remained onthe motorcycles and they had kept the engines of the motorcycles inrunning condition.Manoj (PW 1) has deposed that from prior to thedate of incident he knew accused No. 1 Rizwan and accused No. 2Sayyed.He has deposed that accused No. 1 held the deceased by hisneck and said that he had come there to fnish the deceased.Abusive language which was used by accused No. 1 is given in thedeposition by Manoj and the words uttered are that, " Tere Bahen KiChut, Tuze Mar Dalunga' ( rsjs cgsudh pwr] rq>s ekj Mkyqaxk ).Manoj (PW 1)has deposed that accused No. 1 then fred one shot of his pistol onthe abdomen of the deceased and then accused No. 2 Sayyed fred ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::one shot by using his pistol on the head of the deceased.Manoj (PW1) has deposed that the third person who had also got down from themotorcycle was holding another pistol and by showing that pistol, hewas giving threats to the persons in the neighbourhood including theshop owners and he was asking them to leave the place by closingtheir shops.Manoj has deposed that deceased Ayub collapsed due tothe aforesaid fring at him and then all the fve persons went awayon the same motorcycles.He has deposedthat he then went to police station and he gave report about theincident.15) In examination in chief, Manoj (PW 1) has stated that hewas knowing all the accused persons and he has further deposedthat accused Nos. 1 to 3 and accused No. 7 had come there alongwith one more person for committing the ofence.16) Exh. 136, the F.I.R. is consistent with substantive ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::In the F.I.R. also, he has mentioned that heknew accused Nos. 1 and 2 from prior to the date of this incident.InF.I.R., Manoj had not given the names of other three persons who hadcome there on two motorcycles.Though he had described the thirdperson who had got down from the motorcycle, his name was notgiven.On the other hand, in F.I.R. it was specifcally disclosed byManoj (PW 1) that only accused Nos. 1 and 2 were known to him andthey had come there with three unknown associates.This portion ofF.I.R. was confronted to PW 1 during cross examination and he hasstated that he had wrongly mentioned in the F.I.R. that there werethree other persons, unknown associates of accused Nos. 1 and 2.Thus, the evidence given in the Court that accused Nos. 3 and 4were known to Manoj is hit by omission in F.I.R.17) Manoj (PW 1) has deposed that in the past, there wasquarrel between accused No. 3 Juber and family of the deceasedover the transaction of sale of mobile hand set.He has givenevidence on other incident in which accused Nos. 1 to 3 wereinvolved and they had kidnapped one lady from other station forransom.He has given evidence that due tothese incidents enmity was developed between the deceased on one ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::side and accused Nos. 1 to 3 on other.He has given evidence thatfrom prior to the date of incident, these accused had kept watch onthe movements of Ayub and the accused had vowed to fnish Ayub.18) It appears that T.I. parade was held on 20.3.2010 afterabout 70 days of the incident.In T.I. parade, opportunity was givento many witnesses including PW 1 and PW 2 to identify the personsinvolved in the incident.In the Court, Manoj has not given evidencethat he had identifed either accused No. 3 or accused No. 4 in T.I.parade.Though for the reasons given afterwards, the record of T.I.parade (Exh. 251) cannot be used in evidence, it can be said that therecord shows that Manoj could not identify accused No. 4 in T.I.parade.As per the record he had identifed accused No. 3 in T.I.parade.19) The record of the case shows that record of T.I. parade,Exh. 251, is not admitted by the defence.On Exh. 251, it ismentioned that due to the order made by the Trial Court Judge dated25.3.2013 the record was given exhibit.This Court has carefully seenthe record including the Roznama.As per the practice in MofussilCourts of this State, order could have been made on someapplication or on chargesheet.In Roznama, there is only mention that there was ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::direction of the Court to give exhibit to this record and so, Exh. 251was given to this record.The ofcer before whom the T.I. parade wasconducted is not examined.Manoj (PW 1) has not referred theincident of T.I. parade.As there is no evidence from Manoj (PW 1)about T.I. parade and as there is no evidence even of the concernedofcer to prove the record, this record cannot be used as evidenceunder section 3 of the Evidence20) There are more circumstances which make it necessaryto discard the record of T.I. parade.The evidence of Manoj (PW 1)shows that on 25.1.2010 his supplementary statement was recordedby police.The evidence given by PW 1 on the motive of accusedpersons including accused Nos. 1 to 4 is already mentioned.Therewas no mention of such motive in the F.I.R., but in supplementarystatement, such motive was collected and in that statement, Manojcontended that he knew accused Nos. 1 to 4 and also theabsconding accused Wasim Shaikh from prior to the date of incident.The circumstance that such supplementary statement came to berecorded on 25.1.2010 and after that T.I. parade was held on20.3.2010 shows that the investigation was not in competent hands.In view of the supplementary statement dated 25.1.2010 it cannotbe said that there was any necessity for arranging T.I. parade toenable Manoj (PW 1) to identify the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.21) The evidence of Manoj (PW 1) shows that Iqbal Memonwas present at his stall just before the incident of fring.His evidenceshows that he had engaged labour to assist him at the stall.Hisevidence shows that there were other hand carts of hawkers sellingeatables in the vicinity.Those witnesses are not examined.MaulanaSayyad (PW 2) who had come in the vicinity by chance is examinedby prosecution as the other eye witness.22) Maulana (PW 2) has deposed that he and Ayub Poptiyawere in the vicinity of the spot of ofence by chance.He has deposedthat prior to coming to the spot of ofence where he was sitting withPoptiya, he had crossed the food stall of PW 1 and at that time, hehad said hellow to the deceased.He hasdeposed that he noticed that one person was showing revolver andasking to owners of the stalls to go away.He has deposed that hethen noticed that accused No. 1 was holding neck of deceased Ayuband he was telling Ayub that he was there to fnish Ayub.He hasgiven the sentence uttered by accused no. 1 at that time on whichevidence is given by PW 1 also.Maulana (PW 2) has given evidencethat accused No. 1 then fred bullet in the abdomen of deceased.Hehas deposed that accused No. 2 fred bullet on the head of thedeceased by using his fre arm.He has deposed that at the relevant ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::time, there were three persons sitting on two motorcycles on whichaccused Nos. 1 and 2 had come there.This part is inconsistent withthe previous part of evidence in which he had stated that one personwas holding other revolver and he was keeping the shop keepersaway from the spot.Maulana (PW 2) has given evidence that he andAyub Poptiya rushed to the spot when fring was over and theyshifted the deceased frst to German Hospital and then to AnaraseHospital and then to Sakhar Kamgar Hospital.The evidence showsthat as doctors were not available at German Hospital and AnaraseHospital, the deceased was taken to Sakhar Kamgar Hospital andthere doctors declared that Ayub was dead.There is M.L.C. preparedby Sakhar Kamgar Hospital showing that the time of death wasmentioned as 12.45 hours of that night.He has deposed that the accused who were sitting onthe motorcycles were Bhaiyya (accused No. 4) and Wasim(absconding accused).Maulana identifed accused Nos. 1 to 4 in theCourt as the persons who were involved in the incident.Maulana hasgiven evidence that in T.I. parade he identifed the accused, but hehas not specifcally stated as to which accused was identifed by him.24) Maulana (PW 2) has deposed that his supplementary ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::statement was recorded.Like in case of PW 1, he had not stated infrst police statement recorded on 9.1.2010 that he knew accusedNos.3 and 4 and absconding accused.In supplementary statementdated 25.1.2010 he took names of not only other three accused, butalso the remaining accused and he informed to police that there wasmotive for the crime for all the accused.The omission in policestatement dated 9.1.2010 in respect of the name of accused Nos. 3and 4 and absconding accused was confronted to Maulana.Headmitted the omission in respect of accused No. 3, but he did notadmit the omission in respect of accused No. 4 and abscondingaccused.The record shows that the omission in previous statementin respect of accused No. 4 and absconding accused was not provedin the evidence of Investigating Ofcer (PW 18), who had recordedthe frst statement of Maulana.There are many other circumstancesshowing that the APP and the defence counsel did not properlyconduct the matter and even the Trial Court did not follow the properprocedure for giving exhibits to many documents.25) Evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 shows that PW 1 took thename of Sandeep (accused No. 7) as the ffth person when PW 2 tookthe name of Wasim (absconding accused) as the ffth person.Theevidence of PW 1 shows that only when the incident of fring wasover, he shouted and after that Maulana and Poptiya came towardshis stall.These circumstances need to be kept in mind as it has not ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::come in the evidence of PW 1 that he had seen these two persons inthe vicinity when the fring had taken place.While consideringthe evidence given as against accused No. 4 by Maulana (PW 2),more weight needs to be given to the evidence of PW 1 in view ofthe aforesaid circumstances.To prove the spot panchanama, prosecution hasexamined panch witness Shri.Dattatraya Vaidya (PW 3) and PoliceInspector Shri.Sopan Nikam (PW 13).Even photographs of the spotwere taken when the panchanama was prepared.But, unfortunatelythat record is not proved.The spot panchanama is proved as Exh.The panchanama was drawn on 9.1.2010 between 1.45 p.m.and 2.40 p.m. This evidence shows that blood was found on the spotand the spot was shown by the informant Manoj (PW 1).A pair of ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Chappal was lying there.Two caps of bullets, empty cartridges werefound on the spot.The description of the letters appearing on thecaps is mentioned in the panchanama.In view of the othercircumstances which this Court is discussing at proper place, thisCourt is avoiding to burden the record by mentioning atleastdescription of the caps and weapons.It was suggested toPW 1 that the time of his business was over at about 10.00 p.m. andso, he could not have witnessed the incident.This suggestion isdenied.Nothing is on the record to show that it was not open to thestall owners to do the business after 10.00 p.m. The F.I.R. was givenalmost immediately after the incident.The evidence of PW 1 doesnot show that he had deliberation with the relatives of the deceased.It is already observed that he knew only two accused persons and hegave the names of two persons in the F.I.R. and he described otherthree persons as unknown associates.There is nothing on therecord due to which his evidence needs to be looked with suspicion ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::so far as his evidence given as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 isconcerned.29) Dr. Jame Bashir (PW 11) has given evidence on P.M.examination.TheP.M. was conducted on 9.1.2010 between 10.45 a.m. and 1.30 p.m.Dr.Jame (PW 11) has deposed that the death took place 10 to 24hours before the time of P.M. examination.He has given opinionregarding cause of death as "death due to hemorrhagic shock due tofrearm injuries (unnatural)".Injuries are described in column No. 17in Exh. 173 and they are as under :-"17 (1):- A single penetrating oval shaped injury over anterior abdominal wall in left hypochondric region with anterior end slightly lower than posterior end, directed above downward towards umbilicus, injury was located at a distance of 112 cms from heal, 18 cms below the left nipple, 13 cms below and lateral to xiphoid, 12.5 cm from umbilicus and 17 cms above anterior superior illiac spine.The margins of wound are inverted with clots of blood seen in its depth.There was an abrasion collar of 0.5 cms broad along the posterior upper margin of the wound.The injury penetrates anterior abdominal wall below the coastal margin entered through the peritoneum then stomach and from stomach to messentry, from messentry to abdominal aorta and after leaving abdominal arota the ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::bullet get lodged into the body of 3rd lumber vertebra from where it was recovered.17 (2):- A single circular penetrating wound over perietal region of left side, about 12 cms above the left eye brow, 2.9 cms lateral and 22 cms anterior to mid occipital protanence and 15 cms away from left mastoid process, size of would is 1.7 cms in diameter X cavity deep with punched out, lacerated margins, through which small shattered piece of bone and brain matter seen.Circular shaped fracture skull underneath the wound above mentioned with subgial haematoma around and margins of skull fracture well demonstated with infltrated blood at margins and inner table there is evidence of bevelling of size of 0.3 cms, then bullet penetrates dura entered into the left parietal lobe adjacent to above mentioned fractured skull passed downwards, vertically upto the base of brain matter, turned horizontally through 3rd ventricle to lower margins of corpse callousm, then pones and lodged into mid of medulla oblongata, 1.5 cm above foreman magnum and bullet base was distorted and then whole tract was haemorrhage and lacerated.(Injury No. 1 and 2 are antemortem injuries)."Dr. Jame (PW 11) has deposed that injury No. 2 is sufcient to causethe death in ordinary course of nature.If the description of injury No.1 is seen, it can be said that this injury also would have caused thedeath in ordinary course of nature.On overall medical record theopinion is given that the fre arm injuries caused the death.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.30) In the cross examination of Dr. Jame (PW 11), it isbrought on the record that there was no gun powder or burn of skinseen by the doctor at the entry point of both the bullet wounds.Notmuch can be made out due to this circumstance.It was submittedfor the accused that this admission of the doctor creates aprobability that the fring was done from more distance than thedistance which is given by PW 1 and so, PW 1 cannot be believed.This submission is not at all acceptable.Only as against accused No.1 evidence is given that he had held the deceased by his neck andthen he had fred a bullet on abdomen of the deceased.Thisevidence itself shows that accused No. 2 was not at close distancewhen he fred at the head of the deceased.In any case, there isconvincing evidence of Dr. Jame (PW 11).There is record of aforesaidnature to show that both the injuries were caused by fre arms andthe defence has not suggested that these injuries were not causedby fre arms.In view of nature of injuries, it can be said that theycould have been caused only by pistol or revolver and not by gun orriffle.This circumstance needs to be kept in mind.31) Shahid Khan Pathan (PW 7), panch witness and BharatBallayya (PW 14), panch witness have given evidence on ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::panchanama of seizure of clothes of the deceased.This evidenceshows that shirt, tea shirt and sando banian were on the person ofthe deceased and at the side of abdomen on all the three clothesholes were noticed.These pieces of circumstancesexplain as to why the signs which could have been noticed if therewas fring from close distance could not appear on the dead body.32) Shri.Padole (PW 16), the Investigating Ofcer has givenevidence that on 13.1.2010 he intercepted and arrested accusedNos.1 to 4 at Talegaon Dabhade Chowk near Chakan Phata.Hisevidence shows that he picked them up when they were gettingdown from a truck and he had gone there as there was specifcinformation about the possibility of their arrival at this spot.He hasgiven evidence that after taking personal search of accused No. 1,six bore revolver was recovered from his possession.Commonpanchanama of seizure of these articles was prepared and it is atExh.Prosecution has not examined any panch witness to prove ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::this incident and there is the evidence of only interested witness PWIn ordinary course, when PW 16 was taking action withinjurisdiction of other police station, he would have informed the otherpolice station and other police station would have created record inrespect of arrest of these accused at this spot and also about seizureof articles as made necessary under the provisions of CriminalProcedure Code (Cr.P.C.).There is no record likesuch information was received, the entry of the accused was taken inany record and entry of movement of PW 16 along with vehicle wasmade in any register.Due to all these circumstances, this Court holdsthat the evidence of seizure of two fre arms from accused Nos. 1and 2 cannot be used against them.33) Shri.Padole (PW 16) has given evidence that duringinvestigation, he collected C.D.R. record in respect of few mobilenumbers of the accused.The evidence on the record shows that nosim card or no hand set was recovered from any of the accused.Further, there was no compliance of provision of section 65-B of theEvidence Act for making that record admissible.The Trial Court hasnot touched that record and this Court holds that such record cannotbe considered.Such record ordinarily helps to prove the conspiracy, ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::but it appears that the investigating agency and the prosecution sidedid not prosecute the matter properly.34) Three weapons are shown to be seized in the presentmatter and one weapon is shown to be recovered from accused No. 8Nilesh Alhat.That weapon was shown as recovered in R.C.C. No.1654/2010 which was fled in the Court of J.M.F.C. Pune againstNilesh.Copy of the judgment of that matter is on the record and itshows that on 18.2.2010 one country made pistol was found withNilesh and due to that, case was fled against him for ofencepunishable under section 3 r/w. 25 of Arms Act. By the decision dated30.4.2012 this accused was acquitted by the learned J.M.F.C., Pune.No evidence in respect of seizure of the weapon from possession ofNilesh is given in the present matter, though this weapon is shown tobe sent to ballistic expert with empty cartridges recovered from thespot of ofence.35) Prosecution has examined one more witness like ImamShaikh (PW 4), a pan stall owner to give some circumstantialevidence.This witness has deposed that his pan stall was situatednear Minar Hotel which is in the vicinity of the spot of ofence.Evidence of Dattatraya (PW 3) already discussed shows that he waspresent at the relevant time near the tea stall and this tea stall issituated near Minar Hotel.On that basis the prosecution wants to ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::show that PW 4 was also present in the vicinity of the spot of ofenceat the relevant time.36) Imam Shaikh (PW 4) has given evidence that at therelevant time, he was present near his pan stall and his attentionwas drawn to the spot when he heard sounds of shots whichappeared to him like the sounds of fre crackers.He has deposed thatthen he noticed that two motorcycles passed by his shop and theyhad come from the side from where he had heard the sounds offrearms shots.He has deposed that three persons were present onone motorcycle and two persons were present on the secondmotorcycle.He has deposed that out of the three persons who werepresent on one motor cycle, two were known to him like Juber(accused No. 3) who was riding the motorcycle and accused No. 1Rizwan who was on extreme backside.His evidence shows that hedid not know the third person who was sitting in the middle.He hasdeposed that on the second motorcycle, there were two otherpersons like Bhaiyya (accused No. 4) and Sayyad (accused No. 2).Hehas vaguely stated in the evidence that these fve persons werehaving two pistols.He has stated that Saydu (accused No. 2) wassaying that now it was the turn of Raju.The specifc words uttered bySaydu are given by him as "Bhainchod Raju Ab Teri Bari Hai ( HkSupksnjktw vc rsjh ckjh gS ).Imam (PW 4) has tried to say that he knew atleast ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::four persons out of fve who came on that day from the side of spotof ofence on two motorcycles.He has deposedthat accused No. 2 was holding a gun.Their evidence onthe persons, who were riding the motorcycles is of diferent natureand the evidence is also diferent in respect of the persons who wereholding the weapons.This inconsistency is in respect of accused No.3 Juber.38) Police statement of Imam (PW 4) was recorded on11.1.2010 and it was late by two days.There is no explanation givenon this delay.The evidence on the record shows that this witnesswas also called for T.I. parade.In the cross examination, he hasadmitted that from prior to the date of incident he knew accusedNos.Like in casesof PW 1 and PW 2 the supplementary statement of this witness wasrecorded on 26.1.2010 and the relevant portions were confronted toPW 4 and they are portions 'B' and 'C'.Thus, in supplementarystatement which was recorded prior to T.I. parade, he had stated that ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::he knew all the accused including Wasim Shaikh.The evidence of PW4 in the cross examination shows that he could not explain the thingsand described many things asked to him and he could not stand tothe test of cross examination.This Court holds that the evidence ofthis witness is of no use to the prosecution.39) In addition to direct evidence and circumstantialevidence discussed above, there is the evidence of one morecircumstance viz. motive.Shaikh Mujafar (PW 5), brother ofdeceased is examined by the prosecution to prove the motive.Notonly the evidence of this witness, but the evidence of other witnessshows that the deceased was in politics and in social work.The deceased was Director of Mula Pravara Electricity Society.Evidence is given that in 1999 there was family matter of accusedNos.1 and 2 and in that matter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had suspicionthat the deceased had taken the side of opposite side.Evidence isgiven that from that time, a grudge was developed by accused Nos.1 and 2 against the deceased.Evidence is given that nephew Danishhad dispute with accused No. 3 Juber as in the year 2007 a mobilehand set was sold by Danish to Juber and the price was not paid byJuber.Due to that transaction, there was quarrel and so, Juber hadgrudge against the family of deceased.Evidence is given that in the ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Evidence is given that after the lastincident, accused Nos. 1 to 3 had taken vow and they had decidednot to have hair cut till Ayub was fnished.There is such evidence ofPW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 also.The tenor of the cross examination showsthat it is not disputed that the relations between the deceased andaccused Nos. 1 to 4 were strained.Due to these circumstances, thisCourt holds that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutionevidence on motive.Thus, there was reason for atleast accused Nos.1 to 3 to fnish the deceased.40) Discussion of evidence given as against accused Nos. 1to 4 shows that there is specifc evidence as against accused Nos. 1and 2 and it can be safely relied upon to base the conviction.Theevidence given as against accused Nos. 3 and 4 is hit by materialomissions and there are also inconsistencies in the evidence given asagainst them which are already quoted.Even if that part of evidence is discarded, there is directevidence as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 which has corroboration ofmedical evidence, evidence of spot panchanama and the evidence ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::on motive.When there is such direct evidence and no otherpossibility is there, conviction can be safely based on the directevidence even if there is no recovery of weapons used in theincident.The law developed on this point is discussed at properplace on the basis of case laws cited by both the sides.41) The conviction is given as against accused Nos. 1 and 2for the ofence of conspiracy also.In the case reported asBhagwandas Keshwani etc. Vs.It is observed that during execution ofconspiracy, one accused may take one responsibility and otheraccused may take other responsibility and if they had completed theact or they had attained the object all of them, all of them areresponsible for ofence of conspiracy.Unfortunately, in the present ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::matter as already observed the investigating agency did not collectthe material properly and the prosecution has also not conducted thecase properly.There are other circumstances also due to which it isnot possible to believe that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were part ofconspiracy.As against accused Nos. 1 and 2, there are manycircumstances due to which the conspiracy can be inferred againstthem and they are as under :-(i) The incident took place at about 11.30 p.m. in the night time at snack stall and it was not routein of the deceased to go there.The evidence on the record shows that watch was kept by accused and after learning that deceased was there, accused had gone to the spot.(ii) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had carried weapons, fre arms with them.Thus, they had procured the fre arms already and they had taken decision to fnish the deceased.(iii) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 fred the shots at the head and abdomen when the deceased was helpless and this circumstance shows that they had come there only to fnish the deceased and they left the spot only when they accomplished their object.(iv) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come on motorcycles to the spot and so, they had taken care to see that they can escape from the place of ofence immediately after the incident was over.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.(v) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had motive for the crime and they had taken decision to fnish the deceased.The deceased was proving to be obstacle in their activities.42) On the basis of aforesaid circumstances, this Court holdsthat conspiracy can be safely inferred atleast as against accusedNos.43) There is some evidence which can be called as notdeserving the discussion.The evidence is given on the recovery oftwo motorcycles.Panchanamas of seizure of two motorcycles wereprepared.PW 1, eye witness had given the description of company ofone motorcycle, but the number was not noted by him.Though themotorcycles are shown to be seized, no prosecution witness hasidentifed these motorcycles by giving substantive evidence.44) There is evidence of Irfan Pathan (PW 10) as againstaccused Sandeep (accused No. 7).As appeal is not as against thisaccused, this evidence need not be considered.Similarly, he hasgiven evidence against other accused like Bala (accused No. 5) and ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::It is already observed that the recovery of weapons from thepossession of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is not satisfactorily proved andno evidence at all is given for the recovery of third weapon.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.(ii) Joginder Singh Vs.be considered and if the Trial Court has given such beneft, Appellate Court should not interfere lightly in that decision.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.There cannot be dispute over these propositions made by the Apex Court.This Court holds that in the present matter also, it is not desirable to interfere in the decision given by the Trial Court.(iii) Chandrappa & Ors.State of Karnataka (AIR 2007 (SC) 111] :- This case is also on the power of the High Court when High Court is considering the appeal against acquittal and the observations are similar to the observations in the case of Jogindar Singh cited supra.(iv) State of Punjab Vs.Rajinder Singh [AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1428] :- The matter is mainly on factual aspects.There were discrepancies in the description of weapons used.The weapon described was shot gun when it was riffle.There was medical evidence which was not consistent with the weapon which was said to be used.The facts were diferent and in the present matter, weapons of diferent kind like pistol or revolver were used and so, the observations made in this reported case cannot be used in the present matter.(v) The State Vs.Motia and Ors.[1995 CRI.L.J. 835] RAJASTAN HIGH COURT :- In the case, the linking::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::evidence in respect of articles shown to be recovered and articles examined by expert was doubtful in nature.(vi) Bhanudas Bagaji Salve Vs.State of Maharashtra [2006 ALL M.R. (Cri) 67] :- In this case this Court has discussed the efect of circumstances of not sealing the articles at the time of seizure.In the present matter relevant evidence is discussed and theweapons are described as pistol and the medical evidence showsthat the injuries were caused only by such weapons and it it cannotbe said that medical evidence is not supporting the direct evidencein the present matter.48) The learned APP placed reliance on the observationsmade by the Apex Court in the case of Kehar Singh and Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::The State (Delhi Admn.) [AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1883].This case is on the conspiracy hatched, on the requirements ofproving conspiracy.The learned APPplaced reliance on the case of Bharat Singh and Ors.State ofU.P. [AIR 1999 (SC) 717].In that case, there was possibility thatthe shooting by using fre arm was not done from the close range.Inthat case, guns were said to be used, but there were nocircumstances like scorching, blackening and tattooing.There is noneed to use these observations in view of the nature of weaponsused in the present matter and nature of direct evidence available.Inthe case of Kali Prasad Singh Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh [2019(6) Scale 670], there were gun shots, but clothes like jacket wereon the person of deceased and due to that it was held that theabsence of blackening of skin was not a circumstance which couldhave crated doubt about the evidence of witnesses.In the casereported as Paramjit and Ors.State of Haryana [AIR 2000(SC) 2038], there was use of double barrel gun.In this case, theApex Court has laid down that when one trustworthy witness isexamined, the circumstance of non examination of other possibleeye witness cannot be considered against the prosecution and thatcircumstance can be ignored.49) It was submitted for accused persons that before ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::registration of crime police had rushed to the spot and so, the F.I.R.given by PW 1 cannot be used for corroboration purpose undersection 157 of the Evidence Act. On this point, the learned APPplaced reliance on the observations made in the case of AnimireddyVenkata Ramana & Ors.Public Prosecutor, H.C. of A.P.[2008 DGLS (SC) 373].If somehow policereceived information and proceeded to the spot, the report given bythe frst informant after this moment of police cannot be discardedby presuming that this was not the frst information about the crime.In the present matter also, police had rushed to the spot frst andthereafter, the crime came to be registered.There was use of frearms and many persons were in the vicinity and immediately afterthe incident, the persons to whom the deceased was known hadshifted the deceased to the hospital to save his life and so,somebody must have informed to police that there was incident offring.F.I.R. was also given immediately and as already observed thiscircumstance cannot take away the importance of F.I.R. given by PW1 in the present matter and F.I.R. can be used for corroborationpurpose in the present matter.50) In view of the discussion made above, this Court holdsthat there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the decision given ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 223/13 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::by the Trial Court.The conviction given to accused Nos. 1 and 2 isbased on sufcient and satisfactory evidence.Similarly, the viewtaken by the Trial Court in favour of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is apossible view.In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:24:12 :::
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,111,189 |
It was further contended before the Sessions Judge that the Special Court at Howrah Sadar is nearer to Liluah Home where the victim girls have been kept in safe custody.It was also canvassed that the Special Court under POCSO Act at Uluberia is not child-friendly as required under POCSO Act. The application under Section 408 CrPC was opposed by the accused persons/petitioners herein mainly on the ground that the Sessions Judge has no power to transfer a case under POCSO Act from one Special Court constituted under the said Act to another such Court.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the impugned order was passed.(Asha Arora, J.)
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,116,133 |
Accordingly, this application stands dismissed as not pressed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.) 1 2 2
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
821,226 |
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBALWhether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?A copy of the same was given to ASI Bhoop Singh- PW10 who along with Constable Raja Ram-PW8, Constable Shesh Mani and Constable Ram Behari and Smt. Pushpa, PW-1, reached the place of occurrence, i.e., C- 3/150, Nand Nagri.The complainant Lekh Ram PW-2 was present there and gave a statement Ex.PW 2/A to ASI Bhoop Singh PW-10, to the effect that he was a resident of C-3/169 Nand Nagri.On the night Crl. A. No. 346/1997 Page 2 of 20 intervening 17th & 18th April, 1989 at about 2 AM, accused Kali Charan who was residing in his neighbourhood, i.e., house no.C-3/150 had come to his house and took away his son Rajbir.When the complainant PW-2, asked Kali Charan as to what was the matter and why his son was being taken away at odd hours of night, Kali Charan replied that he had to talk something important with him.When his son Rajbir did not return for about 15 minutes, he along with his wife Pushpa-PW1 reached the house of Kali Charan and there they saw their son Rajbir having been held by his neck by the accused Om Parkash and accused Kali Charan was giving him fist blows.He immediately sent his wife PW1 to inform the police.In the meanwhile, Kali Charan's another son, Yashpal gave two-three blows to his son with something which he was holding in his right hand.When he went to save his son, accused Yashpal threatened him that he would also meet the same fate as that of his son, as such, he kept standing outside and raised an alarm.His son Rajbir got smeared with blood and breathed his last there.On hearing the noise, people of neighborhood also gathered there.As per complainant, all the three accused persons, i.e., Kali Charan and his two sons Yashpal and Om Parkash had murdered his son Rajbir.He stated to the police that action be taken against aforesaid accused persons.On the aforesaid complaint, ASI Bhoop Singh, PW-10 had put his endorsement Ex.PW10/A and sent Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 3 of 20 ruqqa to police station through Constable Raja Ram PW-8 and got registered FIR Ex.PW 7/A. In the meanwhile, SHO Raghubir Singh PW- 15 had also reached the spot.The scene of crime was got photographed.The blood sample was seized from the spot after completing necessary formalities in this regard vide memo Ex.PW10/B. The site plan Ex.PW 10/C was got prepared.ASI Bhoop Singh (PW10) also made an inquest report Ex. PW10/D and the dead body was sent through Constable Raja Ram-PW8 to mortuary.The search of the accused persons was done.Accused Kali Charan and Om Parkash were apprehended on the same day from park no. B-6, Nand Nagri and, on interrogation, they made disclosure statements Ex. PW10/E and Ex.PW10/F respectively.The T shirt which accused Kali Charan was wearing and the shirt which accused Om Prakash was wearing were having blood stains and the same were also seized after doing necessary formalities, vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/G. Both the accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW 10/H & Ex. PW10/J respectively.On 27th April, 1989, accused Yashpal was apprehended from Gagan Cinema.On interrogation, he had also made a disclosure statement Ex.PW10/K. Thereafter, he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/L. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Yashpal led the police party to his house and got recovered his shirt having blood stains, which was also seized after completion of necessary Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 4 of 20 formalities, vide memo Ex.PW10/M. Thereafter, he led the police party to a canal near Nand Nagri and at his instance, a knife was recovered.The sketch of the said knife was prepared which is Ex.PW10/N. The said knife was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/O after completing the necessary formalities in this regard.After completion of investigation, a report u/s 173 Cr.A. No. 346/1997 Page 4 of 20The prosecution, in all, had examined 15 witnesses, out of which Smt. Pushpa PW-1 and Sh.Lekh Ram PW-2, are parents of the deceased Rajbir.As per prosecution story, Sh.Lekh Ram PW-2 was the eye witness to the alleged occurrence whereas Smt. Pushpa PW-1 has partly seen the occurrence.PW-5 Dr. L.T.Ramani had conducted the postmortem of the deceased.A. No. 346/1997 Page 5 of 20The accused persons in their respective statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C had denied incriminating evidence against them and stated that they were innocent persons and had been falsely implicated.Accused Kali Charan had stated that on the day of occurrence, he was sleeping outside his house and his son Om Parkash was sleeping on the roof.His daughter Pushpa DW-1 was sleeping inside the room which had an opening towards the road.He went inside the room and found deceased Rajbir there.His daughter Pushpa DW-1 had told him that deceased Rajbir had tried to commit rape upon her.By then, his son Om Praksh had also reached there.He and his son Om Prakash had apprehended the deceased.The mohalla people also gathered there and gave beatings to Rajbir.Accused Yashpal was not present in the house.It has also come in her evidence that deceased Rajbir was trying to commit rape upon her.Thereupon, she raised hue and cry.On hearing her cries, the accused persons, i.e., Kali Charan and Om Prakash came in the room.The persons of Mohalla also came inside and had given beatings to the deceased due to which he died.Lekh Raj PW2, parents of deceased Rajbir.Smt. Pushpa PW1, had deposed that on 17.4.1989 she along with her husband Lekh Raj PW2 and son Rajbir were sleeping outside their house.At about 2 a.m. appellant Kali Charan came there and called her son Rajbir who got up from the cot.When he was taking her son Rajbir, she and her husband - PW2, got up and they asked Kali Charan as to where he was taking their son.Kali Charan replied that he had an important thing to talk to him.When her son did not return back for about 15-20 minutes, they both i.e. PW1 and PW2 went to the house of appellant Kali Charan which is at a distance of 45-50 steps from their house in another street, in the same locality.When they entered the house of Kali Charan they saw Rajbir lying on the floor and accused Om Prakash had caught hold of his neck and Kali Charan was giving fist blows.Yashpal was also there.Her husband told her to immediately call the police.Accordingly, she rushed to Police Station Nand Nagri and got recorded D.D. report Ex. PW1/B. Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 9 of 20 Lekh Raj PW2 has also deposed in the same manner as is deposed by PW1 about taking of their son Rajbir by Kali Charan to his house and that when their son did not return for 15-20 minutes then they rushed towards the house of Kali Charan.The margins were regular and lower end was more acutely cut.Incised wound 2 CM x 0.8 CM x ? (Depth to be ascertained) present transversally on the left scapular area, 2 CM to the left of mid-line.This injury was spindle shape.Internal examination:The scalp tissues were normal.Chest : The injury no.1 on exploring were found to have entered left chest cavity, after cutting 6th coastal cartilage.The injury continued on the pericardium (heart covering), interior wall of left ventrical through and through and was champer deep.The total depth of the injury was 9 CM from the body surface.Injury no.2 was found communicating with left chest cavity through 7th inter-coastal space.The injury was seen on the hilar region of the lung, peri-cardium and posterior wall of left ventricle.The total depth of injury no.2 was 10 CM from body surface.Left chest cavity was full of blood.So was peri cardial cavity.Left lung was partially collapsed.Abdomen : Stomach contained 6 ounces of digested food material and other abdominal organs were normal.The death was due to haemorrhagic shock consequent to injuries.Time since death was about 8 hours."The evidence on record clearly establishes that Rajbir had died in the house of accused persons.The evidence on record also establishes the presence of accused persons at the spot.Rather, in the cross- examination of PW2, as is noted above, accused persons have admitted their presence in a room where the incident had occurred.P2 and shirt Ex.P3 which is the same blood group as that of the deceased.The shirt Ex.Advocates who appeared in this case:-Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th April, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, arising out of FIR No.95/89 registered at P.S Nand Nagri u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 wherein appellants, i.e., accused Kali Charan, Om Parkash and Yashpal have been convicted u/s 302/34 IPC.The appeal is also directed against the order of sentence dated 15th April, 1997 whereby the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, each would undergo further RI for a period of three months.Appellant Yashpal is further sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has also ordered that the substantive sentences of accused Yash Pal would run concurrently, however, the sentences in default shall run one after the other after expiry of the substantive sentences.A. No. 346/1997 Page 1 of 20P.C was filed against the accused persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.Thereafter, it was assigned to the court of Ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi.The Charges were framed against the accused persons for having committed offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC.A separate charge was framed against accused Yashpal for having committed offence punishable u/s 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty in respect of charges framed against them and claimed trial.A. No. 346/1997 Page 2 of 20A. No. 346/1997 Page 3 of 20Remaining witnesses relate to police and medical evidence.A. No. 346/1997 Page 5 of 20Accused Om Parkash had claimed innocence.He had taken the same stand as was taken by his father Kalicharan.Accused Yashpal had stated that he was not present at the spot and had gone to Samai Pur Badli on that night.In defence, accused persons had examined DW-1 Smt. Pushpa, who is the daughter of accused Kalicharan and sister of accused Om Parkash and Yashpal, who had deposed that on the night intervening 17th-18th April, 1989, she was sleeping in her room and deceased Rajbir came there and tried to commit rape upon her and when she cried, her Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 6 of 20 father and brothers came.Mohalla people also gathered there and deceased was given beatings by those persons.A. No. 346/1997 Page 6 of 20Learned trial court found the evidence of parents of deceased, i.e., Smt. Pushpa PW1 and Sh.Lekh Raj PW2, trustworthy and rejected the defence version and held that the prosecution had established its case beyond doubt and convicted the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC and Yashpal was further held guilty for having committed the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act vide impugned judgment dated 9.4.1997 and sentenced them vide an order dated 15.4.1997 as is stated above.Mohit Mathur, Amicus Curiae has contended that evidence of Puspa PW1 and Lekh Raj PW2 i.e. parents of deceased could not have been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It is contended that they are not eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence.It is contended that it is clear from the evidence of Smt. Pushpa PW1 that she was sent from the spot by Lekh Raj-PW2 for informing the police as such she has not seen the material occurrence.It is further contended that reading the entire evidence of PW2-Lekh Raj, it can't be said that he had seen the alleged occurrence.It is contended that as per evidence on record, the deceased had died in the house of appellants at the wee hours of the night and at that time Puspa DW1, the daughter of accused Kali Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 7 of 20 Charan and sister of accused Om Prakash and Yashpal was also inside the house.The trial court ought to have given credence to the evidence of Puspa DW1 who has categorically deposed in the defence evidence that at the time of incident she was sleeping inside a room of her house.Her father Kali Charan was sleeping outside on the road and her brother Om Prakash were sleeping on the roof.It is contended that appellant Yashpal was not present at the spot and has been wrongly convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It is further contended that assuming accused Kalicharan, Om Prakash and Yashpal had caused the alleged occurrence, in that event, in any view of the matter, the provisions of Section 302 IPC are not attracted in the facts of the present case.It is contended that seeing the act of the deceased, they lost self control and out of grave and sudden provocation, committed the alleged occurrence, as such, they are entitled to benefit of Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC.A. No. 346/1997 Page 8 of 20A. No. 346/1997 Page 7 of 20A. No. 346/1997 Page 8 of 20On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent/State that there was no provocation sufficient enough to invoke the Exception 1 under Section 300 IPC.The appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and their case is not covered under Section 304 IPC as is contended and the appeal is liable to be rejected.The material witnesses of the prosecution are Smt. Pushpa PW1 and Sh.There he saw that Om Prakash had caught hold of his son Rajbir from his neck and Kali Charan was giving fist blows with something in his hand and he sent his wife to the Police Station.He also saw Yashpal who had stabbed deceased Rajbir 2-3 times in his abdomen with something in his hand.A. No. 346/1997 Page 9 of 20As per evidence of Pushpa PW1, she has not seen the material occurrence as she was sent by her husband PW2 to inform the police where she lodged a report Ex. PW1/B. In the said report Ex.PW1/B, she has not stated that Kali Charan had come and had taken her son to his house.As regards the material occurrence, Lekh Raj PW2 has deposed that Yashpal had stabbed Rajbir 2-3 times in the abdomen of deceased Rajbir whereas as per post mortem report Ex. PW5/A, there is no injury on the abdomen of deceased.The said report shows that there are two incised stab wounds i.e one on the chest and the other on the scapular region.Had Lekh Raj-PW2 seen the occurrence, he would have described the seat of injuries correctly.It has also come in the evidence that the incident had occurred inside the house of Kali Charan in a room.Smt. Pushpa-PW1 has stated in her cross-examination that neither she Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 10 of 20 nor her husband had entered the room where the incident had taken place.It has also come in the cross-examination of Lekh Raj PW2 that he could not describe the weapon with which accused Yashpal had caused injuries to Rajbir.By reading the entire evidence of PW2, it can't be said with certainty that he had seen the material occurrence.It has also come in the cross-examination of PW2 that deceased Rajbir was not on visiting terms with the accused persons.Under these circumstances, it is also not believable that Kali Charan would go and call Rajbir for an important talk and that PW1 and PW2 would allow their son Rajbir to accompany Kali Charan in the late hours of the night.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 to this effect is also not believable.A. No. 346/1997 Page 10 of 20PW10/B. In cross- examination of PW2, suggestion is given to Lekh Raj PW2 that on the day of incident at about 2 a.m. accused Om Prakash had returned home after watching govt.video which was being shown in the street and he Crl. A. No. 346/1997 Page 11 of 20 saw deceased Rajbir in the room of Pushpa who was crying at that time and had told her brother i.e. accused Om Prakash that Rajbir was trying to rape her.Further suggestion is given that on hearing the noise, Kali Charan and Yashpal who were sleeping outside their house also came inside the room.By giving such a suggestion to Lekh Raj-PW2, the accused persons have virtually admitted their presence in the room of Pushpa-DW1 as well as that of deceased Rajbir at the time of incident.A. No. 346/1997 Page 11 of 20As per post mortem report Ex. PW5/A, death is homicidal.Injuries as per report Ex. PW5/A on deceased are as under:-"External injuries: 1.An incised stab wound placed almost vertically on the left side front of chest 1.5 CM away from mid-line.Size of the wound was 2.5 CM x 1 CM x ? (depth to be ascertained).Skull bones were intact.The brain was pale.Neck tissues : Normal, trachea-NAD.A. No. 346/1997 Page 12 of 20Opinion The injuries were ante mortem caused by sharp edged weapon and were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The defence of the accused persons is that Rajbir was given beatings by Mohalla Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 13 of 20 people in their house.However, they have not named a single person of Mohalla who had allegedly given beatings to Rajbir, either to the police or in the evidence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.They have falsely taken such a stand in order to save themselves.The failure on their part to properly explain as to how Rajbir had died in their house raises a presumption that they were responsible for the death of the deceased.Further the evidence on record shows that after the incident, accused Kali Charan and Om Prakash were arrested on the same day at about 1 p.m. from the nearby park.Accused Kali Charan was wearing kurta Ex.P2 and accused Om Prakash was wearing shirt Ex.P3, both having blood stains, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW10/G. The same were seized by ASI Bhoop Singh-PW10 in the presence of SI Mohlad Singh.The testimony in this regard is not demolished in cross- examination.As per CFSL report Ex. PX, human blood of group B was detected on kurta Ex.P1 of accused Yashpal having blood stains was also seized during investigation vide memo ex.As per CFSL report, Ex. PX, human blood of group B was detected on the shirt Ex.P1 also.This piece of evidence also supports the case of prosecution.A. No. 346/1997 Page 13 of 20A. No. 346/1997 Page 14 of 20A. No. 346/1997 Page 14 of 20Smt. Pushpa DW1 who is the daughter of appellant Kali Charan and sister of appellants Om Prakash and Yashpal had stated in defence evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 2 AM, deceased Rajbir had entered in her room and tried to commit rape upon her.Her material deposition about deceased Rajbir entering the room and trying to commit rape upon her is not demolished in cross-examination.In view of above evidence appearing on record, it is to be seen whether the accused persons are entitled for benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.The necessary requirements of applicability of exception I to Section 300 IPC and as to whether accused can claim the benefit of the same has been dealt in judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Suresh Singhal v. State : 2010 (173) DLT 642, the relevant paras of the same are as under:-Exception I. In order to bring the case within Exception I, the following conditions must be complied with:A. No. 346/1997 Page 15 of 20350."In Devku Bhikha vs State of Gujarat : AIR (1995) SC 2171, the appellant therein had admitted having caused the murder of headmaster of a school and had explained the cause as grave and sudden as the deceased in order to help the accused in getting job in his school had asked him to make available his wife at his home for night.The deceased had also called him an impotent.The trial court rejected the plea and convicted him under Section 302 IPC.The High Court, on an appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence.On an appeal to the Supreme Crl. A. No. 346/1997 Page 16 of 20 Court, it was held that it was a case where the appellant had lost self control and out of grave and sudden provocation committed the offence.The Supreme Court scaled down conviction from Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC.The relevant paras of judgment are as under:-A. No. 346/1997 Page 16 of 20As said before, the case of the prosecution lies solely on the two dying declarations of the deceased.The appellant instead of projecting a plain denial has on the other hand strengthened those dying declarations by his statement in admitting that he was responsible for the death of the deceased.Yet, his owning the commission of the crime does not lead to the conclusion that he was guilty of offence punishable under S.302, I.P.C. In his statement as his own defence witness he has narrated the sequence of events by which he was provoked by the deceased.It stands out prominently that the deceased was a member of a high caste and the appellant of a low caste.Unfortunately the appellant was subjected to repeated insults at the end which, when his tolerance broke down, he made use of the knife and inflicted repeated injuries on the deceased who had unabashedly and lecherously asked the appellant to make available his wife to him for immoral purpose.This may have provided enough opportunity to the deceased to exploit the situation, as the appellant was unemployed in Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 17 of 20 those days when the occurrence took place.Thus, from this analysis it becomes abundantly clear that the appellant was driven to the crime which was not premeditated and the occasion had sprung up at the moment, gradually leading to the point when the appellant lost his self-control, and due to grave and sudden provocation, inflicted the injuries on the deceased, successively within seconds.We think, therefore, that the offence made out against the appellant is under S. 304 Part I, I.P.C. Accordingly, the offence is scaled down from one punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. to one under S. 304 Part I, I.P.C. for which we impose sentence of seven years' R.I. on the appellant.Apparently it seems that the appellant has already undergone that sentence.Should there be any difference and he has to be taken back in jail then the law will have its own course.The appeal is, thus, partially allowed with the above result."A. No. 346/1997 Page 17 of 20It has clearly come in the evidence that the deceased was in the room of Pushpa DW-1 at the time of incident.The evidence also shows that they were neighbours and the house of deceased was at a little distance from the house of accused persons.Puspa DW1 has categorically deposed that deceased was trying to commit rape upon her.Her evidence to this effect cannot be brushed aside especially when the same is not demolished in cross-examination.It has also come in the evidence that when she raised an alarm the accused persons had gone in her room and Pushpa DW-1 told them that Rajbir was trying to commit rape upon her.Accused persons being her father and brothers, it was not Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 18 of 20 at all unusual on their part to lose the power of self control and to attack in those circumstances.The accused persons have succeeded in highlighting the circumstances to show that they were gravely and suddenly provoked, as such it is possible for them to contend that the act was covered by the first Exception to Section 300 IPC.Reference in this regard is made to judgment of Ram Kishan v. State of Rajasthan: (1) 2001 CCR 291 SC.A. No. 346/1997 Page 18 of 20Evidence on record suggests something unusual which could not be tolerated by the accused persons so they became furious, lost power of control and committed the homicide.In this backdrop, we are of the view that death of Rajbir caused by the appellants amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder because it was caused under grave and sudden provocation.As we have not believed the evidence of Lekh Raj PW-1 having seen the material occurrence, the accused Yashpal cannot be held guilty under Section 27 of Arms Act as is held by learned Additional Sessions Judge.The alleged recovery of knife Ex.P4 is also from ganda nala.In view of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is converted to one Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 19 of 20 under Section 304 Part I read with section 34 of IPC.The sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.The sentence of fine, is, however maintained.Needless to add that they shall be entitled to the benefit u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. The conviction of appellant Yashpal having committed offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the order of sentence imposed for the said offence is set aside.The appellants are on bail.Their bail stands cancelled.The appellants be arrested for serving the remainder of their respective sentences.A. No. 346/1997 Page 19 of 20A copy of the judgment along with record be sent to the ld.trial court for compliance.The appeal is partly allowed as above.VEENA BIRBAL, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J July 7, 2011 ssb/kks Crl.A. No. 346/1997 Page 20 of 20A. No. 346/1997 Page 20 of 20
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,124,390 |
(Order of the Court was passed by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) This writ petition has been filed by the life convict to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 20.12.2018 for his premature release, by applying G.O.Ms.Heard Mr.The petitioner would state that he is a life convict in S.C.No.241 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.The said conviction and sentence was confirmed by this Court in Crl.It is submitted by the petitioner that he is in prison for 19 years and 7 months and has availed leave on several occasions in accordance with the prison rules and has not come to adverse notice of the prison officials.Further, the Page 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.7929/2020 petitioner would state that while he was undergoing life imprisonment, he had acquired various skills and completed certificate courses and also a B.A. Degree and M.A. Degree, etc. and has also won several prizes in the essay competitions.The petitioner sought for the premature release, by applying the Government Order in G.O.Ms.However, the same was not considered on the ground that the petitioner was convicted, among other offences, for the offence under Section 471 IPC and accordingly, became ineligible for the benefit of the said Government Order.The petitioner's mother sent a representation dated 20.12.2018 to the respondents praying for the premature release of her son - the petitioner herein.It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Inspector of Police has submitted a report dated 01.02.2016 to the Probation Officer and the Tahsildar, Trichy (West), submitted a report dated 01.08.2017 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, recommending the petitioner's premature release, based on enquiry.Further, it is stated that in the month of May, 2019, the earlier report has been reiterated for the release of the petitioner.Page 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.7929/2020The grievance of the petitioner is that till date the representation made by the mother of the petitioner for the release of the petitioner, by applying G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 01.02.2018, has not been considered.G.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner was convicted, among the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Section 471 IPC, which would disentitle him to the benefit of the G.O., the maximum sentence, which can be imposed for the offence under Section 471 IPC, is seven years, whereas the petitioner has been sentence to undergo the imprisonment for one year for the said offence, and he has already completed more than 19 years and therefore, there is no bar for considering the case of the petitioner.The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.120 of 2019, dated 22.01.2019 (State of Tamil Nadu and others V. P.Veera Bhaarathi), in support of his contentions.Therefore, it is well open to the first respondent to consider the representation on merits and in accordance with law.Since the representation is pending from 20.12.2018, we are inclined to dispose of this writ petition, by directing the first respondent to take a decision on the representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of, by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's / petitioner's mother's representation dated 20.12.2018 for premature release, by applying G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 01.02.2018, and pass orders on merits and in Page 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.7929/2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.gg accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.There will be no order as to costs.(T.S.S., J.) (P.S.N., J.) 11.06.2020 ggThe District Collector, Trichy.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-1, Puzhal, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.W.P.No.7929 of 2020 Page 6/6http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
821,323 |
(a) P.W.1 is the resident of Gandhiji Road, Kuruchi.The deceased Anandhan is the brother-in-law of P.W.1's sister.On 23.2.2006, one Prabhu had quarrel with all the accused and the accused beat him.It was informed to the deceased Anandhan.On the date of occurrence that was on 24.2.2006 at about 9.00 p.m, the deceased Anandhan and P.W.1 were talking about the incident and were walking on the Gandhiji Road at Pothanur.At that time, they saw the accused standing there.The accused asked why both of them were staring at them.There was wordy altercation between them.and A1 instigated the other accused.A1 and A2 caught hold of the arms of the deceased.A3 cut the deceased with aruval on his head.P.W.1 went to the rescue.At that time, A4 to A6 attacked him with iron rod.P.W.1 fell down and all of the accused attacked Anandhan indiscriminately.(b) P.Ws.2 and 3 took the severely injured Anandhan to the Government Hospital where he was given treatment.P.W.1 proceeded to Pothanur Police station and gave Ex.P1 report to P.W.8 Inspector of Police at 21.45 hours.On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.160/2006 under sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 I.P.C. The express F.I.R., Ex.P11 was dispatched to Court.(c) P.W.8, Inspector of Police took up investigation.He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses, he prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar and drew a rough sketch Ex.He also recovered the material objects including the blood stained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar, Ex.Pending investigation, Anandhan who was admitted in hospital for treatment died on 25.2.2006 at 22.05 hours.Thereafter, the case which was originally registered under section 307 I.P.C. was converted to Section 302 I.P.C. and the amended F.I.R. Ex.P14 was dispatched to Court.(d) A1 and A2 were arrested on 26.2.2006 at 4.00 a.m. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the mortuary and conducted inquest on the dead both of Anandhan in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P15 inquest report.The dead body was subjected to post mortem.P.W.7, doctor on the requisition made by the Investigating Officer, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anandhan and gave the post mortem certificate Ex.P.10 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries sustained by him.According to Ex.A3 and A4 surrendered before the Court.On 28.2.2006, A6 was arrested when he was undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital, A3 gave confessional statement and the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.He also produced three iron rods which was marked as M.O.2 series.They were sent for judicial remand.All the materials objects were subjected to chemical analysis which broughtforth the chemical report and the serologist report.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report.(e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and relied on 16 exhibits and 6 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were question under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and they denied them false.One Dr.Sekar on the side of the defence was examined as D.W.1 through whom the copy of the accident register of P.W.1 was marked as Ex.On completion of the evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant guilty as per the charge and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellants.Hence, P.Ws. 2 and 3 could not have been present at the time of occurrence at all.According to P.W.1, from the place of occurrence, he immediately proceeded to the Hospital and took treatment but according to investigating officer, he gave medical memo to P.W.1 and the prosecution would claim that on the complaint of P.W.1 which was marked as Ex.P1 document should have come into existence as putforth by the prosecution.Added further learned counsel, so far as P.W.1 was concerned, though it was claimed by the prosecution that he was treated in the Government Hospital, the doctor who examined him was not examined by the prosecution and the accident register copy was not marked by the prosecution.Though P.W.1 was the eye witness and also the injured witness, the medical evidence was not canvassed.On the contrary, it was the defence who examined the doctor who treated P.W.1 as D.W.1 and through him, Ex.D1 accident register has been marked.A perusal of Ex.D1 would clearly indicate that it was thoroughly against the entire prosecution case.D.1 the assailants were four in number.The weapons which were used were not only knife and aruval but also cricket stick and the occurrence had taken place at Venkatachalapathy Nagar.According to the prosecution, the assailants are six in number and the occurrence has taken place at Gandhiji Road, Kuruchi and the weapons of crime were aruval and iron rod.The earliest document which came into existence is Ex.From a reading of Ex.D1 which has come into existence from the mouth of P.W.1, it would go to show that the prosecution has come with a false story.Added further learned counsel, it is admitted by the investigating officer that A6 took treatment in the Government Hospital and he arrested on 28.2.2006 and he has also given a complaint but neither the complaint given by A6 was brought before Court nor any documents pertaining to treatment was produced before the Court.All would go to show that the prosecution has failed to place all the necessary documents before the Court to enable the Court to come to a correct conclusion.All would indicate that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.In the absence of any evidence and in the absence of necessary documents, the trial Court should have rejected the prosecution case.But the trial Court has found the accused guilty of the charges and awarded punishment as referred to above.Hence, the accused/appellants are entitled for acquitted in the hands of this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.The doctor has given opinion in the post mortem certificate that Anandhan died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained on the head.This fact that Anandhan died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants at any point of time before the trial court.Insofar as P.Ws. 2 and 3 are concerned, their names do not find place in the F.I.R. Apart from that, their names were not mentioned in the inquest report also.Therefore, P.W.2 and 3 could not have been present at the place and time of occurrence at all.So far as P.W.1 is concerned, his evidence has got to be rejected for the reasons that according to P.W.1, from the place of occurrence, he directly rushed to the hospital and got treatment, on the contrary, P.W.8 investigator would say that P.W.1 came to the police station and he gave a medical memo and along with medical memo, he went to the hospital.According to the prosecution, P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P1 on the strength of which a case came to be registered.P1 should have come into existence as putforth by the prosecution.Apart from that P.W.1 would claim that he went to Jipmer hospital and had treatment.This fact has been fairly admitted by the prosecution.If to be so, what impeded the prosecution from producing his medical evidence remains unexplained.The prosecution has miserably failed to produce that part of the evidence, on the contrary, it was the defence who had examined the doctor who gave treatment to P.W.1 as D.W.1 and the accident register copy of P.W.1 was marked as Ex.From the very reading of Ex.D1 and on perusal of the evidence of D.W.1, it would reflect that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed.D1 would indicate that P.W.1 has given statement to D.W.1 doctor that four persons were the assailants and the weapons of crime were aruval and cricket sticks and the occurrence had taken place at Venkatachalapathi Nagar.On the contrary, the prosecution case is that there are six assailants and the weapons of crime were aruval and iron rods and the occurrence had taken place at Gandhiji Road.Therefore, the number of assailants, place of occurrence and the weapons of crime are different from the case of the prosecution, but the prosecution had no explanation to offer in that regard.The reason for the non-production of that part of the medical evidence in respect of P.W.1 is not without reason.But on the defence side, the medical evidence of P.W.1 was produced, which would go to show that it is against the prosecution case.Admittedly A6 was arrested in the Government Hospital on 28.2.2006, according to the investigator.It is also admitted by the investigating officer that A6 has given a complaint and he also sustained injuries and he took treatment for 4 or 5 days in the hospital but not even one of the documents in that regard was actually produced before the Court.Thus, the non-production of all the above documents both medical evidence regarding P.W.1, the so-called injured witness and also the complaint and the other medical evidenceof A6 would clearly indicate that the prosecution did not enable the trial Court to find out either the genesis or the truth of the case to come to a correct conclusion.Under such circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that it would be highly unsafe to hold that the accused are involved in the crime.Under such circumstances, benefit of doubt would go to the appellants.Hence, they are entitled for acquittal.Therefore, judgment of the lower court has got to be made undone only by upsetting the same by this Court.Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside.The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.It is reported that A1,A2, A4, A5 and A6 are on bail.The bail bonds, if any executed by the appellants, shall stand terminated.The fine amounts, if any paid by them, shall be ordered to be refunded to them.I Additional District and Sessions Court, CoimbatoreThe Inspector of Police, B-13, Police Station, Coimbatore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.