id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
821,336 |
The informant Jamidar (P.W. 1) is the son of the deceased Hira Lal and the real brother of deceased-Talukdar and Faujdar.At the time of the incident the informant, the three deceased persons, Ramanand (P.W. 2), Urmila (P.W. 3) and appellants-Asha Ram and Chandrika were living in village Gadariyan Purwa, hamlet of Rakhauna within the limits of Police Station Khairighat in district Bahraich.Appellants-Asha Ram and Chandrika and the acquitted accused-Magan, Ram Chhattar alias Lallu, Shiv alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam are interconnected and inter-related.Appellant-Chandrika and acquitted accused-Magan are the nephews of appellant-Asha Ram and Ram Chhattar is brother in law (wife's brother) of appellant-Asha Ram.Shiva alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam are the associates of the remaining appellants.Prior to the incident enmity was subsisting between appellant Asha Ram on one hand and the three deceased persons on the other.At the time of the incident a dispute arising out of a grove was subsisting between appellant-Asha Ram and deceased-Hira Lal.Deceased-Faujdar had illicit relations with the wife of one Pahalwan of village Barhi.On account of it appellant-Asha Ram and others had ex-communicated the informant and others.On 18-9-1996 at about 8 p.m. appel-lant's-Asha Ram and Chandrika along with acquitted accused-Magan, Ram Chhattar and Ghan Shyam came to the house of Faujdar and Talukdar (deceased) who lived in separate houses in the immediate proximity of the informants house and took them to consume liquor.All of them consumed liquor at the house of appellant-Asha Ram.On the said date at about 8-9- p.m. Faujdar came to his house, accompanied by appel-lants-Asha Ram and Chandrika and acquitted accused-Ghan Shyam, Magan, and Ram Chhattar and in the presence of his neighbour Ramanand asked his daughter Urmila (P.W. 3) to give him mustard oil in a bottle which was required for cooking fish at the house of Ram Chhattar.Faujdar told Urmila that she should eat and sleep and he would be eating at Ram Chhattar's place.Thereafter Faujdar and others went away.At about 11 p.m. Talukdar came back to his house.On the night of 18/19-9-1996 the informant Jamidar slept at his door along with his brother-in-law Deba (P.W. 5) Chandrika (P.W. 4) another brother-in-law of the informant slept at the door in front of the house of Talukdar.A dhebri was burning there.The informant had a torch.Hira Lal, the father of the informant was sleeping in his house, inside the compound.At about 2 a.m., on account of some sound, the informant woke up, flashed his torch and saw appellants-Asha Ram and Chandrika armed with bankas and acquitted accused-Magan, Ram Chhattar and Ghan Shyam with lathies assaulting his father Hira Lal.Thereafter the appellants and others went to the house of Talukdar and committed his murder.While it was being committed acquitted accused-Shiv alias Shiv Prasad was standing there, armed with a country made pistol, and threatening the witnesses that if they came near they would be killed.Hearing the cries of informant and others a number of persons from the village came.In the meantime the appellants and acquitted accused ran away.Thereafter the informant and others started searching Faujdar and found his corpse in the field of Ramwati near the chak road.His neck was totally detached from trunk and penis was also cut.Thereafter, informant got the FIR scribed at his house by Hanuman Prasad Pandey, who after scribing it read it over to him.He thereafter affixed his thumb impression on it.He then proceeded to Police Station Khairighat and lodged it.The evidence of Deena Nath Yadav (P.W. 10) shows that on 19-9-1996 he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Khari-ghat and on the said date, at 4 a.m. Jamidar came and filed his written FIR on the basis of which he prepared the chik FIR (Ext. Ka.13).A perusal of the chik FIR shows that the distance between the place of incident and Police Station Khairighat was 1 kilometer.It is significant to mention that a perusal of the chik FIR also shows that on its basis a case under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, I.P.C. was registered against appellants-Asha Ram and Chandrika and acquitted accused-Magan, Ram Chhattar, Shiv alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam.The evidence of SI Prabhakar Mishra (P.W. 9), in short, shows as under :--On 19-9-1996 at 4 p.m., in his presence, Jamidar lodged the FIR at Police Station Khairighat, on the basis of which an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302/ 149, I.P.C. was registered.He immediately commenced the investigation and proceeded to the place of incident where he recorded the statements of the informant, Smt. Urmila Devi and Smt. Ramawati (wife of Talukdar.On his direction R. S. Utam performed inquest on the dead bodies of Faujdar, Talukdar and Hira Lal.He thereafter inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan.From the place of incident he seized plain and blood stained earth in three containers under a recovery memo.He also seized the torch of the informant and two dhebries under a recovery memo.On 20-9-1996 he searched for the accused persons.On 21-9-1996 he arrested appellant-Chandrika and acquitted accused-Ram Chhattar and Ghan Shyam.On their pointing out he seized the weapons of assault, namely, Gandasa and banka.He also seized the lungi and kurta of appellant-Chandrika which were stained with blood.On the said date he submitted a report for initiating action under Section 82/ 83, Cr.On 26-9-1996 Asha Ram, Magan and Shiv alias Shiv Prasad surrendered in the Court.On the night of 18/19-9-1996, at about 8 p.m., the appellants along with acquitted accused came to the houses of Talukdar and Faujdar, who lived in his immediate vicinity and took them to consume liquor.At about 8-9 p.m. Faujdar came along with Asha Ram and others and in the presence of Ramanand told his daughter Urmila (P.W. 3) to give them mustard oil for cooking fish.He also told her that fish would be cooked at the house of acquitted accused-Ram Chhatter and he would eat there and she should eat and sleep.At about 11 p.m. deceased-Talukdar came back to his house.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Six persons, namely, Asha Ram, Magan, Chandrika, Ram Chhattar, Shiv alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam were tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1997 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.Vide judgment and order dated 15-12-2001, the learned Judge acquitted Magan, Ram Chhattar, Shiv alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam on all the counts but convicted and sentenced Asha Ram and Chandrika in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under Section 147, I.P.C. to undergo six months' R.I.(ii) Under Section 148, I.P.C. to undergo one year's R.I.; and(iii) Under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment.The learned Judge directed the sentences of Asha Ram and Chandrika on all the counts to run concurrently.As a matter of fact Cri.Appeal No. 187 of 2002 should not have been entertained by this Court because Chandrika, the sole appellant in it was also the appellant in Cri.It was entertained because the concerned clerk of the criminal section failed to make an endorsement on it that Chandrika's appeal (Cri.Appeal No. 54 of 2002) had already been passed.Since both these appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them of by a common judgment.Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :--P.C. against appellant-Asha Ram.On 5-11-1996, after obtaining orders from the Court, he recorded the statements.After completion of the investigation the appellants and the acquitted accused were charge-sheeted.One incised large wound 2.5 cm.below lower of right mid mandible circumference from right to left going to back up to 7 cm.below the occipital posteriorly scalp contused subcalvion arteries and left side back (sic) nerves.Spine nerves, thyroid and parathyroid gland, trachea, oesophagus, nearly all structures are clean cut, measuring within an area of 16 cm.x 6 cm.x bone deep up to right side skin flap transversely situated in front live neck head is hanging through skin and s/c tissue right side neck with skin flap, c.3 cervical vertebrae is clean cut along spinal cord thyroid bone and surrounding membrane around spinal cord."A clean cut incised wound 3 cms.below lobule of right ear measuring 7 cms.x 2.5 cms.x bone deep connecting to injury.On right side of neck structures (sic) clean cut contused artery, vertebrae, arteries (sic) oesophagus, cartoid larynx etc.A clean cut incised wound just laterally to larynx in front of neck 1 cm.below injury No. (1) (sic) connecting to injury No. (1) measuring 13 cm.x 7 cm.x bone deep cervical 4 vertebrae along with (sic) clean (sic) right and carotid vessels vertebrae artery (sic) on no oesophagus, trachea muscles infront side of right of neck a clean cut along thyroid and parathyroid gland and vessel right side neck deep up posteriorely posterior aspect of skin (sic) situated 7 cm.below the occiput still bleeding.A clean cut incised wound around top right shoulder.It is measuring 4 cm.x 2 cm.x bone deep, (sic) right collar bone cut through.A clean cut incised wound over to anterior surface of the left wrist joint measuring 6 cm.x 3 cm.x bone deep hanging skin tag on dorsum of wrist with clean cut parienal (sic) t all flexor muscles (sic) and exterior (sic) and Flexor (sic) is above clean cut along with (sic) and (sic) Nerves (sic) hand.An incised wound with clean cut margins over the posterior surface of left hand 1.3 promixity to injury No. (4) measuring 5 cms.x 1 cms.muscle and deep oozing (sic) serum.A clean cut incised wound proximal to posterior aspect of left ring fingers measuring 2 cms.1 cms.x bone deep.A clean cut incised wound posterior aspect left middle finger proximal phalanx posterior aspect proximal and (sic) phalanx and fracture middle finger with proximal phalanx missing measuring 5 cms.x 2 cms.x bone deep dorsum of it muscles are clean cut, oozing bleeding (sic) seen."Neck is totally detached from trunk through clean cut incised wound.The circumference at neck is 38 cm.and at the very head from trunk is 42 cms., 3 cm.below occipital posterior, neck is clean cut from head at the lower of cervical C1 and C 2 vertebrae.All neck structures skin s/c tissues arteries carotids vertebrae sub-clavion (sic) oesophagus, trachea (sic) nerves, spinal nerves spinal cord and its membrances.Arteries posterior lateral neck muscles all are clean cut.The wound is situated above thyroid and parathyroid glands oozing blood shell (illegible) sternum clavicles mastoid (sic) muscles and other muscles of neck are also clean cut along with vessels, blood vessels nerves, vein, arteries and membrane, trachea and (sic) and oesophagus etc. neck and not head tallied cut and matched with cut are area before writing...Penis is anteriorly having clean cut wound over it measuring with an area of 6 cm.x 2 cm.x muscle deep cut urethra hanging posterior tag of skin of Penile area, which is 2 cm.down wounds to pubis (sic)."The cause of death spelt out in the autopsy reports of the deceased persons was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries which they had suffered.It is significant to mention that in his deposition in the trial Court Dr. S. K. Verma (P.W. 6) has reiterated the said cause of death and also stated therein that the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the three deceased persons could be attributable to a heavy sharp cutting weapon like gandasa and banka.They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.Their defence was of denial.During trial in all the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.Four of them, namely, the informant Jamidar (P.W. 1), Chandrika (P.W. 4).Debu (P.W. 5) and Kallu (P.W. 8) were examined as eye-witnesses.Excepting Jamidar (P.W. 1) the other three turned hostile and when confronted with those portions of their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein they had given ocular account denied having made them.The informant Jamidar, however, stood firm as a rock of Gibraltar.He, however, acquitted the remaining four accused, namely, Magan, Ram Chhattar, Shiv alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam.As mentioned earlier, aggrieved by their convictions and sentences Asha Ram and Chandrika preferred Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2002 in this court and Chandrika also preferred another appeal i.e. Cri.Appeal No. 187 of 2002 and since these appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them of by one judgment.We have gone through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C; and the impugned judgment and are of the judgment that these appeals deserve to be allowed, inasmuch as this is a case wherein benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellants.It would become manifest from the above that the learned trial Judge has based the conviction of the appellants on the ocular account furnished by Jamidar (P.W. 1) coupled with the evidence of Ramanand (P.W. 2) and Urmila (P.W. 3) and that of appellant-Chandrika on the recoveries effected on the joint pointing out of Chandrika, Ram Chattar and Ghanshyam.After the utmost circumspection, we are of the judgment that it would be unsafe to accept the evidence of Jamidar and once that is done the conviction of appellants cannot be sustained on the evidence of Ramanand (P.W. 2) and Urmila (P.W. 3) and the recovery, on the composite pointing out of appellant-Chandrika and acquitted accused-Ram Chhattar and Ghan Shyam.We would first like to deal with the evidence of Jamidar (P.W. 1).Since in paragraph 4 we have set out the prosecution story primarily on the basis of the recitals contained in his examination-in-chief, we do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating the details.In short, his evidence shows :--Appellants and the acquitted accused are interconnected and interrelated (we have set out the manner in paragraph 4).There was enmity between appellant-Asha Ram and others on one hand and the deceased-Hira Lal, and Talukdar on the other (in paragraph 4 we have furnished in respect of it).On the said night while he (informant) was sleeping at his door, Chandrika (P.W. 4) was sleeping at the door of Talukdar; and Hira Lal was sleeping in the courtyard of his house, appellants-Chandrika and Asha Ram armed with bankas and acquitted accused-Magan, Ram Chhattar and Ghan Shyam armed with lathies came.On hearing some sound he woke up and flashed his torch.In the light of which he saw the aforesaid five persons belabouring his father.Hira Lal with bankas and lathies.Thereafter the appellants belaboured his brother Talukdar.At that time, acquitted accused-Shiv alias Shiv Prasad was standing with a pistol in his hand and was threatening the witnesses' that if they came near they would be killed.Hearing the cries a number of persons from village came.In the meantime the appellants ran away.Thereafter he and others started searching for Faujdar and found his corpse in the field of Ramwati, on the chak road.Then he came back to his house along with the corpse of Faujdar and got the FIR scribed by Hanuman Prasad Pandey, who after scribing it read it over to him.He thereafter affixed his thumb impression on it and lodged it at Police Station Khairighat, district Bahraich.In his examination-in-chief he categorically stated that both the appellants i.e. Asha Ram and Chandrika with bankas and the three acquitted accused persons, namely, Magan, Ram Chhattar and Ghan Shyam with lathies assaulted his father Hira Lal.Their perusal would show that Hira Lal only sustained seven clean cut incised wounds and did not sustain any lacerated wound contusion, abraded contusion or even an abrasion.In our judgment if he could falsely implicate the aforesaid three persons, there is no assurance that he did not falsely implicate the appellants.However, the admissions made by him and Smt. Urmila in their cross-examination make it manifest that the corpse of Faujdar was discovered after dawn.In his cross-examination the informant stated that he and others found the corpse of Faujdar in day light.Smt. Urmila stated therein that they found the corpse of Faujdar when the crows started crowing.She further stated therein that they started crowing at about 7 a.m. Since the corpse of Faujdar was discovered at about 7 a.m. and in the FIR there is a mention of the fact that the corpse of Faujdar had been discovered.It is obvious that the FIR was lodged after 7 a.m. on 19-9-1996 and not at 4 a.m. on the said date.In our view, this delay in the lodging of the FIR although Police Station Khairighat, where the FIR was lodged, was situated only one kilometer from the place of incident shows that the informant did not see the incident and utilized time in concocting a case.We are not oblivious of the fact that Head Moharrir Deena Nath Yadav P.W. 10, who registered the case on the basis of the FIR, in his cross-examination stated that the special report was sent the same morning at about 5.30 a.m. We are aware that along with the special report a copy of the FIR is sent, but since he has also stated in his cross-examination that he is deposing about the time of sending of the special report from his memory and the GD of the Police Station is not before him, in our judgment it would be dangerous to trust his memory, in preference to the admissions made by Jamidar and Urmila in their cross-examination which clearly make it manifest that the FIR was lodged after 7 a.m.In our judgment when the aforesaid two infirmities in the statement of Jamidar are evaluated in the background of the fact that he is the real brother of the deceased-Talukdar and Faujdar and the son of the deceased-Hira Lal and is inimical to the appellants, it becomes extremely unsafe to accept his testimony.For the aforesaid reasons we do not feel it prudent to place reliance on the testimony of Jamidar (P.W. 1).We now take up the evidence of Ramanand (P.W. 2) and Urmila (P.W. 3).In our judgment their evidence hardly bolsters the prosecution case.The evidence of Ramanand and Urmila shows :--On the date of incident, at about 8-9 p.m., appellants-Asha Ram and Chandrika, along with Faujdar and the acquitted accused-Ghan Shyam, Magan and Ram Chhattar came to Faujdar's house.Faujdar asked Urmila to give him mustard oil which was required for cooking fish at the house of Ram Chhattar.He told her that he would eat at Ram Chhattar's house and she should eat and sleep.Thereafter Faujdar went away with them.It is true that in her cross-examination Urmila stated that after some time when she and her mother went to answer the call of nature, she found her father Faujdar going in the company of Asha Ram and acquitted accused-Shiv in the direction of Bahera.However, we are loath to believe this statement of hers because she did not state this fact in her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and when cross-examined she stated that she had told the Investigating Officer and it was his fault if he had not written it.We make no bones in observing that we are not inclined to believe her and would rather believe the Investigating Officer SI Prabhakar Misra, who in his cross-examination clearly stated that Urmila did not mention this fact to him, because whereas she is an extremely interested witness, being the daughter of deceased-Faujdar, SI Misra appears to be an independent witness for nothing has been scored out from his cross-examination which would show that he had either a soft corner for the accused or was antagonistic towards her.For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to believe Urmila when she states, that after she had given mustard oil to her father she saw him going in the company of appellant-Asha Ram and acquitted Shiv in the direction of village Bahera.In our judgment, merely because Ramanand P.W. 2 and Urmila P.W. 3 depose that on the night of incident at about 8-9 p.m. Faujdar came along with the appellant to his house; asked the latter (Urmila) to give mustard oil, which she gave; and thereafter Faujdar left with the appellants, would not simpliciter warrant the inference that the appellants committed the murder of Faujdar.We now take up the last leg of the prosecution evidence, namely, recovery of banka and gandasa on the pointing out of appellant-Chandrika and acquitted accused-Ram Chhattar and Ghanshyam and recovery of kurta and lungi of appellant-Chandrika having blood stains.In our view these recoveries also do not advance the prosecution case to the realm of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.As a matter of fact, there is serious lacuna, which renders it unsafe to accept them.In the first place whereas the evidence of SI Prabhakar Mishra (P.W. 9) shows that the recovery of bankas and gandasa was effected at the composite pointing out of Chandrika and acquitted accused-Ram Chhattar and Ghan Shyam but that of public witness of recovery, namely, Devta Deen (P.W. 11) shows that it was effected on the pointing out of appellant-Chandrika.That apart, the evidence of Jamidar (P.W. 1) shows that the deceased was only assaulted by bankas.That being so recovery of gandasa would not constitute incriminating evidence.Further the public witness of recovery Devta Deen is an extremely interested witness inasmuch as in his cross-examination he admitted that the deceased-Hira Lal was his real father-in-law.For the aforesaid reasons, as also bearing in mind the fact that the recovered banka, gandasa, kurta and lungi were not sent by the prosecution to the Chemical Analyst or Serologist, this evidence of recovery would also not go against appellant-Chandrika.We wish to emphasise that in the absence of any cogent explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for sending the weapons of assault having blood stains or clothes of accused having blood stains to the Chemical Analyst and Serologist, there is always a lurking fear in the mind of the Court whether the averment in the recovery memo and that in the evidence of witnesses that there was blood on weapons and clothes may not be true.It should be borne in mind that the report of the Chemical Analyst or Serologist would set the issue whether there was blood and human blood respectively on recovered articles at rest.A perusal of our judgment would show that we have not placed reliance on either the ocular account furnished by Jamidar P.W. 1 or on the recovery effected on the joint pointing out of appellant-Chandrika, and acquitted accused -Ram Chhattar and Ghanshyam and that effected from Chandrika because the evidence comprised of infirm witnesses.In our view, the evidence of an infirm witness cannot lend strength or assurance to the evidence of a credible witness.It is true that we have found the evidence of Ramanand P.W. 2 and Urmila P.W. 3, in whose company the deceased was last seen about eight hours before the incident, to be credible but it is well settled that no conviction can be recorded/sustained on the solitary circumstance of last seen.In the result :--(A) Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2002 :--The appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
821,338 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) The appellants are accused-1 to 4 in S.C.No.284 of 2003 on the file of theAdditional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai.The Court belowconvicted the first appellant under Section 324 (3 counts) and sentenced him toundergo three years rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine ofRs.500/- for each count, in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonmentfor each count; convicted appellants-2 and 4/A-2 and A-4 under Section 324I.P.C. And sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment each andto pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo three months rigorousimprisonment each; convicted the appellants/accused-1 to 4 under Section 302read with Section 34, I.P.C. And sentenced each of them to undergo lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo threemonths rigorous imprisonment each.The sentences were ordered to runconcurrently.The injured witnesses and the deceased are relatives.P.W.1 is thebrother of the deceased-Angathevar.The case of theprosecution is that, on 03.11.2002, at about 9.45 p.m., in front of P.W.1-Periakaruppan's house, the accused were firing crackers.When the same wasobjected to by the witnesses, the accused pelted stones at P.W.1 and when thedeceased intervened, the accused pushed him down, thereby caused the death ofAngathevar.Thus the accused were charged for the offences punishable underSection 324, I.P.C. as well as under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 20, marked Exs.On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 and D2 weremarked.In reply to the questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accuseddenied their complicity to the charges levelled against them.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.2002, P.W.1 was, in hishouse, lying near the front door.In front of his house, A-1 to A-3 were firingcrackers.When P.W.1 asked them to move away from that place to fire crackers,there arose a quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused.At that time, when the deceased intervened,A-1 to A-4 pushed down the deceased and hit him on his chest.When P.W.1intervened, A-4 Duraipandi attacked P.W.1 by pelting stones at him.When P.W.3intervened, A-3 Singaraj, pelted stone on his head, causing injury.The injured witnesses along withAngathevar, went before the Police Station.Since the deceased Angathevarexpressed of pain in the chest, the police directed them to go to the hospital.When he was taken to the hospital, the Doctor expressed that he had alreadydied.Thereafter, a complaint was lodged under Ex.- Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.He went to the scene ofoccurrence at about 1.00 a.m. and with the aid of a torch light and tube light,he prepared Ex.P9 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P10 - Rough Sketch, in thepresence of witnesses.He recovered the pelted stones, 8 in number, marked asM.O.1 series, under Ex.P11 - Seizure Mahazar.Thereafter, he enquired thewitnesses and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he went to the hospital torecord the statements.He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased inthe presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P12 - inquest report.On04.11.2002, he arrested A-4 near the bus stand and brought him to the PoliceStation and thereafter, he sent him to the Court for judicial custody.At about 15.10hours, he brought them to the Police Station and sent them for judicial custody.On 06.11.2002, he arrested A-2 near Poochipatti Thevar Statue and sent him tojudicial custody.On 08.11.2002, he enquired further witnesses and recordedtheir statements.He examined P.W.14 - Dr.Bharathi who conducted post mortemand recorded the statement.On 02.12.2002, he once again enquired P.W.14 andreceived the final opinion marked as Ex.On 02.12.2002, he enquired thewitnesses and recorded their statements.He also enquired Dr.Sukumaran P.W.17,who treated P.Ws.4, 1 and 2 and issued wound certificates Exs.P6, P7 and P8 andrecorded his statement.After completing the investigation, he lodged the finalreport.P13 is the final opinion given by P.W.14 Dr.Bharathi as to the causeof death of the deceased.A perusal of Ex.P4 - Post Mortem Certificate issuedby Dr.Bharathi - P.W.14, shows that there were no external or internal injuries.Evidence of P.W.14 points out that the deceased, aged 60 years, had not died dueto any injuries suffered and that he would have died in the natural way byreason of cardiac arrest.On the question as to whether the deceased died dueto natural heart attack or heart attack on account of the attack by the accused,the evidence of P.W.14, read in the context of Ex.P13, shows that even thoughthe deceased died due cardiac arrest, yet, there were no materials to link thedeath of the deceased to any attack by the accused herein.Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that even going by theevidence of the Doctor P.W.17 as well as Ex.P4 the post mortem certificate, theEx.P13 - final opinion and also the evidence of P.W.20, the InvestigatingOfficer, there is hardly any material to indicate that the deceased died out ofany overt act attributed to the accused, as has been spoken to by the witnesses.In fact, he pointed out to the evidence of P.W.20 and stated that none of theinjured witnesses spoke about the accused attacking the deceased resulting inthe death.Quite apart from this, learned counsel for the appellants furtherpointed out that as per Ex.P6, the injuries suffered by the witnesses are simplein nature and even as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.20, allthat they recovered from the scene of occurrence were only small stones.Inthese circumstances, the case of the prosecution as regards the charges levelledagainst the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. is totally unsustainable.LearnedAdditional Public Prosecutor, however, supported the judgment of the Court belowby placing reliance on the evidence of the injured witnesses.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and considered thematerial on record.It is seen from the evidence of the witnesses herein that theoccurrence took place on the night of Diwali.Objecting tothe accused firing crackers in front of his house, P.W.1 asked the accused tomove away from that place to fire crackers.However, it resulted in a wordyaltercation between the accused and the injured witnesses, who were there in thescene of occurrence.It is in the evidence of P.W.2and P.W.20 that all the accused were stated to have attacked the injuredwitnesses by pelting small stones which were strewn in the grazing ground.Theevidence herein does not speak about the size of the stones used in theoccurrence, P.W.20's evidence shows the recovery of 8 small jelly stones markedas M.O.1 series and the injury that one notice on P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 under Exs.P6.P7 and P8 respectively, are simple injuries sustained by the witnesses.Apartfrom this, as already pointed out, the evidence of P.W.20 referred to thestatements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 that none of the witnesses spoke about theaccused attacking the deceased by pushing him down.The evidence of P.W.14 -Doctor, read with Ex.P13, points out that there is hardly any material tosubstantiate that the death of the deceased was one caused on account of anyovert act of the accused herein.Thus the evidence available herein in thiscase only disproves the case of the prosecution that the accused had caused thedeath of the deceased - Anguthevar by pushing him down, attacking on the chest.In the light of the above-said facts, particularly going by the medical evidenceas well as the evidence of P.W.20, we have no hesitation in setting aside theconviction and sentences imposed on the accused A1 to A4 under Section 302 readwith Section 34, I.P.C.10.Nevertheless, the fact remains that the evidence herein, particularlythat of P.W.20 as well as the injured witnesses, pointed out to the accusedpelting stones on the injured witnesses causing injuries on them.Evidence ofP.W.17 - Dr.Sukumar as well as Ex.P6, P7 and P8 point out to the injuriessuffered due to the pelting of stones.Thus the evidence adduced hereinestablishes the overt act of the accused causing injuries to the witnesses bypelting stones.Therefore, the question that now arises for our considerationis as to whether the stones which are used in this case could be considered asdeadly weapon or not.As already observed, as the stones which are used in thiscase are only small in size, they cannot be considered as deadly weapon.Thefact that the accused had attacked the witnesses by pelting stones stands provedand hence, the accused are to be convicted for the offence punishable underSection 323, I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and sentences imposed underSection 324, I.P.C. on A-1, A-2 and A-4 are set aside, instead, they areconvicted under Section 323, I.P.C. It is stated that they were already inprison for more than two months.In the light of the above, we do not impose anyfurther sentence under Section 323, I.P.C. on A-1, A-2 and A-4 and hence, theperiod undergone in prison is taken as the period of punishment imposed, viz.,two months imprisonment, apart from the levy of fine as already imposed.Thefine amount imposed on them is confirmed.In the result, the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant /accused-1 to 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. are set aside.The conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/A-1 under Section324, I.P.C. (3 Counts) are set aside and instead, the same stands modified thathe is convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. (3 counts) and sentenced to the periodwhich he had already undergone.The conviction and sentence imposed onappellants-2 and 4/A-2 and A-4 under Section 324 I.P.C. are set aside andinstead, they are convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to theperiod which they had already undergone.The fine amount imposed on them standsconfirmed.The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.II Madurai.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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
821,356 |
(a) Tamilarasi, P.W.1 got married to the accused some years back.Out of their wedlock, two children, namely, Vignesh (deceased 1) and Mythili (deceased 2) were born.The accused Kuppusamy did not earn sufficient money from his business.Therefore, he got dejected.There used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and P.W.1 Tamilarasi.Though Shanmugam, the father of P.W.1 would intervene and pacify both the husband and wife, they used to indulge in frequent encounter.(b) The fateful occurrence took place on 2-8-1999 midnight.As usual, quarrel began between the accused-husband and P.W.1, the wife.Children were sleeping then.Then, he cut the throat of both the deceased - Vignesh and Mythili.Thereafter, he made an attempt to commit suicide by cutting his throat with M.O.9 knife.(c) On hearing the sound, T.K. Shanmugam, the father of P.W.1, who was residing nearby, along with other neighbours - P.W.2 Iswaran and P.W.3 Karunanidhi, came to the house of the accused.On noticing that the door was locked inside, they peeped through the window.They saw the children and P.W.1 lying on the ground with bleeding injuries on their neck and found the accused cutting his throat by himself.Immediately, P.Ws.2 and 3 climbed the house, went to the roof and after removing the tiles, made an entry into the house and opened the lock from inside.(d) Then, all the others went inside the house and prevented the accused from causing further injuries on the throat.Immediately, they arranged for a taxi and took the injured - P.W.1, the accused and the two deceased children to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam.(e) On 3-8-1999 at about 3.10 a.m., P.W.7, the Medical Officer attached to the Gobichettipalayam Government Hospital, gave treatment to the accused.He issued Ex.P-5 accident register copy and Ex.P-11 certificate.He examined P.W.1 Tamilarasi and issued Ex.P-7 accident register copy and Ex.P-12 certificate.He found that Vignesh (first deceased) was dead.Since Mythili (second deceased) was alive, he gave treatment to her and issued Ex.P-9 accident register copy.Since Vignesh was dead, P.W.7 Doctor sent Ex.P-8 death intimation to Police.A few hours later, Mythili also died.Therefore, he sent another intimation Ex.P-6 regarding the death of Mythili.P-15 is the F.I.R.(g) P.W.12 Inspector of Police, on receipt of message, took up investigation.He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-27 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-28 rough sketch.He recovered M.O.7 blood stained earth, M.O.8 controlled earth, M.O.9 blood stained knife, M.Os.10 & 11 blood stained bed sheets and M.O.12 clotted blood under Ex.P-29 mahazar.Then, he came to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of both the deceased.P-30 is the inquest report relating to the body of the first deceased and Ex.P-31 is the inquest report relating to the second deceased.Then, both the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem.(h) P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the body of the first deceased - Vignesh and found cut injury on his throat.He gave an opinion in Ex.P-14 post-mortem certificate that the death would have been due to shock and heamorrhage.Then, he commenced post-mortem on the body of the second deceased - Mythili and found as many as three injuries on the body of the second deceased and opined in Ex.P-16 post-mortem certificate that the death could have been due to shock and haemorrhage due to these injuries.(i) After the treatment was over, on 4 - 9 - 1999, the accused surrendered before P.W.12 Inspector of Police, who recovered M.O.15 blood stained lungi, M.O.16 blood stained shirt and Ex.P-33 out-patient chit, under Ex.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Kuppusamy, the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 (2 counts), 307 and 309 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (2 counts), rigorous imprisonment for seven years and simple imprisonment for one year respectively.The sentences imposed on the appellant/accused were directed to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed.(f) Meanwhile, father of P.W.1 went to Bangalapudur Police Station and lodged Ex.P-24 complaint on 3-8-1999 at about 9.30 a.m. P.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police took the complaint and registered the same for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 309 IPC.Then, the accused was sent for judicial remand.The articles were arranged to be sent for chemical examination.After completion of the investigation, P.W.12 Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 309 IPC.(j) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-35 were filed and M.Os.1 to 16 were marked.(k) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime.He would further state that on the date of occurrence, when all the four persons were staying in the house, some unknown four persons climbed on the roof and made an entry into the house and after removing the jewels, attacked all the four and decamped with the booty by taking away the jewels and cash and as such, he is innocent.(l) The trial Court, on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302 (2 counts), 307 and 309 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.Hence, this appeal.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-husband wanted to kill his wife and two children and commit suicide due to misunderstanding in the family.In pursuance of the same, the accused attacked the children and P.W.1, the wife and gave cuts on the throat of these persons and also inflicted injury on his throat by cutting the same by means of M.O.9 knife.At the intervention of P.Ws.2 and 3, the deceased children, the accused and P.W.1 were immediately taken to the hospital, where treatment was given to them, with the result, P.W.1 and the accused were saved.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined as eye-witnesses.Unfortunately, P.Ws.1 to 3 turned hostile.Thus, there is no direct evidence with reference to the occurrence.The only piece of evidence available on record is the statement of the accused to P.W.7 Doctor and the statement of P.W.1, his wife when they were admitted in Gobichettipalayam Government Hospital.Ex.P-5 is the copy of accident register relating to the admission of the accused.As per Ex.P-5, it was stated to P.W.7 Doctor by the accused that he cut himself and caused injury on his neck.Similarly, as per Ex.P-7, P.W.7 Doctor was informed by P.W.1 Tamilarasi that the injury was caused on the neck by her husband.On the basis of the evidence of these witnesses, P.W.7 Doctor gave opinion in Exs.Though P.W.7 Doctor, while referring to Exs.P-5 and P-7, would state in chief examination that those statements have been made by the accused and P.W.1 respectively, he would categorically admit in his cross-examination that those statements were not made by P.W.1 and the accused and that when these documents, Exs.P-5 and P-7 were prepared, those details had been given by P.W.2 Iswaran.Unfortunately, P.W.2 Iswaran turned hostile.As a matter of fact, P.W.7 Doctor would admit in his cross-examination that when the accused was admitted in the hospital, though he was conscious, he was unable to talk, as he sustained injuries in his neck.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,139 |
In short, the accusations against the Chairpersons and the Directors of MPSIDC are that they were involved in a conspiracy to defraud MPSIDC to the tune of crores of rupees and to misappropriate the surplus fund and in pursuance thereof, they passed resolution on 19.4.1995 knowing fully well that it was illegal and unauthorized act and, thereafter, continued to act upon it and in the process, also misappropriated additional sum of Rs.517 crores, secured as debt, by disbursing the entire money of MPSIDC, to various companies as loans in the name of Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs), even without obtaining reasonably sufficient collateral security for repayment thereof.As per charge sheet, M.P. Adyogik Vikas Nigam (MPAVN), which was renamed as MPSIDC was constituted to promote industrialization in the State of Madhya Pradesh and to provide financial assistance to Industrial Units in the State.The State Cabinet in a meeting held on 28.1.1994 appraised the activities of the Corporation as well as its financial status.A decision was taken to stop MPSIDC from financing the industries any further.For the sake of convenience resolution of the Cabinet Meeting is reproduced as under:- 3"Audyogik Vikas Nigam bhavishya me vittiya sahayata band kare tatha vrahad avam madhyam udyogon ko protsahan aur pradesh me udyogon ko buniyadi suvidhaon ke vikas ka karya prabalta se karen."In accordance with the Cabinet decision the Board of Directors of MPSIDC at its 225th meeting held on 31.1.1994 passed a resolution to stop the financial assistance forthwith.The corresponding agenda-note prepared by the Company Secretary Pankaj Dubey is reproduced as under:-"That, after the review of performance, the Cabinet took the decision that in view of the recent liberalization on measures taken by the Government of India in respect of the economy and the Industry, the RBI approval to the All India Financial Institutions/ Banks to sanction projects up to Rs.50 crores, the lowering of interest rate by the Banks, the comfortable CRR and SLR of the Banks and consequent enhanced liquidity, the considerably enhanced degree of professional and commercial orientation requiring financing under the changed economic scenario, there is no justification for MPSIDC to engage in financing and it should be stopped forthwith.F-20/1/94/11/B dated 3.3.1994 requiring all the departments/institutions concerned including MPSIDC to discontinue financial assistance to industries and also to concentrate on development of basic infrastructure amenities to the large as well as medium scale industries in the State.At the 240th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 30.11.1998, M.P. Rajan, the then Managing Director, was able to get the borrowing capacity of MPSIDC increased from 175 crores to 500 crores on the ground that a total amount of Rs.173.72 crores had already been borrowed whereas by the end of the financial year, investment (presumably by way of ICDs) was expected to reach their limit of Rs.500 crores.By way of this resolution, the Managing Director was authorized to secure loans as well as to invest the amount thus obtained.Shri Amit Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a Government servant belonging to Indian Administrative Service, still continuing in Government service and was Additional Secretary in the Department of Defence Production, Government of India.Since petitioner was an officer of the Indian Administrative Service, the President of India was the appointing as well as dismissing authority.Even if he was encadred to State of M.P., or proceeded on deputation to any organization, or the Central Government, he was not removable from his service save with the sanction of Central Government.The petitioner was only a nominee Director on the Board of MPSIDC by virtue of his posting as Industries Commissioner.He was not getting any remuneration or salary or fees from the MPSIDC.He continued to be in Indian Administrative Service.While business of Project Finance was stopped, the expenditure continued to create a compelling situation for MPSIDC to generate profits on its own without there being any line of business.In the said meeting , the important phrases viz. "availability of surplus funds"; "to be given to reputed companies"; "for a period of 3-6 months"; "could be called back at the time of need"; "interest rates higher than 8.5% and 15.5%" were explained in detail.The agenda also provided that it was within the powers of the Board to give Inter Corporate Deposits.The Board Resolution was subsequently 9 confirmed in 230th Board Meeting, which was attended by Shri K.Shanker Narain, Member on the Board and also the Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries.Clause 89(3) provides as under:-"89(3).The tenure of all Directors including Chairman and excluding Managing Director shall be for the period as fixed or determined by the State Government from time to time.The Managing Director shall retire on his ceasing to hold the office of the Managing Director.A retiring Director shall be eligible for reappointment."Clause 89(4) provides as under:-The State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Bhopal, on 24.7.2004 registered a case at Crime No.25/2004 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the following office bearers of Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development 2 Corporation (for brevity 'MPSIDC'), a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956:-and against the beneficiary Chairmen/Directors of 42 other companies.On 6.8.2004, prosecution added Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'Act') also.In the wake of the objection, the Board of Directors, at its 251st meeting, resolved to apply for the registration and, accordingly, on 6.11.2002, the then Dy. General Manager of MPSIDC forwarded the corresponding proposal to the RBI.In turn, the RBI issued a notice to show cause not only against proposed rejection of the registration application but also against prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 58B(4A) of the RBI Act of 1934 for functioning as a NBFI right from 19.4.1995 without ensuring that as on 31.12.2002, the Net Owned Fund (NOF) ought to have been Rs.200 lacs whereas the balance sheet reflected that as on 31.3.2002, NOF was minus Rs.9415.29 lacs.On the basis of above facts, the cognizance against the petitioner as well as other accused persons had been taken upon charge sheet being filed by the Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Bhopal.A supplementary charge sheet was also presented by the Bureau on 31.3.2010 against the Directors and Promoters of other companies, who obtained benefits as a result of acts and conducts of the office bearers of MPSIDC.The revision stands dismissed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
821,397 |
At that time Emajuddin also found his brother Naimuddin placing one of his hands on the left side of his abdomen and viscera was seen coming out of the wound.Besides the above injury, Emajuddin also found another injury on the back of the left arm and left shoulder joint of his brother and he also noticed that one 'Hansua' was still attached to the said place of Naimuddin.Seeing his brother Naimuddin in such condition.JUDGMENT P.K. Biswas, J.Through this appeal, the appellant Zullu Rahaman alias Seikh challenges the judgment and order dated December 17, 1981, Passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Murshidabad in Sessions Serial No. 160 of 1987 (Sessions trial No. 1 of February, 1990) whereby convict/appellant has been convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to a pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer RI for a further period of three months.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as mainly emerged from the recital contained in the FIR lodge by Emajuddin Sk., is as under :-That on 2 1.9.84 at about 1.30 p.m. the Informant Emajuddin came home after attending 'Jumma Namaj' then he heard some hue and cry from a place and on hearing such hue and cry.he rushed towards that place i.e., near the house of Hamed Sk., of Rampur.After reaching that place, Emajuddin Sk.found that his brother Naimuddin was lying there being critically injured.Emajuddin asked him as to who has inflicted such Injury on him.In reply, Naimuddin disclosed that they were Zullu Rahaman and his brothers namely, Samru, Manjur and Motaruddin.Thereafter, Emajuddin took his brother Naimuddin to a hospital at Arjunpur and there Naimuddin was given first aid.On the advise of Doctor, Naimuddin was being shifted to a hospital at Farakka and on his way to such hospital, the victim Naimuddin succumbed to such injuries at a place named Lalmati near Shivnagar village.On receipt of the aforesaid written complaint, O.C. Farakka started Farakka P.S. Case No. 9, dated 21.9.84 under section 304/34 IPC and S.I. Sunil Kumar Biswas O.C. Farakka P.S. took up the investigation of this case by himself.S.I. Sunil Kumar Biswas, O.C. Farakka P.S.. (P.W.10) after taking up the investigation visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses.The I.O. also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.PC on different dates, arrested the accused persons, collected P.M. report and on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the present convict/appellant and 3 others.Upon hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge framed charge under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC against this convict/appellant and three others.9. Prosecution in order to bring home the charge, as aforesaid, has examined in all 12 witnesses.Out of the witnesses examined, PW 5 Tofa Bewa, while deposing before the trial Court, became 111 and she had to be removed from the witness box with the helpof others.Due to non-production of Tofa Bewa before the trial Court by the prosecution, her evidence could not be regarded as legal evidence.Dr. K.M. Hossain.The defence case, as made out through cross-examination is one of innocence and besides the above, it has also been alleged on behalf of the defence that there was no Incident as alleged through the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution.The defence also alleged previous enmity.The Learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses (one witness namely PW5, Tofa Bewa, whose evidence has been expunged) and after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge under section 302 1PC against the accused appellant Zullu Rahaman @ Sk.He accordingly sentenced the accused/appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.I. for a further period of three months.Being aggrieved by the finding of guilt recorded against the convict-appellant Zullu Rahaman alias Sk., and the sentence awarded, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the aforesaid convict-appellant.We have heard the learned senior counsel, Sri Balai Roy, appearing for the appellant/accused at length as also the learned additional P.P. Sri Sudipto Moitra and both of them have taken us through the evidence of the 11 prosecution witnesses, so also through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Murshidabad.It is seen that date and hour of occurrence as recorded in the FIR is 21.9.84 at about 13.30 hrs.He has further contended that FIR was lodged at the Police Station on 21.9.84 at 17.45 hrs.and the same was despatched from the P.S. on 229.84 at 08.00 hrs.Sri Roy, in this connection, has submitted further that section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as well as 1973 both require that the First Information Report to be sent forthwith to the Magistrate, competent to take congnizance of the offence but in the Instant case, no explanation has been offered that why it was received by the learned Magistrate after lapse of a fortnight.This circumstance, according to Sri Roy, provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that FIR was recorded much later than the stated date and hour in the FIR affording sufficient time to Introduce improvements and embellishments and to set up a distorted version of the occurrence.As against that it has been contended on behalf of the respondent-State that true it is that the concerned Magistrate received if after a lapse of almost a fortnight and that by Itself does not constitute aground to throw out a prosecution case, but in the instant case taking us through the evidence and record, it is contended by the learned Additional P.P. that even if the FIR was not immediately sent to the Court of Magistrate, but it is of no consequence, since the FIR in question had been lodged within 3-4 hours from the time of occurrence and nothing tangible has been taken out by the defence to discard the other evidences adduced relating to the FIR, lodged in the P.S. by other witnesses.Further it has been contended by the learned Additional P.P. that the mere fact/that there has been some delay in receiving the FIR by the concerned Magistrate, yet, the aforesaid fact alone, without being backed by positive and cogent evidence that there has been some embellishment in the FIR itself, would not cast doubt on the prosecution case, nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that count.Taking us through the aforesaid evidence of PW10, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the FIR in the instant case was recorded without delay and the investigation was started promptly on the basis of that FIR.
|
['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.
|
109,893,706 |
The fourth petitioner was a tenant in house no.50/2015, third floor, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018, the second respondent being the landlord, the former using the said premises for residence of self and other members of the family which included his mother (first petitioner), his maternal uncle (third petitioner), wife of the said maternal uncle (second petitioner), son of the said petitioner (fifth petitioner).Some dispute arose between the landlord and tenant and became subject matter of civil litigation (Civil suit no.221/2008), the said suit having been decreed in favour of the second respondent (complainant).Eventually, in the course of execution proceedings (case no.08/2009), the parties agreed to amicably resolve the issue, in Crl.M.C. No.4603/2016 Page 1 of 3 furtherance of which the fourth petitioner undertook to pay to the second respondent, a total amount of Rs.1.6 Lakhs to full and final satisfaction of his claims.M.C. No.4603/2016 Page 1 of 3During the interregnum, first information report (FIR) no.348/2009 had been registered with police station Hari Nagar at the instance of the second respondent, facts alleged therein constituting offences under Sections 448, 506, 380, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); the first to fifth petitioners besides the sixth petitioner being named as accused.The said FIR was investigated into and charge- sheet laid before court in due course.On its basis, charges were framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 14.12.2010 putting the petitioners on trial for offences under Section 457 / 34 IPC, Section 380 / 34 IPC and Section 506 Part II / 34 IPC, the second respondent being reflected in the said charges as the complainant (victim).On the basis of the settlement between the parties, inter alia, reflected by the proceedings in the execution court recorded on 08.01.2016, the present petition was submitted invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal case.The parties appeared before the Registrar (Original) in terms of the directions given in the order dated 12.09.2018 and their statements have been recorded, each of the six petitioners having affirmed the settlement on oath.Similarly, the second respondent, by his Crl.State of Punjab and Anr.(2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641; the controversy between the parties essentially having arisen out of civil dispute, the prayer in the petition deserves to be granted.In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed.The crime registered by the police vide FIR 348/2009 involving offences punishable under Sections 448, 506, 380, 34 IPC of Police Station Hari Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed of accordingly.Dasti to both sides.R.K.GAUBA, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,910,014 |
PW-1 is the younger brother of the deceased.He is a resident of Bamban Village, Rameswaram Taluk.PW-2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased.One and half months prior to 31.03.2012, the date on which the alleged occurrence took place, while the wife of the deceased was taking bath, the accused peeped into the bathroom.This resulted in quarrel between the accused and the deceased.The elders of the village pacified them and dispersed the crowd.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.While so, on 31.03.2012, at about 05.30 PM, when the accused came to Priya Bakery Tea Shop, situated at Bamban Puliyamaram Bus Stop, the deceased also came there.It is the usual practise of the owner of Priya Bakery Tea Shop to place the plastic chairs for the convenience of the customers to take tea and snacks items.PW-1 to PW-4 were present in Appas Tea Shop, situated just opposite to the said Priya Bakery Tea Shop having tea.At that time, the deceased abused the accused in filthy language.Enraged over the same, the accused left the place.After sometime, the accused came to the said Bakery Shop with knife.When the deceased tried to get up from the plastic chair, the accused stabbed the deceased on his lefthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 chest near axilla.The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with knife.Taking up the case for investigation, at 06.45 PM, on 31.03.2012, PW-23 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer [EX-P3] and a Rough Sketch [EX-P13], showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-1 and another witness.He recovered bloodstained stones and sample stones from the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.EX-P11 is the postmortem certificate.He noticed the following injury:-"A stab injury about 4 CM length in the left side chest near axilla".He gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhage due to lungs fracture and stab injury.Continuing the investigation, at about 10.20 PM, on 31.03.2012, PW-23 examined PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-13 and recorded their statements.PW-23 also examined PW-19 and recorded his statement.On 01.04.2012, on completion of postmortem, PW-23 recovered bloodstained dress materials of the deceased, viz., white colour half shirt, [MO-4], baniyan [MO-5], Lungi [MO-6] and green colour jatti [MO-7] under separate mahazers.At 01.30 PM, on 01.04.2012, on receiving a secret information, PW-23 arrested the accused in the presence of PW-17 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife.In pursuance of the same, the accused took the police and the witnesses to a waste dump yard near Jerold Nandu Company and produced the knife [MO-1].PW-23http://www.judis.nic.in 6 recovered the same under a mahazer.On returning to the Police Station, PW-23 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand.He also handed over the material objects to the Court.PW-15 is a hearsay witness.He came to know about thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 death of the deceased from others.PW-16 had stated that he signed in the mahazer relating to the recovery of bloodstained dress materials worn by the deceased.************* R.SUBBIAH, J.The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.69 of 2013, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.By Judgment dated 08.06.2016, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as detailed below Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment Rs.5,000/- in default to for life.undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.The case of the prosecution, as put forth by its witnesses, is consciously narrated below:-The deceased, in this case, is one Mr.Jesu.PW-1 chased the accused for a while and returned back.When PW-1 with the help of PW-6, the owner of Priya Bakery Tea Shop, lifted the deceased, they found that the deceased succumbed to the injuries.Immediately, PW-1 went to the Bamban Police Station and made a complaint at about 06.00 PM, on 31.03.2012, EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P12 is the First Information Report.On receipt of the complaint, PW-22, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2012 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police.PW-21 - Dr.S.Arun Prabhu, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.On 01.04.2012, PW-23 examined PW-16 and PW-20 and recorded their statements.On 15.04.2012, PW-23 examined PW-12 and PW-15 and recorded their statements.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charge, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When the accused was questioned in respect of the charge, he pleaded innocence.In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined, 16 documents and 7 material objects were marked.Out of the said 23 witnesses, PW-1, who is the younger brother of the deceased and an eyewitness to the occurrence, had spoken about the entire occurrence in a vivid manner and also the complaint lodged by him.PW-8, yet another eyewitness to the occurrence, had stated that at abouthttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 05.00 PM, on 31.03.2012, when he was taking Tea at Priya Bakery Tea Shop, the accused stabbed the deceased.PW-9, who also claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, had stated that at about 05.00 to 05.30 PM, on 31.03.2012, while he was purchasing grocery items in a shop situated opposite to Priya Bakery Tea Shop, he heard a noise and saw the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence with knife.PW-10, a resident of Bamban Chinnakadai Street, is running a shop, opposite to Priya Bakery Tea Shop.He had stated that on seeing the crowed gathered at Priya Bakery Tea Shop, he went to the said shop and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood.PW-11 had not stated anything incriminating against the accused.PW-12 was doing business at Iceplant, Therkuvadi.He had stated that he came to know that the accused stabbed the deceased in front of Priya Bakery Tea Shop and fled away from the scene of occurrence.2.8. PW-13 had stated that at about 06.45 PM, on 31.03.2012, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood in front of Priya Bakery Tea Shop.He had further stated that he had signed in the mahazer relating to recovery of bloodstained cement floor and the sample cement floor.PW-14 had not stated anything incriminating against the accused.PW-17 had turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.PW-18 is a scientific Officer, who had spoken about the chemical examination done by the chemical analyst.PW-20, yet another Head Constable, had stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the Rameswaram Government Hospital for postmortem.PW-21, Dr.S.Arun Prabhu, has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.PW-22, the then Special Sub-Inspector of Mandabam, had spoken about the registration of the First Information Report [EX-P12] on the complaint [EX-P1] made by PW-1 and handing over of the same to the Inspector of Police for investigation.PW-23, the then Inspector of Police, Bamban Police Station, had spoken about the investigation conducted by him and the filing of final report.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against him, he denied the same as false.However, he neither choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished him accordingly.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, would submit that the motive for the occurrence has not been established, as, according to the case of the prosecution, one and half months prior to 31.03.2012, while the wife of the deceased was taking bath, the accused peeped into the bathroom, which resulted in quarrel between the accused and the deceased.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.However, the wife of the deceased was not examined to prove the motive.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that PW-1 is the younger brother of the deceased.PW-8 and PW-9 are related tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 the deceased.All the witnesses are interested and closely related to the deceased and therefore, their evidences should be rejected in the absence of any corroboration from any independent source, since no independent witnesses had been examined to support the case of the prosecution in any manner, though the alleged occurrence took place in a peak hour, that too, in front a Bakery Shop, where several persons would have gathered for taking snacks.However, EX-P1 and EX-P12 had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram with delay of 181/2 hours, for which there is no explanation offered by the prosecution.Moreover, the statement of PW-8 under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by PW-23 on 05.04.2012 and the same had reached the Court on 26.02.2013, for which also there is no plausible explanation offered by the prosecution.The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9 are stated to be the eyewitness to the occurrence.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 According to the case of the prosecution, on 31.03.2012, at about 05.30 PM, when the accused came to Priya Bakery Tea Shop, situated at Bamban Puliyamaram Bus Stop, the deceased also came there.PW-1 to PW-4 were stated to have been present in Appas Tea Stall taking tea, which is situated just opposite to the said Bakery Shop.At that time, the deceased abused the accused in filthy language.Annoyed over the same, the accused left the place.After sometime, the accused came back to the said Bakery Shop with knife.At that time, when the deceased tried to get up from the plastic chair, the accused stabbed the deceased on his left chest near axilla.PW-1 chased the accused for a while and returned back.When PW-1 and PW-6, the owner of Priya Bakery Tea Shop, lifted the deceased, they found that the deceased succumbed to the injuries.Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, had it been true that PW-1, being younger brother of the deceased, lifted the deceased, his dress materials would have been stained with blood.However, no bloodstained dress materials of PW-1 were seized.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that in cross-examination, PW-1 had categorically stated that the deceased took food an hour prior to the occurrence.However, the evidence ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 PW-21, the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, reveals that the stomach of the deceased was found empty.The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that PW-1, in his cross-examination, had stated that immediately within half an hour of the occurrence, the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital.The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that PW-9 claims to have witnessed the occurrence.He had stated, in his examination-in-chief, that the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with knife, whereas, in cross-examination, he had stated that the knife was taken from Priya Bakery Tea Shop.Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the occurrence would not have taken place, as it is projected by the prosecution.While concluding, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that PW-1 was an accused in a murder case, in which the brother of the accused - Mariyachengiskhan was the deceased and therefore, on account ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 this motive, PW-1 had roped in the accused in this case.The Trial Court, according to the learned Senior Counsel, without considering the above aspects, has convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.Referring to the above grounds, the learned Senior Counsel has prayed for acquittal of the accused.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would however, oppose this Criminal Appeal.According to him, it is a peak hour brutal murder, in which the accused stabbed the deceased on his left side chest near axilla.PW-1, the younger brother of the deceased, witnessed the entire occurrence and rushed to the Bamban Police Station and made a complaint immediately.The evidence of PW-1 is cogent and convincing.In addition to the above, the prosecution had examined PW-8 and PW-9 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence.They had also spoken about the occurrence in a vivid manner.Under such circumstances, no infirmity can be found on the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would pray for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.So far as the motive for the occurrence is concerned, according to the case of the prosecution, one and half months prior to 31.03.2012, the date on which the alleged occurrence took place, while the wife of the deceased was taking bath, the accused peeped into the bathroom, which resulted in quarrel between the accused and the deceased.The elders of the village gathered and pacified them.Thereafter, at about 05.30 PM, on 31.03.2012, when the accused came to Priya Bakery Tea Shop, situated at Bamban Puliyamaram Bus Stop, the deceased was also present.At that time, the deceased abused the accused in filthy language.Enraged over the same, the accused left the place.After sometime, the accused returned back to the said Bakery Shop with knife.When the deceased tried to get up from the plastic chair, the accused stabbed the deceased on his left chest near axilla and fled away from the scene of occurrence with knife.The deceased succumbed to the injuries.When there was already quarrel between the accused and the deceased, which, according to the prosecution, resulted in the death of the deceased, in all fairness, the wife of the deceased would have been examined to prove the motive alleged by the prosecution.However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the wife ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 the deceased was not examined to prove the alleged motive between the accused and the deceased.Simply because it was alleged that there was some enmity between the accused and the deceased, on that score, we cannot rush to the conclusion that the accused had committed the crime, as the motive is always a double edged weapon.Thus, in our considered view, the motive for the occurrence has not been established.Thus, there is an inordinate, unexplained and enormous delay of 181/2 hours, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.Had it been true that the First Information Report was registered at 06.00 PM, then, the fact as to why it had reached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, at 12.30 PM, on 01.04.2012 should have been explained by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 prosecution to the satisfaction of the Court.Now, turning to the evidence of PW-1, if really PW-1 was present and he had witnessed the occurrence, PW-8 and PW-9, who were also stated to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, would have definitely mentioned in their examination about the presence of PW-1 at the time and place of occurrence.Likewise, PW-1 has also not stated anything about the presence of PW-8 and PW-9 at the time and place of occurrence.Similarly, either in complaint [EX-P1] or inquest report [EX-P14], the presence of PW-8, who is stated to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, has not been mentioned, which wouldhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 create doubt in the case of the prosecution.However, PW-2 to PW-4, who, according to the prosecution, were present in Appas Tea Stall, along with PW-1, taking tea, which is situated just opposite to Priya Bakery Tea Shop, had turned hostile and they had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.Moreover, PW-1, in his cross- examination had stated that immediately after the occurrence, the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital.However, PW-23, in EX-P14, the inquest report, had clearly stated that the inquest was conducted from 08.15 PM to 10.15 PM.Thus, the presence of PW-1, in our considered view, is highly doubtful and he would not have witnessed the occurrence and he would have come to the place of occurrence at a later point of time, on hearing that the deceased was stabbed.Further, according to the case of the prosecution, at about 05.30 PM, on 31.03.2012, the accused came to Priya Bakery Tea Shop, situated at Bamban Puliyamaram Bus Stop.At that time, the deceased also came there.PW-1 to PW-4 were present in Appas Teahttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 Stall, situated just opposite to Priya Bakery Tea Shop taking tea.At that time, the deceased abused the accused in filthy language.This irked the accused and the accused left the place.After a while, the accused came back to the said Tea Stall with knife.At that time, when the deceased was trying to get up from the plastic chair, the accused stabbed the deceased on his left chest near axilla.PW-1 chased the accused for a while and returned back to the place of occurrence.When PW-1 with the help of PW-6, the owner of Priya Bakery Tea Shop, lifted the deceased, they found that the deceased succumbed to the injuries.Had it been true that PW-1, who is the younger brother of the deceased, lifted the deceased, when he was lying in a pool of blood, certainly, his dress materials would have been stained with blood.However, no bloodstained dress materials of PW-1 were seized.In the light of the above, coupled with the fact that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 181/2 hours in forwarding the complaint [EX-P1] and the First Information Report [EX-P12] to the Court and the improbabilities and the inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1, which we have discussed hereinabove, we hold that the presence of PW-1, at the time of occurrence, is highly doubtful and therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting his evidence.Accordingly, the evidence of PW-1 is rejected.http://www.judis.nic.in 20Their presence, at the time of occurrence, is by chance.It is too well settled that if a witness claims to have been present at the place of occurrence by chance, the reasons for her/his being present, should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court.In the absence of any explanation as to why and what for she/he came to be present at the place of occurrence, it would be difficult to believe her/his very presence.In this case, a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-8 would show that his evidence, at the time of occurrence, is highly doubtful.The explanation offered by PW-8 is that at about 05.00 PM, on 31.03.2012, he had gone to Priya Bakery Tea Shop for taking tea and at that time, the accused had stabbed the deceased with knife.The above explanation offered by PW-8 is hard to be accepted, because, PW-8, in his cross-examination had stated that he did not see the deceased lying in a pool of blood before Priya Bakery Tea Shop.Moreover, PW-8, in his cross-examination, had stated that he was asked to appear before the Police Station.The above inconsistencies and coupled with the fact that the statement of PW-8 had reached the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned only on 26.02.2013, viz., after lapse of ten months, would go to show that PW-8 would not have been present at the time and place of occurrence and thus, his evidence is liable to rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.Insofar as the evidence of PW-9 is concerned, in his examination-in-chief, he had stated that he went to a shop, situated just opposite to Priya Bakery Tea Shop to purchase grocery items and at that time, he saw the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence with knife.The above explanation offered by PW-9 is also hard to be accepted, for the simple reason that PW-9, in his examination-in-chief, had stated that he saw the accused taking to his heels with a knife.However, in cross-examination, he had stated that the knife was recovered from Priya Bakery Tea Shop.Thus, his very presence, at the place of occurrence, is also doubtful and his evidence evidence cannot be relied upon and his evidence is also rejected.http://www.judis.nic.in 22At this juncture, we have to necessarily state that the depositions of close relatives cannot be discarded, merely because they are relatives, but, their evidence has to be considered with due care and caution.If their evidences are to be believed, their evidences should inspire the fullest and implicit confidence of the Court or at least there should be some other evidence from independent sources to corroborate the same.In this case, for the flaws, which we have discussed hereinabove, we hold that PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9 are not believable and their very presence at the place of occurrence cannot be believed so as to sustain the conviction.It is pertinent to note, at this juncture, that the alleged occurrence took place in front of Priya Bakery Tea Shop.The owner ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 the said shop had been examined as PW-6 to speak about the occurrence.He had stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place 11/2 metre away from his shop.He had heard about the occurrence and saw the deceased lying with injuries in a pool of blood.Immediately, he had bolted the door and left the place.He was not aware as to how the deceased sustained injuries and who had caused the injuries.PW-6 had completely turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.Though the prosecution had made an effort to prove the case of the prosecution by examining the independent witness, [PW-6] in front of whose shop the alleged occurrence took place, it had failed in its attempt to establish the guilt of the accused.Though three witnesses, namely, PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9, had been examined as eyewitnesses to speak about the occurrence, in view of the flaws, improbabilities, inconsistencies and doubtfulness, which we have pointed out hereinabove, we are unable to attach any significance to the credibility of their evidence.Now, turning to the medical evidence, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, PW-1, in cross-examination, had categorically stated that the deceased took food an hour prior to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 24 occurrence.PW-8, who claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, in cross-examination, had stated that the deceased took bun at Priya Bakery Tea Shop.The High Court referring to this part of the medical evidence has observed: "In our opinion, the stomach contents are not very material to determine the time of incident.It may be possible to contend that the contents of the stomach may not always be an indicator of the time of death.But, in a case where stomach is empty and the prosecution evidence is that the murder had taken place shortly after the deceased had hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 last meal, to say that the contents of the stomach have no material bearing on the determination of the time, in our opinion, is not acceptable.In the instant case, time of death being a material factor to verify the presence of the eyewitnesses, it was obligatory for the prosecution to have clarified the discrepancy between the medical evidence and the oral evidence.The prosecution having failed to do so, in our opinion, there is a serious doubt as to the time of incident and the presence of the eyewitness at the time of incident and their narration of the incident also becomes doubtful".In the case on hand, since the time of death is a material factor to verify the presence of the eyewitnesses, it was obligatory for the prosecution to clarify the discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence.He had stated that he was asked by PW-23 to sign in the mahazer regarding the recovery of MO-1 in the waste dump yard situated in front of Jerold Nandu Company.Accordingly, he signed in the recovery mahazer.Moreover, PW-8, who claims to have witnessed the occurrence, had stated in his cross- examination that at about 08.00 AM, on 01.04.2012, he was directed to appear before the Police Station.At that time, the accused was present in the Police Station, whereas PW-23 had stated that at 01.30 PM, on 01.04.2012, on secret information, he arrested the accused near Bamban South Sea Shore and on his disclosure statement, MO-1 was recovered, which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution.Thus, once the arrest of the accused becomes doubtful, the consequential recovery of MO-1, on the disclosure statement made by the accused, cannot be believed.The prosecution has succeeded in proving that the death of the deceased was by homicide, but, who had caused the homicide of the deceased has not been established by the prosecution.The contradictions and the improbabilities, which we have dealt with hereinabove, would go to show that PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9 would not have seen the occurrence at all and they are all cooked up witnesses.The evidences of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9 do not inspire the implicit and fullest confidence of the Court.There are lot of doubts in their evidence.Therefore, we are impelled to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.In the result, ● this Criminal Appeal is allowed.● The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by Judgment dated 08.06.2016 made in S.C.No.69 of 2013, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, is set aside and the appellant acquitted of the charge framed against him.2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 30 R.SUBBIAH, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,916,278 |
Heard on this second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant.First application M.Cr.The case of prosecution, in short, is that, the applicant instigated the co-accused to beat the Doctor and nursing staff of the hospital.accused opened fire and also beaten the Doctor and nursing staff.This second application is filed by the applicant on the ground that, the applicant has already spent six months in jail, there is no progress in trial, working in courts are held up due to Covid-19 Pandemic, in these grounds prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application on two grounds, one applicant was absconded from the date of registration of the case and arrested in the year 2020, i.e. after 8 years and another ground is that the applicant is having criminal past.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Jail authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 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 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,930 |
2. ................................................On the day of incident, deceased Rakesh came at the room of accused Ajay, at about 8.00 a.m. I saw him.Thereafter I left my house for my usual work.I returned to my home in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. When I returned to my house, I saw that deceased Rakesh and accused Ajay both were sitting in front of the door of their room....................................... .........On the second day, one person was accompanying accused Ajay when he went in auto- rickshaw with gunny bag and suitcase but who he was I am not aware of it.It is not true to say that no such incident took place on second day.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:06 :::ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:Criminal Appeal Nos. 130 of 2004 and 343 of 2004 are filed by two different accused-appellants against the order of conviction and sentence.Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2004 is filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded to accused Ajay alias Rajesh Shivprasad Sakhare through the impugned judgment.Ajay and Dinesh are Accused Nos.1 and 2The Accused No.1 Ajay alias Rajesh was charged for the murder of Rakesh Dattaji Chavan.Both the accused were further charged for intentionally destroying the evidence of murder committed by accused no.1 by disposing of the corpse of Rakesh after cutting it into pieces, shoving those into the gunny bag and the suitcase, and throwing the same in the public place.It is alleged that Accused No.1 murdered Rakesh Dattaji Chavan, aged 30 years, by assaulting him by a wooden rafter, knife and Sattoor etc., and in order to screen the evidence, cut the head from body, cut the body ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:06 ::: 4 into pieces, shoved those into polythene bags and into a gunny bag and disposed of the bags by throwing near Zansi Rani Square, and destroyed or otherwise disposed of some of the body parts, which could never be traced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:06 :::Prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses.PW 7 Sau.Pushpabai Mahadeorao Bilulkar is cited as eye-witness.Classification of other witnesses is as follows:-[a] PW 1 Dattaji Ajabrao Chavan and PW 2 Ashabai Dattaji Chavan are the father and mother of deceased respectively.PW 2 Ashabai Chavan has lodged the complaint.They are examined to prove that deceased had disappeared from a particular date.[b] PW 3 Warulu Wadku Kosare is examined to prove that he has sharpened Sattoor and delivered to police Sattoor which was brought back to him by the accused.[c] PW 4 Megha Chandrabhanji Shende, PW 5 Vinod Krushnaji Kangale and PW 6 Amol Rameshrao Umare are examined to prove the circumstance of their having seen the accused in the company of deceased immediately prior to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:06 ::: 5 disappearance of the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:06 :::[d] PW 8 Mahesh Rasumal Lakhani and PW 9 Ajay Vijayrao Chakradhare are the shopkeepers who have sold polythene bag and gunny bags respectively to the accused.[e] PW 10 Jayant Vasantrao Raich has witnessed a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.[f] PW 12 Premchand Suryadeo Chaudhari the auto rickshaw driver who took the is gunny bag from the residence of the accused to the place where it was thrown for disposal.[g] PW 13 Raju Sampat Patel, PW 18 Abdul Rashid Mohd. Sujan Sheikh and PW 22 Madhao Vithobaji Kale are Panch witnesses of Spot Panchanama, Seizure Memorandum, Inquest etc. [h] PW 14 Ajabrao Shriram Fulzele has registered the missing report.[i] PW 15 Dr. Suresh Shyamrao Dhakate is the Radiologist who has given an opinion about the age of the deceased.[j] PW 23 Gulabrao Shriram Mahalle is the Investigating Officer.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::[k] PW 16 Dr. Rajratna Tryambak Waghmare and PW 17 Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit collected sample of DNA and conducted Post-mortem respectively.Other witnesses are not significant.In the background of evidence of all this, the learned Trial Judge found Accused No.1 Ajay alias Rajesh S. Sakhare guilty for offence punishable under Section :-[a] 302 of Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year; and, [b] 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.As far as Accused No.2 Dinesh Ramraj Yadav is concerned, the learned Trial Court held him guilty for offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine Rs.500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::Heard learned Adv.Mr. R.M. Daga, Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakre for the State.Learned Adv.Mr. Daga has advanced submissions, stating that the evidence has to be separated into that of eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence.11. has assailed Criticizing the the testimony eye-witness, of eye-witness the learned PW Adv., 7 Pushpabai Bilulkar [Exh.31] on following grounds:-(a) PW 7 Pushpabai is not an eye-witness to act of assault resulting into taking away the life of Rakesh Chavan, who is said to have been murdered.(b) She does not identify the person assaulted and killed to be Rakesh.(c) Assault and killing is not proved.(d) PW 7 Pushpabai claims that what she said is sound of Khat-Khat - cutting or beating.(e) She saw that a human body was being cut into pieces.(f) PW 7 Pushpabai claims that she has called her husband who too saw the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::(g) She claims that she saw on the next day morning that the accused was washing the floor of his room.(h) In the background that PW 7 Pushpabai, who claims to have seen Accused No.1 cutting the body of a human being, she or her husband have not shown the natural and startling reaction.(i) PW 7 Pushpabai and her husband did not discuss ig about what they have other person in the background that they admit seen with any that there were ten to eleven persons residing nearby and the houses are located close by.(j) It is also admitted by the witness that the house/room of accused and that of PW 7 Pushpabai is common.the house/room of accused and that of PW 7(k) Admittedly, the room where accused resides does not have electricity, and the PW 7 Pushpabai does not say how was the room illuminated and how was the incident visible.(l) PW 7 Pushpabai, who is an eye-witness, was actually examined by the Investigating Officer in the process of investigation after fifteen days of incident, which creates a doubt about her being a witness of incident.(m) It is not proved that PW 7 Pushpabai has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 9 identified that one, who was being assaulted, was deceased Rakesh.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::(n) Failure to examine husband of PW 7, who has also witnessed the incident, brings the very fact of PW 7 Pushpabai and her husband being witnesses under a grave suspicion.[c] Considering that the clothes, which the deceased was wearing, which were alleged to have been identified , it is not clear as to whether the human body, which was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 10 being cut, was naked, in the background that the clothes are not having any cut marks, and prosecution has failed to prove this aspect by exploring or eliciting any material in this regard in the Examination-in-Chief of this witness.Moreover, the defence had no reason to ask questions on this point.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::[d] In absence of proof of fact that Rakesh himself was killed, the accused cannot be convicted of the charge framed against him.[e] Even if it is proved that the accused person had killed some other human being, there is no charge framed by the prosecution against accused Ajay for assaulting an unidentified person as a primary charge or as an alternate charge and, therefore, it is not open to base conviction on a charge of specific nature for murder of a person for which there is no charge.[g] As there is no direct evidence, in order to complete the chain of events by circumstantial evidence, it would have been necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive.However, motive has not been proved or even suggested.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::[h] Though the blood samples reportedly drawn from corpse were sent for DNA test, the report of DNA test is not proved.[j] The charge pertains to assault and murder of Rakesh son of Dattaji Chavan, whose age is shown to be thirty years.[k] Radiological opinion cannot be a conclusive proof of age, particularly in the light of ambiguity in the statements of witnesses.[l] There is no direct or indirect evidence of involvement of Accused No.2 in any of the acts which results in screening the evidence of the offence.To substantiate his arguments, learned Adv.Mr. R.M. Daga placed reliance on following judgments:-[a] Kochu Maitheen Kannu Salim Vs.State of Kerala [1998 Cri.L.J. 2277].::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::When the eye-witness does not inform till next day evening that the victim had disappeared, despite the fact that he had seen that the victim was accompanying the accused, and claims to have witnessed the assault, this conduct being unnatural, raises a serious doubt that the witness has really seen the incident.[b] Kailas Tukaram Patil & another Vs.State of Maharashtra [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 86].In absence of proof of fact that the blood sample was drawn from the corpse, the matching of the blood group found on the clothes of the deceased with blood group of the deceased, does not prove the fact that the said blood really was the blood of the deceased.[c] State of Maharashtra Vs.Bittu @ Gurumitsingh son of Sardar Singh Makan & ors.[2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1058].Finding of human blood does not constitute an incriminating circumstance to convict the accused, unless it is proved that the blood so found matches with the blood group of the deceased, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 13 [d] Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs.State of Maharashtra [AIR 1981 SC 765].::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::In a case based on circumstantial evidence, due to cumulative effect of the circumstances, the guilt of the accused is to be established beyond a shadow of doubt in contrast with direct evidence where the doubt has to be reasonable.Public Prosecutor Mr. Thakre has tried to support the judgment and appealed for enhancement of the sentence, urging that :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::the person has been killed and cut into pieces.Learned APP, therefore, urged for enhancement of the punishment from that of life imprisonment to capital punishment.To support his submissions, learned APP placed reliance on following judgments:-[b] Ram Gulam Chaudhary & ors.State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 311], Proposition :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::If the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is cogent and it firmly establishes the charge and the same does unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, and if the circumstances taken cumulatively and form a chain of complete events, a conclusion with human probabilities can be reached that the accused had committed offence.Thus, if the accused is well connected with the commission of offence by entire ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 16 sequence of evidence forming circumstantial evidence, it would be legal to base conviction solely on circumstantial evidence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::[e] Ranbir & others Vs.State of Punjab [(1973) 2 SCC 444].Delay in examination of a witness, unless put to Investigating Officer, and he is offered an opportunity to explain, should not adversely affect the prosecution case as to its credibility, though it would indicate some unfairness in regard to mode of investigation.Such delayed examination would not by itself lead to a conclusion that the witness, subject-matter, is a got up witness.[f] State of Maharashtra Vs.Shankar Krisanrao Khade [2009 Cri.L.J. 73];AND, [g] State of Maharashtra Vs.Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1403].As in present case, when the accused has committed offence of murder by cutting the neck, and then brutally cut the body into pieces and attempted to commit murder, collective effect thereof results in showing ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 17 that the accused has no regard, whatsoever, for human values, and has shown brutality, and in the result, conviction ought to follow capital sentence, and the accused deserves no leniency.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::Now, this Court has to proceed to assess and re-Upon going through testimonies of other witnesses, it is seen that no witnesses are identified who could prove that they had seen the accused and the deceased together immediately prior to the time and place of offence, or at any point of time proximate to the date and time of offence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::PW 1 Dattaji Ajabrao Chavan and PW 2 Ashabai Dattaji Chavan are not relevant for the proof of charge, as they do not prove any connection between the crime and the accused.Husband of PW 7 Pushpabai was neither examined by Police at the time of investigation, nor even before the Court.Therefore, this Court has to discuss the testimony of PW 7 Pushpabai, sole eye-witness of the incident.It would be useful to quote relevant statements of PW 7 Pushpabai in her Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination ad verbatim, and appreciate its effect.Relevant text reads as follows:-Thereafter, I saw that deceased Rakesh and Ajay both were proceeding towards the lodging house, perhaps to take their meals, but exactly where they went I am not aware of it but they went in my presence.Thereafter we also took our meals and after observing the T.V. Programme for few times, we went asleep.In the night at about 10.30 p.m. I ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 19 heard certain sound as Khat, Khat i.e., of beating or cutting something.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::The sound was coming from the room of accused Ajay.Because of the said sound, my husband also woke up and he went outside the house to see of what the sound was.Then my husband again came back in the house and from some portion of the window which is fixed in the wall in between my room and the room of accused Ajay.My husband saw that accused no.1 was cutting a human body.There was a sattur in the hands of accused Ajay and with that sattur he was cutting the human body.Thereafter from the same window I also peeped into the room of accused Ajay and saw that accused Ajay was cutting one human body with the aid of Sattoor.Thereafter we went to sleep.In the morning we saw that accused Ajay was washing the floor of his room.Thereafter, at about 9.00 a.m., I went to my work.Usually, I returned from my work in the evening.When I came back I saw that accused Ajay and accused Dinesh were standing in front of their room.They were having one gunny bag filled with some substance, and one suitcase.Thereafter they hired one auto.They kept the gunny bag and their suitcase in the auto and by sitting in the said auto both the accused went away.Though I and my husband had seen the accused cutting human body in his room, we did not make any report of it or did not inform it regarding it to anybody as we were afraid of its consequences and we were afraid of the accused. .....3. ................................................It is true that there was no electric connection in the room of accused Ajay.It is not true to say that on the day of incident I did not see deceased Rakesh with accused Ajay.It is true that the window in the wall in between my room and room of accused Ajay used to be always closed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::I was on talking terms with all 10 to 12 persons who residing around my house.It is true that though we heard the beating and cutting sound from the room of accused Ajay we did not inform regarding it to the persons residing in the adjacent houses.It is not true to say that on the day of incident even I did not see accused Ajay.It is further not true to say that at that time, accused had gone to his work.I am unable to tell as to how many persons were there at the room of accused Ajay at the time of incident.Ajay and two others total 3 persons were residing in the room of accused Ajay. .......................................... ..........It is true that when I used to reach at my home, there used to be dark.It is true that as there was no electric connection in the room of accused Ajay, there was dark in front of room of accused Ajay.It is true that as there was dark in front of room of accused Ajay it was not clearly visible what was going on in front of door.On the next day of the incident, one another boy was accompanying accused Ajay but I was not knowing his name.While police had recorded my statement, I did not give description of the said boy to the police.I am also unable to tell which clothes the said boy was wearing.It is not true to say that on the second day except Ajay I have not seen any other person with him and hence I am unable to tell his description.After 15 days of the incident, the police recorded my ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 21 statement. ......::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::[Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience of reading.Relevant and important portions are underlined to highlight the same.Quoted from page nos. 85 to 90 of the appeal paper-book].The summary of testimony of PW 7 Pushpabai Bilulkar can be referred, in nutshell, as follows:-On the day of incident, she saw the accused and deceased together in the morning, and again in the evening.Thereafter, her husband saw in the room of accused that the accused persons were cutting a human body.PW 7 Pushpabai too saw the same thing.She did not disclose to anybody whatever she had seen.On the next day morning, she saw accused carrying one gunny bag filled with some material, in an auto-rickshaw.Substance of the cross-examination of PW 7 Pushpabai is:-There was no electricity supply, and she also tells about the details of neighbouring occupants etc.It would be useful to analyze the testimony of PW 7 Pushpabai, which is quoted by marking sub-paragraphs, and is summarized in foregoing paras.This analysis would help to know whether she proves the involvement of accused persons.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::PW 7 Pushpabai admits the following:-[a] Relevant time was 10.30 p.m. [b] It was dark.[c] Her husband heard the sound of Khat-Soon thereafter, her husband went outside the room.He came back and saw through some space of the window between the room occupied by them and the room where accused no.1 was residing.ig Her husband saw that the accused was cutting a human body.[d] Either PW 7 Pushpabai or her husband do not identify the person being cut to be live or dead, and it to be the body of the deceased.[e] PW 7 Pushpabai cannot tell how many persons were there in the room when the accused was cutting the body into pieces.[f] PW 7 Pushpabai and her husband peacefully went to sleep.[g] They did not disclose the incident to anybody either on that day, or the next day morning.[h] PW 7 Pushpabai cannot identify the auto-rickshaw driver, in whose vehicle the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 23 gunny bag etc., were taken away by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::[j] She claims that her statement was recorded after fifteen days.[b] PW 4 Megha Shende, a witness of last ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 24 seen two days prior to the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::Fact if this witness has seen the accused in company of deceased five days before the incident carries no significance when PW 7 Pushpabai has seen the accused in the morning of incident with deceased.Until Court is persuaded to believe that the accused had packed the parts of dead body in the gunny bag, testimony of this witness barely proves that the accused had carried said gunny bag in the said auto-rickshaw.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::[f] PW 10 Jayant Raich witness of having seen the accused and deceased together at his shop and that the accused persons uttered that it is better that he [PW 10] would meet Rakesh, as he may not be available henceforth.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::Moreover, he admits in cross- examination at page 135 of the appeal paper-book that there was dark and it was not possible for him to have a close look of the passengers travelling in his vehicle.[h] Other witnesses are panch witnesses, Police witnesses etc., ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 27 Anyalysis and observation of this Court :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::In absence of proof of fact that accused is the assailant by direct or circumstantial evidence, testimonies of these witnesses are insignificant, as in themselves or in isolation, these witnesses do not prove commission of offence.Admittedly, any Test Identification Parade has not been conducted.It is also seen that the prosecution has failed to prove that the blood group of the corpse is not proved and, therefore, the prosecution is not able to prove that the blood group found on the alleged weapon of assault belongs to blood group of the deceased.It is not explained as to why the statement of husband of PW 7 Pushpabai who had witnessed the incident, was not recorded.Pertinently enough, statement of even anyone ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 ::: 28 amongst the neighbours was not either recorded or anyone from them has come forward.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::PW 23 Gulabrao Shriram Mahalle admits that statement of PW 7 Pushpabai was recorded on 27th August, 2001 after the accused gave a statement.Her conduct is unnatural all the more when her husband first saw it, later she saw it, but in a thickly populated locality, they do not disclose it to anyone and peacefully sleep and go for work on the next day, and keep quiet for one-and- half-month till police come forward.(ii) She has not proved that Accused No.2 was accompanying the Accused No.1 during whatever she had witnessed.PW 7 Pushpabai is, therefore, not an eye-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::witness, nor is a worthy witness.Facets of her testimony noted in Paragraph No. 28 render her status as an eye-witness totally doubtful.(ii) All these pieces of evidence are broken link which do not match one another in sequence, whatsoever, and connect the accused with homicidal death of the victim Rakesh in the manner whatsoever.In the result, appeal of the accused-convicts succeeds and of the State fails.Appellants are acquitted of the charge.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:07 :::
|
['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.
|
1,044,392 |
JUDGMENT C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1-In this writ petition the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 6th May, 1985, issued under the provisions of the National Security Act. The said order of detention is based on two incidents, one dated 9-11-1984 in which it is alleged that the detenu gave threats to one Shri Pawaskar for which a case under section 506(iii)-114 I.P.C. has been registered against him and is pending in the Court of law.The detenu was released on bail in the said case.The second incident alleged is dated 4-3-1985 in which it is alleged that the detenu along with three others was involved in a criminal assault with a chopper on one Ashok Nagare who died in the said incident and, therefore, an offence punishable under sections 302/143, 144, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. is registered against him.On the basis of these two incidents, it is alleged that the peace-loving citizens of the locality of Kumbharwada within the jurisdiction of V.P. Road Police Station and Arthur Road within the jurisdiction of Tardeo Police Station in Greater Bombay are experiencing sense of insecurity and are living under the constant shadow of fear, which activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said localities and areas.This order of detention is challenged mainly on four grounds.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,512,401 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.995 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/10 CRL.O.P.No. 13799 of 2020The case of the prosecution is that on 02.09.2017, at Thirumullaivoyal, one Hindu Munnani State General Secretary Parameswaran and other 28 male persons had joined together, and tried to place the worship of lord Ganesh idol for Vinayagar Chathurthi once in year, without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a social activist and has been raising voice for the public cause and public welfare, whenever injustice and inaction of the government machineries.Hence, in order to wreck vengences, plenty of criminal cases have been foisted as against the petitioner.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Heard Mr.Therefore the respondent police leveled the charges under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner and others.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 CRL.O.P.No.Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.995 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.07.09.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mpa ToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 CRL.O.P.No.13799 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,569,289 |
Heard on admission.The State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of sentence recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 304( Part-II) of IPC.The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna vide judgment dated 23.01.2014 in S.T. No.11/2013 convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 304(Part-II) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that in the incident, no weapon was used by the respondent and his companion, hence, looking to the assault caused by the respondent, it is not a good case in which more severe sentence can be recorded.Consequently, the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of the order be sent to the Court below for information.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,494,727 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 5917 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 7.8.2018 in connection with Naihati Police Station Case No. 469/2018 dated 05.07.2018 under Sections 498A/323/307/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Sujoy Biswas and others ... Petitioners Mr. Tapan Kr.Mahapatra, Advocate Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Advocate Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Naihati Police Station Case No. 469/2018 dated 05.07.2018 under Sections 498A/323/307/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.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. ) 3
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,050,486 |
More than seven years after she died in a UK hospital, baby Sunaina's dead body is still waiting in a local mortuary for a dignified cremation or burial in keeping with the faith in which she was born.The parents of the unfortunate child who passed away at a tender age of five months in the very same hospital where she was born have, it appears, fought a long and grim battle in the United Kingdom to prove their charge that the child died on account of medical negligence of the doctors working in the hospital.Two postmortems conducted in UK in quick succession certified the immediate cause of death to be extensive ischaemic myocardial necrosis, probably due to congenital heart anomaly.3.3 Microcephaly.3.4 Cerebral abnormalitiesIntrauterine growth restriction.CAUSE OF DEATH 1a.Multiple congenital abnormalities 1b.Edward's syndrome (Trisomy 18)A second report conducted at the request of detective superintendent Gibson by the Department of Forensic Medicine & Science, University of Glasgow gave the cause of death to be cardiorespiratory failure resulting from chronic lung disease and congenital heart and cerebral abnormalities.The report of Dr. Peter Vanezis, Department of Forensic Medicine and Science in the University of Glasgow reported the cause of death as under:CAUSE OF DEATH The cause of death in my opinion is due to cardiorespiratory failure resulting from chronic lung disease, congenital heart and cerebral abnormalities as part of Edward's syndrome (Trisomy 18)The conclusions drawn by the doctors conducting the post mortem did not, it appears, satisfy the parents of the child who instituted proceedings in UK in an attempt to establish that the child had died on account of medical negligence and not on account of any congenital or other disease.At the forefront in that campaign stood Ms. Neelu Chaudhari, a pharmacist by profession and an aunt of the deceased child who testified that the death was on account of the clinical negligence on the part of the doctors in the hospital who failed to give to the child medical and nursing care required by her, leading to her death by ranitidine overdoses and lethal potassium chloride poisoning.A copy of what is described as an expert report and witness statement filed by the petitioner as Annexure-H draws the following conclusion as to the cause of death of Baby Sunaina.The above report finds the above named were negligent clinically and criminally in their medical, clinical pharmacy and nursing care provided to baby Sunaina Chaudhari leading to her death by ranitidine overdoses and lethal potassium chloride poisoning.Having failed in their endeavor to prove the medical negligence of the doctors in UK, the parents of the unfortunate child have brought the body to India in the year 2007 after they were served with legal papers following court action by London Borough of Redbridge that if the parents did not make funeral arrangements for baby Sunaina's dead body within a period of 28 days, they would destroy the same.Back home in India started a new campaign with the parents of the deceased child addressing letters to the Prime Minister of India and the Government of India, Ministry of Health for an investigation into the death of their daughter including a postmortem to determine the real cause of her death.In quick response came a letter from the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India dated 26th April, 2007 to the Director General of Health Services, Government of India asking him to take necessary action for authorizing the Government hospital to carry out the postmortem of the child's dead body.The Director General, Health Services in turn shot a letter dated 26th April, 2007 to the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of NCT of Delhi to get the postmortem conducted by Maulana Azad Medical College in Delhi.The Special Secretary took his time to respond by addressing a letter dated 16th May, 2007 to the Director General of Health Services asking for guidance for the benefit of the State Government on the issue so that a uniform policy could be followed by all the hospitals in similar circumstances.Desperate to push the matter further, baby sunaina's mother submitted a representation to the President of India for his intervention.The Secretary to the President, in turn, wrote a letter dated 29th June, 2007 to the Commissioner of Police wondering if anything could be done in the case.On receipt of the said letter, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi by his letter dated 25th July, 2007 requested the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi to look into the matter personally.The result was that the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi by letter dated 30th July, 2007 requested the Special Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi to take appropriate action.The Special Secretary then informed the mother of the deceased child that since baby Sunaina had died in UK, any investigation or redressal of grievance has to be undertaken by the relevant authorities in UK only and not in India, except to the extent permissible under Section 166B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The request for conducting a postmortem was on that ground declined.The letter reads:DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE GOVT.Secretary (H&FW)This letter was sometime later superseded by a communication dated 24th August, 2007 whereby the Government of NCT of Delhi instructed the Dean, MAM College, New Delhi to conduct a postmortem on the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari in the MAM College, Delhi and to convey the postmortem report to the mother of the child Smt. Sadhna Chaudhari under intimation to the Director General, Health Services, Government of India and to the Home Department with reference to the earlier correspondence.According to the report, the end came because of a heart failure and chronic lung disease and pulmonary hypertension.The first report based on the postmortem examination held on 30th October, 2000 gave the final summary of lesions and the cause of death as under:FINAL SUMMARY OF LESIONSExtensive ischaemic myocardial necrosis.Pulmonary hypertension.Multiple congenital anomalies (Edwards' syndrome; Trisomy 18) 3.1 Cardiac : ventricular septal defect, patnet ductus arteriosus, right ventricular hypertrophy 3.2 Diaphragmatic hernia (surgically repaired).
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,140,765 |
The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.164/2009, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 420 and 471 of IPC were framed against the applicant.The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant obtained a job in GCF, Jabalpur on the basis of a caste certificate dated 10.8.2001 (Annexure P/3).When a doubt was created, an enquiry was initiated and ultimately, SDO-cum- Tahsildar had issued a letter dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P/9) that no such certificate was issued from the office of SDO-cum-Tahsildar and therefore, it was forged.Thereafter an FIR was lodged and the charge-sheet was filed.The case was duly committed and the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, framed CRR No.878/2009 the charges of offence punishable under sections 420 and 471 of IPC.There was no evidence on record that who forged the document and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not frame the charges for offence under sections 465, 467 or 468 of IPC.The learned counsel for the applicant depends upon the order dated 30.4.2008 (Annexure P/10), whereby it was mentioned that the caste certificate issued to the applicant was correct.If the letter dated 30.4.2008 is perused then, it would be apparent that a general direction was given in that letter about the caste (Manjhi) and it was directed that again and again caste certificate may not be directed.In the letter dated 30.4.2008, it was no where mentioned that the concerned certificate was verified with its counter book and it was found issued or not issued.Under such circumstances, in comparison to the letter dated 23.7.2008, there is no evidentiary value of letter dated 30.4.2008 at this stage.By evidence collected by the prosecution, prima facie it appears that the applicant had committed cheating by using the forged caste certificate in getting the job and therefore, prima facie offence punishable under sections 420 and 471 of IPC shall be made out against the applicant.The applicant is free to raise all such objections during the trial and till the pendency of the case but, by such objections, no interference can be done in the impugned order.Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant Ritesh Kumar Kashyap cannot be accepted.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,537,221 |
This revision has been preferred by the revisionist Naresh Yadav, (Minor) through his Maternal Uncle / Shiv Karan Yadav against judgment and order dated 30.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2019 (Naresh Yadav Vs.State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2017, under sections 307, 506, 354-A I.P.C. and 08 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur dismissing the appeal and affirmed the bail rejection order dated 5.9.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur in Misc.Bail Bail Application No. 22/11/2019 (State Vs.Naresh Yadav).In this case the revisionist was aged about 16 years 6 months at the time of occurrence.Admittedly the revisionist was juvenile at the time of occurrence.No material is available on record whereby it can be presumed that the revisionist was in association of any criminal or bad elements.From perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by the appellate Court as well as passed by the Board, it transpires that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgement and orders in cursory manner without placing due reliance on the report submitted by the District Probation Officer as well as facts and circumstances of this case.The impugned judgment and orders are liable to be set aside.Consequently, the revision succeeds and is allowed.Both the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2019 & 5.9.2019, respectively, are hereby set aside.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,542 |
The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.8.1996 upon receipt of a telephone call from Duty Ct.Gopal Prasad of LNJPN hospital, regarding admission of an unknown person (brought dead) by Ct.Veerpal, DD entry No. 18-A was recorded at PS : Jamamasjid and copy thereof was sent to SI Ranbir Singh, through Ct.Bahauri Lal.Inspector V.P. Singh also reached the hospital where the above named SI was already present.MLC of the said unknown dead person was obtained.Since no eye witness was available in the hospital, Inspector V.P. Singh Along with the SI and the other staff reached the spot i.e., Subhash Park, traffic light.On the spot they found blood at two points as also a blood stained shirt hooked on the railing of the park.Ram Raksha Tewari narrated the occurrence stating that on 12.8.1996 at 7.45 P.M. he was present at his stall when two persons namely Anil (deceased) and Razab Ali (Appellant) who were pavement dwellers and drug addicts, were shouting at each other.The appellant was demanding Rs. 60/- but Anil refused to pay.This ultimately lead to grappling and the appellant took out a knife from his right "dub" (part of waist where weapon etc. can be secured/concealed under the cloth called (lungi, tehmat, etc.) "lungi" (cloth tied around waist and wrapped around legs) and stabbed on the left side of the chest of Anil.Blood started oozing out and Anil fell down.The appellant ran away.One Ajmer who was standing nearby laid Anil on the pavement and burnt a piece of cloth and put the resulting ash of the cloth on the wound to stop the bleeding (a common accepted rustic first aid).In the meantime beat constable came and took injured Anil in a rickshaw to the hospital.On the basis of this statement, Inspector Veerpal Singh got the case registered under section 302 IPC.The said Ram Raksha Tewari also named Ajmer and Hari Shanker besides others to be the witnesses of the occurrence.During the course of investigation crime team was summoned, photographs of the spot were taken.Blood samples and "controlled earth" (sample soil), burnt cloth pieces and the shirt of the deceased were taken into possession.The rough site plan of the scene was prepared.Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested (at 6.00 A.M. in the morning).One button actuated knife was recovered from his right "dub".After taking measurements, preparing the sketch of the knife and, converting the same into a parcel with the seal of VPS, the knife was taken into possession.Thereafter proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted and after the postmortem report was received, the exhibits of the case were got sent to FSL.The same was converted into a parcel sealed with the seal of VPS.This parcel was deposited with PW-9 HC Harinder Singh, MHC (M) (Moharrir Malkhana) on 13.8.1996 Along with six other parcels received from the Inspector.In the course of heated exchange PW-2 showered filthy abuses and threatened to throw out the utensils from the kitchen.Since PW-2 was uttering filthy abuses in the presence of appellant's sister.The appellant protested.JUDGMENT J.P. Singh, J.This appeal has been filed by Razab Ali, convicted for the offences under section 302 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act vide judgment dated 23.8.1997 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo RI for 3 months for the offence under section 302 IPC, as also to undergo RI for 6 months each for the offence under sections 25 & 27 Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo further RI for one month for each section, vide order on sentence dated 27.8.1997, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.We have heard Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravinder Chaddha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.On completion of investigation the case was sent for trial.The prosecution examined 24 witnesses out of whom PWs 4 Ram Raksha Tewari, PW-6 Hari Shanker Dube, PW-16 Ajmer Singh are the public witnesses who as per the prosecution have seen the incident while PW-24 is Dr. Shashi Bhushan who prepared the MLC of Anil (deceased) and PW-14 Dr. Akash Jhanjhi is the Autopsy Surgeon and Sh.R.G.Tewari is the witness from Home Department of Delhi Administration regarding notification under Arms Act while PW-1 Sonu Kaushik is the Draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan.Remaining witnesses are the police officials concerned with various stages and aspects of investigation conducted by the police.Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per the prosecution version there were blood stains on the knife recovered by the police while as per the FSL report there is no blood on the knife that was sent for examination which shows that the weapon of offence, has not actually been recovered and the police has falsely implicated the appellant, by planting the knife.A perusal of the record shows that the knife has been recovered by the police (vide memo Ex.PW-4/G) from the possession of the appellant when he was apprehended while he was sleeping near the bushes near Subhash Park.As per this memo the knife was having blood stains.The IO had sent the case property including the parcel in question to the office of the FSL through PW-18 Ct.The said Ct.Rajbir has stated regarding receipt of 8 parcels sealed with the seal of VPS and one "pulanda" (packet) with the seal of JPN hospital Along with an envelope sealed with the seal of Maulana Azad (Medical College) and he delivered the same in the office of FSL at Malviya Nagar.Both these witnesses have specifically stated that so long as the case property remained in their possession the same was not tampered with.The witnesses have not been cross-examined.The report of FSL is available on record as Ex. PW-23/F. As per this report parcel No. 5 is containing one knife with metallic blade having rusty brownish stains and as per the opinion no blood was detected on the same.Now, in our view, simply for the reason that no blood was detected on the knife cannot be made basis for disbelieving the prosecution version.According to FSL report itself the said knife is having rusty brownish stains.A police official is neither an analyst nor an expert in the field of forensic science.The 'rusty brownish stains' on the blade of the knife had, in our view, led the police official to record the same as blood stains since the blood after drying also gives a rusty brownish colour.It has come on record that at the time of incident i.e., 7.45 P.M. on 12.8.1996 the appellant was wearing a "lungi" and at the time of his arrest in the morning of 13.8.1996 at about 6.00 A.M. also he was wearing the "lungi" which (lungi) was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW-4/H. As per this memo the "lungi" was having blood stains and was taken into possession by the police.The "lungi" (Ex.P-7) was in parcel No. 8 sent to FSL.As per forensic report the blood of Group "B" was found on the said "lungi".The "lungi-cloth" could itself rub off the blood on the knife.Moreover Dr.Akash Jhanji (PW-14), who conducted the post mortem has found that cause of death was the incised injury on the chest and the said injury was possible with knife (Ex.P-6).During the course of trial by way of suggestions to the witnesses or in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has no where disputed that the "lungi" (Ex.P-7) did not belong to him or that the blood stains on the same were not due to the fight in which Anil was stabbed.As per the FSL report the articles sent to them (belonging to the deceased) were found to have blood Group "B" and the blood of the same group was found on the "lungi" (Ex.P-7).In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that mentioning of blood stains on the knife by the IO, and the FSL reporting that no blood stains were found on the knife, will not help the appellant.Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, therefore the case of the prosecution is doubtful.It is also pointed out that since the name of the deceased was not mentioned in the MLC, though all the public witnesses were said to be aware of his name, the involvement of the accused is an afterthought.In this context it would be appropriate to go through the statements of Ct.Veerpal (PW-11), SI Ranbir Singh (PW-13), Insp.V.P. Singh (PW-23) and the three public witnesses (PW-4,6 & 16).Veerpal undisputedly while patrolling in the area found the deceased lying unconscious with stab injury.He without making any inquiries from anyone, as his foremost duty, brought him to the hospital.By this time the constable was not aware as to who the person was whom he had taken to the hospital and in the natural course the name of the injured was entered as unknown.Upon receipt of information the SI and the inspector reached the hospital, where they met Ct.On coming to know about the place of occurrence they reached the site and found the blood stained shirt etc. and met PW-4 Ram Raksha Tewari, who gave a detailed account of the incident thus naming the accused and the victim besides naming Hari Shanker and Ajmer Singh to be the persons who had witnessed the crime.All of them have withstood the test of cross-examination and the veracity of their version cannot be disputed.All these witnesses knew the deceased as well as the appellant.PW-4 & 6 both are "Paan" Vendors near the spot, while PW-16 is a waiter.They all, besides others, had seen the incident but none of them are related either to the appellant or to the deceased.They obviously did not intervene because both involved persons were drug addicts and one was carrying a knife.None of them cared to chase the assailant.But after the occurrence they did, as per their wisdom, attend to the injured.No hostility, enmity or motive on the part of public witnesses has been brought to the notice of the court.In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has stated that he was called to the police station to collect waste papers and while he was doing so he had been falsely implicated.The stand taken does not appear to be probable because the appellant is neither a previous convict nor had he any criminal antecedents nor any enmity with the police officials.Further no suggestion regarding the stand taken in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. had been given to the police officials when they entered the witness box.It has been pointed out that there is unnecessary and inordinate delay in delivery of copy of the FIR to the "ilaqua" magistrate.A perusal of the record shows that the incident as per the statement of PW-4 had taken place at 7.45 P.M. on 12.8.1996 and as per the MLC Ex.PW-15/A, the injured was got admitted in the hospital at 8.25 P.M. and the information in this regard was recorded at police station Jama Masjid at 8.25 P.M. Upon receipt of the information of the deceased the Inspector had reached the hospital and returned to the spot where he examined the scene of crime and recorded the statement of PW-4 wherein for the first time the name of the appellant had appeared.This statement was recorded and the "rukka" was sent at 9.35 P.M. and the FIR of the case Along with corresponding DD entry was recorded by the Duty Officer at 9.45 P.M. and copies thereof were sent to the M.M., Addl.C.P., DCP, ACP through messenger.PW-8 had recorded the FIR and at 9.45 P.M. he had given copies of the FIR to Ct.Rajpal for delivery to higher officers.The said Ct. Rajpal has admitted to have received the copies on 12.8.1996 at 10.00 P.M. for delivery to the M.M., ACP, DCP and Addl.Such little delay is not significant in every case.It is well established that if the police machinery moves for investigation without undue delay and hitch, the mere delay in delivery of the copy of the FIR to the "illaqa" magistrate is not fatal to the prosecution case.Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly but vehemently contended that at the most it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because the act committed was without pre-meditation.It was in a sudden fight and the occurrence took place in the heat of passion.Therefore, he is covered by exception 4 to section 300 IPC especially because the accused ran away after giving only one knife blow, though the injured had fallen down and if accused wanted he could have caused more stab injuries and only in that eventuality he could have been convicted for culpable homicide amounting to murder.In this case Lekh Ram (PW-2) and Gopal (deceased) were sons of Ram Lal (PW-1).Accused Ghapoo Yadav is father of accused Janku Kenwal and Mangal Singh.Accused Sunder is nephew of accused Ghapoo Yadav.There was a land dispute.On measurement it was found that land belonging to accused Mangal Singh was in actual possession of Ram Lal and over that land there was a berry tree.The said tree was cut by the family members of Ram Lal which led to an altercation.The accused persons enquired from the deceased as to why they had cut down the tree though it was planted by their (accused's) family members.The deceased denied having cut the tree which led to a scuffle.Deceased was assaulted, his leg got fractured.The deceased was given 7 injuries and he died the next day.Accused persons pleaded innocence.The trial court found the accused persons guilty under Section 148/149/302 IPC.High Court also confirmed the findings.The Supreme Court observed that the earlier dispute over land had not assumed characteristics of a physical combat and the occurrence took place in the heat of passion on a sudden quarrel followed by a fight.The accused persons had caused injuries on the deceased but had not acted in a cruel and unusual manner and that being so exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was attracted and therefore the conviction was converted to Section 304-Part-I IPC."Sheetala Prasad @ Baba v. State" of UP .In the said case the prosecution witnesses, the deceased and the accused persons were related to each other.PW-1 protested but the accused persons did not pay any heed.PW-1 called deceased for intervention but as soon as deceased arrived he was surrounded by four accused persons and at the instigation of Chote Lal and two others the appellant Sheetla Prasad @ Baba who was armed with a spear gave a spear blow to the deceased in his abdomen.Other PWs had also witnessed the occurrence.The injured person died on the way to hospital.The question was whether the accused/ appellant had intention to cause that particular injury.Held it was not established beyond doubt.Further held the appellant however had knowledge that the infliction of such an injury was likely to cause death.In the result the conviction was converted from 302 IPC to Section to 304 Part-II IPC.The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC.As per prosecution case four persons namely Rasal Singh, Dalip Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Amrik Singh were returning from their fields when the appellant and the three acquitted persons assaulted Amrik Singh.The appellant gave a kripan below to Amrik Singh on his head.Amrik Singh fell down and became unconscious.Two lathi blows were given by the other two accused persons on his left leg.After two days Amrik Singh died.The contention raised before the Supreme Court was that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC because it was not a case of premeditation.It was a chance meeting and only one blow was given on the head.The Supreme Court opined that it was not possible to say with certainty under what circumstances the appellant gave a kirpan blow to Amrik Singh and no attempt was made to give another blow.Therefore, the injury on the head did not appear to have been caused intentionally.Two brothers after taking drinks had gone to answer the call of nature when the appellant asked his brother (deceased) as to why he had decided to sell his property.This conversation led to a quarrel.The appellant stabbed his brother once.It was held that there was a sudden quarrel, heat of passion and the other attending circumstances which caused the occurrence and therefore the case would fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC and not 302 IPC.In the above cited cases there was a land dispute and it is well known that the agriculturists suddenly flare up in the matters of land disputes, irrigation and watering of fields and in the heat of passion fatal injuries get inflicted.The case before us, in our view, is distinguishable because the appellant had gone to the deceased with a concealed knife and with pre-meditation to settle the matter once for all." Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab" .In the said case the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 302 & 324 IPC.Two persons namely Narender Singh (deceased) and Ramesh Kumar were passing in front of the house of Jagtar Singh (accused) when Narender Singh (deceased) was injured by the projecting "Parnala" (piped projection in houses normally for outflow of rain water) on the house of the appellant.Narender Singh protested to the accused and asked him to raise the height of the "Parnala".There was exchange of abuses.Then appellant and Jogender Singh caught hold of Narender Singh and on being instigated by Joginder Singh the appellant Jagtar Singh gave one blow with knife which landed on the chest of Narender Singh who after some time succumbed to the injury.The appellant also caused injury to companion of Narender Singh.The Supreme Court opined that it could not be confidently said that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury because there was no premeditation.There was no malice.It was a chance meeting.The cause of quarrel was trivial and sudden.The appellant was a very young person and he caused that injury in the said circumstances.Therefore, he could not be imputed with the intention to cause death or the intention to cause that particular fatal injury.Therefore, the conviction was altered from 302 IPC to 304 Part-II IPC.We are also of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the above case when there was simply a chance meeting which led to a sudden fight and resulted in death, exception 4 of Section 300 IPC was attracted, but in the case before us the facts and circumstances are distinguishable because it was not a chance meeting.The Supreme Court found that first PW-2 who was a registered bad character had taken out a pen knife from his pocket then the appellant went into adjoining kitchen and returned with a knife.Therefore, a scuffle took place and when Nityanand intervened to help PW-2, he received three injuries including one in the chest.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Supreme Court opined that since deceased was uttering filthy abuses in the presence of appellant's sister tempers ran high.There was no previous ill will between the parties rather the relation between them were cordial.The occurrence took place in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and hence it was covered with exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.Therefore, the conviction was altered from 302 IPC to 304 Part-I IPC.The appellant was recently promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector.He invited his neighbour Head Constable (HC) Suraj Mal for a drink.When both of them were having drinks PW-5 nephew of the deceased entered the room and asked Suraj Mal to get up so that they could have their dinner.HC Suraj Mal wanted to leave but the appellant got annoyed and abused Suraj Mal in filthy language to which Suraj Mal objected.The appellant got further annoyed, picked up his service revolver and fired two shots at Suraj Mal one bullet entered the right side of neck and the second hit the left side of the thigh.There was grappling as well between the two.It was urged before the Supreme Court that even if the prosecution case was accepted the appellant could be held guilty only under Section 304 Part-II IPC and the lower courts had erred in convicting him under Section 302 IPC.This gave rise to a sudden fight and in the heat of passion, the appellant picked up service revolver and fired twice.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
475,531 |
THE 9TH DAY OF JULY,1996Present:Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.P.Singh Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.ManoharN.P.Midha and K.K.Gupta, Advs.for the appellantsA.S.Pundir, Adv.for the Respondent J U D G M E N TThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:Bani Singh & OthersV.State of U.P.J U D G M E N TAhmadi,CJI.The short question that we are called upon to decide inthis appeal is whether the High Court at Allahabad wasJustified in dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellants against the order of conviction and sentenceissued by the trial court, for non-prosecution.The facts relevant for our consideration can be brieflystated.On 13.6.1979, the VII Addl.Sessions Judge,Bulandshahar, recorded an order convicting the appellantsunder Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years witha fine of Rs.100/- each.The appellants filed an appealagainst this order in the High Court of Allahabad.On18.6.1979, the appeal was admitted by the High Court andnotice was issued.The High Court also issued an interimstay on the execution of the sentence and the realization offine while granting bail to the appellants.On 28.11.1990,the matter came up for hearing before the High Court.Whiledismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, the Courtrecorded the following order :"The List has been revised.The appellants preferred an appeal before this Court.Subsequently, the matter was posted beforethis Bench.At this juncture, it would be pertinent to make a briefreference to the relevant provisions of law having a bearingon this case.Chapter XXIX of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (hereinafter called `Code') comprisingSections 372-394 deals with `Appeals'.The proviso,however, posits that if the appeal is restricted to theextent or legality of the sentence, the Court need not callfor the record.On a plain reading of the said provision, itseems clear to us that once the Appellate Court, on anexamination of the grounds of appeal and the impugnedjudgment, decides to admit the appeal for hearing, it mustsend for the record and then decide the appeal finally,unless the appeal is restricted to the extent and legalityof the sentence.We, therefore, set aside the impugned order andremit the appeal to the High Court for disposal on merits inthe light of this judgment.The appeal will stand allowedaccordingly.
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,558,977 |
The petitioner was having 4 times income more than her husband.Her business was flourishing and has been duly explained to the IO during investigation.The relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced as under:-The fact remains that the charge-sheet against the petitioner being accused No.2 filed under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Act. It is alleged that petitioner in conspiracy with her husband acquired property in Dehradoon, impersonating as Resham Manocha.As per her income-tax returns, the petitioner had total income during the check period of Rs.84,84,210/- from her business of dry cleaning run in the name and style of Royal Dry Cleaners, whereas total expenditure in the business was of Rs.50,38,712/- and had likely savings of Rs.34,45,498/-.However, she acquired assets to the tune of Rs.74,77,827/- during the check period.Thus, the assets acquired were disproportionate to her income to the tune of Rs.40,32,329/- i.e. 47.5%.She also stated that she does not know any A.K. Singhal, who has attested photograph and signatures on these documents.PW-19 further stated that she does not know any Kailash Wati resident of Inder Puri, R/o EG-103, Inder Puri, New Delhi.Admittedly, Smt. Kailashwati is the mother of the petitioner.Moreover, as per D-56 Resham Manocha vide her letter dated 30th September, 1991 to MDDA requested for taking on record the change in her address as C/o Smt. Kailash Wati, i.e. mother of the petitioner.Whereas, PW-19 stated that she did not know any Kailash Wati and rather, never applied for any such flat.Present petition is directed against the orders dated 31 st July, 2014 and 1st August, 2014 passed by learned Special Judge CBI-3 (PC Act), New Delhi in CC No. 6/13 and consequential proceedings arising out of FIR No. RC-35A/2005/DLI/CBI/ACB/New Delhi.The charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and her husband Sh.Anand Kumar Singhal, was on the charges that her husband being a public servant while working on various posts at various places has possessed assets of worth Rs.1,01,74,878/- in his name and in the name of petitioner, which were disproportionate to the tune of Rs.54,34,515/- to his known sources of income.Accordingly, vide order dated 01.08.2014, learned Trial Court framed charge against husband of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13 Crl.M.C. 4402/2014 Page 1 of 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the said Act).Whereas the learned Trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner also as mentioned above.Moreover, the specimen signatures and photographs of the petitioner as Resham Manocha was submitted in the office of Mussori Dehradoon Development Authority (MDDA) at the time of execution of Agreement between the allottee and MDDA, were verified/attested by her husband, A.K. Singhal, while serving as JDR, Customs, Excise Crl.M.C. 4402/2014 Page 8 of 13 & Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.M.C. 4402/2014 Page 8 of 13Reference to details of income and expenses of petitioner as reflected in D-33, that is, Statement of Income Utilization of petitioner during the check period, provided by PW-14, Sh.Kailash Chand Gupta, Chartered Accountant.The learned Trial Court has noted that PW-19 in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that she never applied for allotment of any flat with MDDA; she is not aware if her late husband ever applied for the same.She never deposited any money with the said Authority.She further stated that neither the photographs nor the signatures on the documents (D-56) are hers; because, she signs in Hindi, whereas, the signatures on these documents are in English.It is admitted that out of 35 witnesses, 22 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.Thus, the trial is at the advance stage.M.C. 4402/2014 Page 10 of 13It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to hold mini trial and delve deep into the matter for the purposes of appreciating the evidence and the evidence can only be weighed when the entire material will be brought before the Trial Court.The Court was required to see at the time of framing charge whether a strong suspicion exists for commission of the offence.The Trial Court found prima facie case against the petitioner, accordingly framed charges.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,559 |
Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that the deceased Mangilal went to graze she-buffaloes to the forest on 9-2-96 in the morning between 7 and 8.00 A.M. In the noon at about 1.00 P.M., his brother Badesingh also went to the forest with noon-meals.Badesingh, after giving food to the deceased Mangilal, returned back to his house.Thereafter at 3.00 P.M. the she-buffaloes returned back to the house but the deceased Mangilal was not with them.On this, Bherulal, father of the deceased, brother Badesingh, and one Kalu went in search of the deceased Mangilal in the forest situated in Village Devziri.They saw the appellant and Mangilal Sondhia going hurriedly towards the Village Devziri with their buffaloes.Just thereafter Kamalsingh (P.W. 6) and Karansingh (P.W. 7) met them in weeping condition.On asking by Bherulal about whereabouts of Mangilal, they, while weeping disclosed that the appellant had driven out their she-buffaloes from the forest and assaulted the deceased Mangilal and made him to lie in the Devziri rivulet.On this information, Bherulal and his companions reached at the rivulet and found Mangilal lying there sustaining several injuries on his person.Mangilal was dead.Bherulal went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P-1 1).According to this report, on account of dispute over grazing of cattle the appellant had assaulted the deceased Mangilal.The First Information Report was recorded by Bhimsingh Aharwal (P.W. 10).The police party reached at the spot and after preparing the inquest and spot-map sent the dead-body of Mangilal for post-mortem examination.The autopsy conducted by Dr. R.C. Banjare (P.W. 5), who found some abrasion, ligature mark, bruises and fractures of numerous bones of both hands.On internal examination, the doctor also found fracture of fourth and 7th and 8th ribs of the deceased.The thyroid cartilage and tracheal ring were broken.According to him, the deceased died because of asphyxia due to strangulation.After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the above mentioned offence.Looking to his young age, the Trial Court did not administered oath to him.The say of this witness is that the deceased Mangilal and appellant Jagannath were grazing their cattle.They all were grazing the cattle in the area known as Sunderpura field.JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.He, however, did not examine any witness in defence while the prosecution, to prove its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses, before the Trial Court.On conclusion of the trial, finding the appellant guilty of the offence charged, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced as indicated above.We have heard Shri Jayantilal Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant, duly appointed by the Legal Aid Committee and Shri Girish Desai, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the entire record.The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the testimony of solitary child eye-witness Kamal (P.W. 6), who was aged about ten years on the date of his examination in the Court.He was present there upto 6.00 P.M. in the evening.According to this witness, the incident had occurred in the noon at 2.00 P.M. The appellant Jagannath assaulted Mangilal by Ballam (spear).He dealt several blows and caused a number of injuries to Mangilal.Karansingh, the brother of this witness had gone with goats towards Motipura Forest/field.After assaulting Mangilal, Jagannath also ran away towards this witness on which, this witness ran away and reached near his brother Karansingh.Kamal (P.W. 6) further stated that on the way, he met with witnesses Mangilal (P.W. 4), Bherulal and Bajesingh.He disclosed about killing of Mangilal by appellant to his brother Karansingh.Thereafter, he went to his house.In cross-examination, para 2, a positive admission of this witness is available that the Police Constable read-over his statement to him.He was also asked to give the same statement but, he had denied the fact that he had given the statement in the Court as tutored to him by the Police Constable.He has further stated that the appellant Jagannath pierced the Ballam inside the body of the deceased Mangilal.The Ballam was containing an iron blade and the same iron blade was thrust.The act of thrusting of Ballam continued eight to ten times and all this was seen by him from a distance of one furlong.He further testified that because of cries, he was attracted towards scene of occurrence.In para 3, this witness was contradicted from the statement (Ex. D-2) portion marked A to A as well as his statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.In all these statements, it is mentioned that the appellant assaulted the deceased by lathi.There is no mention about use of any sharp edged side of Ballam for causing injury to deceased as narrated by this witness in the Court.All these material contradictions in Ex. D-2 portion marked A to A and B to B were denied by this witness.He has also denied the statement made at portion marked A to A in the statement recorded by the Magistrate (Ex. D-3).This child witness has not stated that he disclosed about witnessing of the incident to the witnesses Mangilal, Bherulal and Bajesingh.Karansingh (P.W. 7) is the brother of Kamal (P.W. 6) who has stated that Kamal informed him about assault given by appellant Jagannath to deceased Mangilal by lathi.On this information, he himself and Kamal reached at the rivulet and saw the deceased lying there in injured condition.At that time, the brother of deceased named Kamal and father Bherusingh also reached over there to whom, the witness Kamal had disclosed about the incident.This statement of Karansingh (P. W. 7) is not admissible in evidence because Kamal (P.W. 6) has nowhere stated that he disclosed about the incident to Kalu (P.W. 3) and Bhimsingh (P.W. 10).According to Kamal (P. W. 6), the deceased was assaulted by Ballam, but his brother Karansingh (P.W. 7) has stated that Kamal (P.W. 6) disclosed before him about use of lathi.This is also the important and material contradiction in the statements of both the witnesses.This material variance between the medical evidence and ocular account of child-witness (P.W. 6) can not be marginalised and blinked away.The learned Trial Court, to explain this ambiguity in the prosecution case, has placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Aharmaya v. State of Gujrat (AIR 1992 SC 2155).We have carefully gone through this judgment and we find that the same is not covering this question of conflict between medical and ocular evidence.The solitary child eye-witness who was tutored and was read-over his earlier statement before entering the witness box and his testimony is contradicted by medical evidence regarding weapon used by the appellant and cause of death, we feel, it would be hazardous to place reliance on the testimony of such witness.Excluding the statement of child-witness Kamal (P.W. 6), there is no other substantial evidence available on record to connect the appellant.For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,560,822 |
2207/2019 Page 1 of 10In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant alleged that on 04.03.2019 one person namely Jamuna Prasad (petitioner No. 2 herein) alongwith Manju Singh (petitioner No. 1 herein) whom Jamuna Prasad introduced as his wife came to the complainant for taking first floor of his property bearing No. J-21/41, East Vinod Nagar, Kalyanpuri, Delhi on rent.They agreed to pay Rs. 16,000/- per month as rent.On 06.03.2019, Manju Singh (petitioner No. 1 herein) only paid a sum of Rs. 2100/- in cash as booking amount to the complainant with the assurance that she would pay the balance amount in a week's time and started living in the property.It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 never paid the agreed amount of rent nor came forward to execute the rent agreement and for their police verification despite several requests by the complainant.However, they started claiming to have paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant towards the purchase of the property in question.It is further alleged that Manju Singh (petitioner No. 1 herein) filed a false civil suit in the Karkardooma Court stating therein that she had paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as part sales consideration amount for the property.The complainant lodged complaints dated 11.05.2019, 22.06.2019 and 28.06.2019 with the local police who did not register the FIR.On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that during investigation notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C was served to the petitioners to provide the documentary proof and the transaction details of the alleged amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- paid to the complainant but petitioner No. 1 Manju Singh could not provide any documentary proof of the alleged payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant.It is further argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the petitioners are not joining the investigation and evading their arrest and are absconding, so on 28.09.2019 NBWs were got issued against them and raids were conducted on 6.10.2019, 11.10.2019, 12.09.2019 and 14.09.2019 to arrest them but they are concealing themselves.This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 339/2019 dated 21.07.2019 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri, East District, Delhi.Bail Appln.Thereafter on the orders passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 2 of 10 moved by the complainant, the present FIR U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC was registered.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 2 of 10It is argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are baseless and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.He further argued that petitioner No. 1 Manju Singh is living in property No. J-21, First Floor, East Vinod Nagar as she had purchased the said property for a consideration of Rs. 39,80,000/- and had paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money in the presence of two witnesses.He further argued that the deal could not be materialized as the complainant failed to hand over the documents of the property, so petitioner No. 1 failed to avail the loan for the balance payment.It is further argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that Manju Singh (petitioner No. 1 herein) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the complainant with consequential relief of permanent injunction.It is further urged by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the possession of the petitioner No. 1 in the suit property stands admitted by the complainant before the Civil Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 3 of 10 Court and the Ld.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 3 of 10He further argued that the controversy in the FIR is of civil nature and meant to circumvent the Civil Court proceedings.It is further urged by the Ld. APP for the state that on 16.10.2019, proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 4 of 10 have been initiated against the petitioners.Apart from this, it is also submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that in the instant case one of the co-accused Sheela Jha @ Anita Jha is a habitual complainant and an extortionist and she had got several cases of rape and molestation registered against several persons and after extorting money from them, got the cases settled.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 4 of 10APP for the state assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant also submitted that the petitioners claims to have been residing in the property in question since August 2018 in the said civil suit filed by petitioner No. 1 Manju Singh after entering into oral agreement to sell through her husband Rai Saheb Singh but the same is false as one Karan Singh resided in the premises in question from July, 2018 to December, 2018 as tenant and same has even been verified by the investigating agency and a rent agreement exist to that effect between the complainant and Karan Singh.It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 claimed to have entered into sale transaction with the complainant through her husband Rai Saheb Singh but during the course of argument in the bail application before the session court, petitioner No. 1 submitted that Rai Saheb Singh expired in the year 2006 which falsify the stand of petitioner No.1 to have entered into sale transaction.He further submitted that there exist a rent Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 5 of 10 agreement dated 29 December, 2018 between petitioner No. 1 Manju Singh and one Pushpa Aggarwal and the said agreement has been witnessed by Rai Sahab Singh but as per the petitioner No. 1 the said Rai Sahab Singh had expired in the year 2006 itself.So who impersonated to be Rai Sahab Singh while executing rent agreement with Pushpa Aggarwal requires custodial interrogation.He further urged that a similar complaint has also been made by one Rewati Raman Singh against the petitioners on 14.07.2018 to the SHO Kalyanpuri.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 5 of 10APP for the state assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant further submitted that petitioners are associated with the gang of cheaters which is headed by co-accused Anita Jha @ Sheela who is a habitual complainant and an extortionist and had got several cases of rape and molestation registered against innocent people and on later stage most of the cases were withdrawn and not pursued by her.It is further submitted that co-accused Anit Jha @ Sheela is regularly threatening the complainant and his relatives of false implication in NDPS case and a complaint dated 05/08/2019 to that effect has been filed by the complainant.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 6 of 10I have heard the arguments of both the sides at length and perused the records of the case.As far as the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 has obtained stay from her dispossession in the civil suit filed by her in regard to the property in question has no force, since the purpose of granting the stay is only to preserve the property in question till the pendency of the suit and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.According to the prosecution the petitioners in connivance with each other have prepared the forged and fabricated documents in respect of the property in question which are yet to be recovered and the petitioners are not joining the investigation and are not available at their given addresses.According to the petitioner No. 1 an oral agreement to sell and purchase was entered into between petitioner No. 1 and complainant for the sale of the property in question for a sum of Rs. 39,80,000/- out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- have been paid by her to the complainant but the investigation has revealed that the petitioner No. 1 has failed to produce before the IO any document and transaction details in regard to the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant.The record reveals that no date and time has been mentioned about the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant.It is also evident from the records of this case that Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 7 of 10 the petitioner No. 1 has not even once served a legal notice to the complainant for the Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell as alleged by her so the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that this is a civil dispute has no force, otherwise, the petitioner No. 1 would have called upon the complainant to perform his part of the contract i.e. executing the sale deed as per the alleged oral agreement to sell.Even petitioner No. 1 is totally silent in regard to the terms of the oral agreement to sell.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 7 of 10The petitioners claims to have entered into the property in question on 01.08.2018 but the complainant has filed on record a rent agreement dated 08.08.2018 to show that one Karan Singh resided in the premises in question from July 2018 to December, 2018 as tenant which has been verified by the IO.In support of his contention that the petitioners were not in possession of the property in question and the same remained vacant from December 2018 to March 2019, the complainant filed electricity bills to show the extent of consumption of electricity in the property in question.The perusal of these electricity bills shows that the consumption is very less for the months January, 2019 to March 2019, and in my opinion, it is not possible for someone to occupy the property without using the electricity for such a long period.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 8 of 10It has also come in the investigation that the modus operandi of the petitioners and their co-accused Anita Jha is to grab the property of innocent persons by registering false cases against them and settle the matter after taking money from them.Both the petitioners are not joining the investigation; they are evading their arrest; as per the status report filed by the state proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C have been initiated against them; forged documents are to be recovered; investigations are to be made in regard to the payment of Rs. 10,000,00/- made by the petitioner No. 1 to the complainant and who has been impersonating as Rai Sahab Singh whom the petitioner No. 1 claims to be her husband is also to be unearth.Therefore, in the Bail Appln.The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 9 of 10Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2019 Sumant Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 10 of 10Bail Appln.2207/2019 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,563,850 |
In-laws are characterized to be out-laws for perpetrating terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home.Page 1 of 40Present is another case of unnatural death of a young lady within one year of her marriage.She was harassed on account of dowry and ultimately was burnt.A DD No.11A was recorded at police station.An information was given to SI Prabhu Dayal.On receipt of DD No.11A, he visited the house of injured from where he received another DD No.18A stating therein that injured has already been admitted to Safdarjung Hospital.Therefore, he reached Burn Ward along with Constable Jaipal and collected MLC of Kiran, W/o Rajesh.SI Prabhu Dayal inquired from the doctor about the condition of the injured who declared her unfit for statement.The Investigating Officer came to know about the factum of marriage within a period of seven years.Statement of injured was recorded Crl.A.223.2003 Page 2 of 40 by learned SDM who made her endorsement and directed registration of the case.The investigation of the case was referred to SI Prabhu Dayal who went at the spot, prepared the site plan Ex.PW12A and searched the accused persons.The Investigating Officer recovered one bottle, prepared its pullanda and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C and deposited in the Malkhana.Another DD No. 17A was received regarding death of the injured.The SDM was accordingly informed about the death of Kiran.Post Mortem on the dead body was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.i) Cut down wound was present on lower end of left leg.ii) dermepidermal burns superficial to deep infected in nature present all over the body on face, front of chest, back of chest, patches on eyes, about 50% burns were found.Thick purulent discharge was seen on face and front of the chest.There were burnt sign on face.A.223.2003 Page 14 of 40 Internal Examination Scalp, skull and brain: No effusion of blood was in scalp, skull vault and base were normal.Brain was congested.Neck & thorax: Trachea/neck structures were intact.Chest vault was normal, lungs showed patchy consolidation changes, heart was normal.Page 14 of 40Coming to the next essential ingredient that Kiran was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of her husband and this harassment was in connection with demand of dowry, the deceased was the best person to depose about these facts.Her statement was recorded by Ms. Varsha Joshi on 27 th October, 1999 who was posted as SDM Najafgarh at the relevant time.The Crl.It reads as follows:-Page 15 of 40is burnt and She is on oxygen mask).She obtained right thumb impression of Kiran on the statement as upper portion of her body was burnt and she was unable to sign.In pursuance to specific question that when she put a question to Kiran "Kisliye paise maang rahe the?", she replied "mera gharwala..." and thereafter she mentioned in Bracket that not decipherable further because her face is burnt and she is on oxygen mask and that whether she took fresh permission from the doctor to record her further statement, she stated that after few words she took rest and then spoke, therefore, she did not take further permission to record her statement.When the statement was recorded, none from the family of the deceased was present because the SDM deposed that parents or relatives of the deceased did not meet her in the hospital.As reflected from the judgment, PW-1 Shanti Devi, is the mother of the deceased Kiran and it has come in her deposition that at the time of marriage of her daughter on 13 th December, 1998 with Rajesh, sufficient dowry was given, however, she was continuously harassed for insufficient dowry by her husband and mother-in-law.The demand was so excessively raised that her daughter was not Crl.A.223.2003 Page 25 of 40 allowed to live continuously for five months in the matrimonial home.31. PW-5 Laxmi Chand is the uncle of the deceased who was informed that mother-in-law and husband of deceased have demanded Rs.50,000/- otherwise they would kill her.He visited the matrimonial home of the deceased and requested them not to torture her.He further deposed that on 25th October, 1999 in his presence, Kiran was given beatings and was turned out and was asked to bring Rs.50,000/-.With great persuasion, he left Kiran in her matrimonial home.On the next morning the news of her burning was given to him.He also proved letters written by deceased to him which are Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C. In cross-examination it had come that all the relatives had helped in the marriage of Kiran as her father had already expired.He Crl.Besides that, it was also written that there was persistent demand of Rs.10,000/- from her.She was turned out of the kitchen by her mother-in-law several times.A.223.2003 Page 27 of 40 her in-laws were demanding money.She was harassed so much by beating and abusing that she was unable to bear any further.She was threatened that her family members will be liquidated.Similar facts were mentioned in letter Ex.PW5/C written by Kiran to her sister.Under the circumstances, the statement of the deceased that she was being harassed and was treated with cruelty and there was demand of Rs.50,000/-, due to non fulfilment of which, she was set on fire find corroboration from the ocular testimony of witnesses coupled with the letters written by the deceased.A.223.2003 Page 29 of 40 She went to her parents house.She was pacified and was asked to go back to her husbands house.Even at that time, she was telling that she would be killed if she goes there.However, he along with his father Laxmi Chand, brother Rakesh, Shanti Devi, Murti Devi and Mahavir went to the house of Rajesh and took Kiran with them.In their presence also Kiran was beaten, however, they requested not to turn Kiran out of the house but they were not agreeable to keep Kiran with them.In view of the discussion made above, prosecution was able to prove that the death of Kiran had occurred within seven years of her marriage.It was an unnatural death.It has also come on record that Crl.A.223.2003 Page 30 of 40 at the time of marriage, dowry was given according to the capacity of her mother.Assistance was rendered by other relatives also as her father had already died.However, immediately after the marriage, harassment started with the result that the deceased had to move in her parents house for a period of 4-5 months and she was thereafter sent back.On 25th October, 1999, again she was sent in order to bring Rs.50,000/-.However, her relatives brought her back to her matrimonial home.Even at that time, she was reluctant to come back and had informed them that in case she would be sent back, the accused persons would kill her but her relatives took her to her matrimonial home and left her there.Ultimately on the very next day, she was set on fire by her mother-in-law.Under the circumstances, the definite conclusion can be drawn that there was evidence of torture to the deceased, immediately preceding her death on account of dowry.Page 30 of 40A.223.2003 Page 34 of 40 afterthought.Moreover, he was close relative of the accused persons.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.A bride leaves the parental home to the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories there, with a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her grooms house.She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood.She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a daughter in fact.Alas! The alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for Crl. A.223.2003 Page 1 of 40 dowry shatters the dreams.Therefore, he informed SDM on 27th October, 1999 for recording the statement of Kiran.On 8th November, 1999, accused Rajesh was arrested.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court.Page 2 of 40Since offence under Section 304B IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, as such, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Charge for offence under Section 498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC was framed against both the accused.An alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC was also framed against them.A.223.2003 Page 3 of 40 Another charge under Section 201 IPC was also framed.Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.Page 3 of 40In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses.Both the accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of prosecution and pleaded their innocence.In support of their defence, they examined three witnesses.Vide order dated 22nd February, 2003, it was observed that charge under Section 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC was not made out, however both the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 498A/ 304B r/w Section 34 IPC.Vide order dated 11th March, 2003, both the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 498A IPC and a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months.They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence under Section 304B IPC.Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently.They were also granted benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the present appeal has been preferred.A.223.2003 Page 4 of 40Page 4 of 40I have heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Fizani Hussain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.Much stress was laid on the history given by the deceased herself to the doctor when she was brought to the hospital wherein she gave the history of sustaining burn injuries after quarrel with her husband by pouring kerosene oil on herself resulting into burn injuries.It was submitted that this history given by the deceased to the doctor was first in point and is to be treated as her dying declaration which has not been considered at all by learned Trial Court.As regards, the second dying declaration recorded by learned SDM, it was submitted that the statement had been recorded by the doctor without obtaining any certificate of fitness from the doctor.As regards the fitness certificate given by the doctor on 27th October, 1999 on the application moved by the Investigating Officer of the case, it was stressed that the date and time is in different hands.As such, it casts Crl.A.223.2003 Page 5 of 40 doubt as to whether any certificate of fitness was given by the doctor or not.Moreover, by referring to the dying declaration recorded by the SDM, reference was made to a question where the deceased could not complete her answer and, therefore, it was submitted that no certificate of fitness was obtained for recording her further statement.Moreover, as per the testimony of SDM, she recorded statement of the deceased at 2 p.m. As per the application, the deceased was declared fit for statement at 1:50 p.m. It was impossible for the SDM to reach within 10 minutes from Najafgarh to Safdarjung Hospital in order to record statement of the deceased.A.223.2003 Page 6 of 40 there was Kuan Poojan at his house on 25th October, 1999 in Haryana and accused Rajesh and the deceased along with other family members had come to his house to attend the function.That being so, since the deceased was not even present in Delhi, there was no question of any demand or her visiting her parents house.As such, it was submitted that prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused are entitled to be acquitted.Page 5 of 40Page 6 of 40On the other hand, leaned Public Prosecutor referred to the dying declaration made by the deceased before the SDM regarding harassment to her and demand of Rs.50,000/- on which account she was burnt.She also referred to the testimony of other witnesses and the letters written by the deceased regarding continuous harassment meted out to her.It was submitted that order is a reasoned one and does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for any interference.I have given my anxious thoughts to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.These provisions deal with two distinct offences.The term dowry in sec.304B has the same meaning as in sec.According to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (PW3), on 26th October, 1999, Kiran was brought by her mother-in-law Bhateri Devi with history of sustaining burn injuries by pouring kerosene oil over herself resulting into burn injuries.She died on 31st October, 1999 in Safdarjung Hospital.Post- Mortem on the dead body of Smt. Kiran was conducted by Dr. Arvind (PW4), who gave his report Ex. PW4/A. As per report, following injuries were found on the person of Kiran:-"External examinationAbdomen and pelvis: Stomach was empty.All visceras were congested.Bladder/pelvis was normal, uterus was empty.A.223.2003 Page 15 of 40 SDM recorded the statement of the deceased in question- answer form.My husband took loan from my uncle Laxmi.He was demanding money for returning the loan.It has come in the statement of the SDM that on receipt of telephonic information from the Investigating Officer of the case that Kiran has been declared fit for statement, she reached hospital and Crl.A.223.2003 Page 16 of 40 recorded statement of Kiran, Ex.PW11/A at 2:00 p.m. She ascertained the fitness from the doctor and thereafter recorded her statement in Burn-Ward.According to her, she did not get the statement attested from the doctor because same was not the practice.She denied that she recorded the statement of Kiran without permission of the doctor.The factum of taking permission of the doctor and fitness was mentioned by her in the brief facts Ex.PW11/E which she put up for post-mortem Crl.A.223.2003 Page 17 of 40 along with inquest papers.There is no reason to cast any doubt upon the statement recorded by a totally independent person, i.e., the SDM.All due precautions were taken by her after ensuring that the witness was fit to make statement.She was cross-examined at length but nothing fruitful could be extracted from her statement which would show that Dying Declaration was tainted one.Her statement was recorded in question-answer form.The mere fact that certification of doctor was not taken on the statement is of no consequence, inasmuch as, certification by doctor is only a rule of caution and the absence of certificate of fitness by the doctor would not be sufficient to discard the dying declaration.There is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that after having been declared fit for statement at 1.50 p.m, the SDM could not have reached the hospital to record her statement at 2 p.m because there is nothing on record as to where SDM was at that time when she received information about Kiran having been declared fit for statement.(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy itself whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion.But where the eyewitness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail.vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 12 SCC 285 was also a case where injured had told the doctor who prepared the case history that she had set herself on fire.On facts, it was found that the whole record was made subsequently by the doctor who was making repeated entries with regard to previous history at different stages.As such, this statement was not relied upon and conviction was based on subsequent dying declaration wherein deceased had named the appellants.The fact that the patient was brought to the hospital by her mother-in- law Bhateri Devi finds corroboration from the testimony of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar who prepared MLC Ex.PW3/A of Kiran.Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was burnt by her mother-in-law only, who made her to sit in the house for three hours and thereafter it was she who accompanied her to the hospital, therefore, possibility of tutoring her to give such a history cannot be ruled out.A.223.2003 Page 26 of 40 further deposed that 50 sarees and 50 karwas were demanded by the accused persons besides Rs.50,000/- on 25th October, 1999 on the occasion of "Karva Chowth" and she was thrown out of the house.He persuaded the in-laws of the deceased to keep her.Page 26 of 4032. PW-6 Suresh, cousin brother of the deceased, PW-9 Mahavir and PW-10 Mahinder, brothers of the deceased have also deposed regarding the harassment and cruelty meted out to Kiran on the point of demand of Rs.50,000/-. PW-10, Mahender also identified three letters written by his sister Kiran vide Ex.PW-5/A to Ex.PW-5/C. He also brought letters Ex.Although the letters are not available on record but in para-20 of the judgment, it is recorded that in letter Ex.PW5/A the deceased has mentioned as to how she was treated inside her matrimonial home by her mother-in- law and brother-in-law.They were calling her by the name of Natni, dayan, Kangli etc. She was beaten several times by her mother-in- law and sister-in-law.In letter Ex.PW5/B, she disclosed that her mother spent sufficient amount on her marriage still Crl.However, they left Kiran over there and next day, the untoward incident had taken place.Once prosecution has been able to establish aforesaid ingredients, the presumption against the accused arises as enjoined under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Of course, it is rebuttable presumption, but onus lies on the accused to discharge it.A.223.2003 Page 31 of 40Page 31 of 40The appellants examined three witnesses in their defence.DW- 1 Ashok Kumar who was the mediator in the marriage of Rajesh with Kiran.According to this witness, there was no talks of dowry demand in this marriage.He never heard anything adverse regarding the marriage.No complaint was made by the brothers of the deceased to him.In cross-examination, the witness could not say if on 25th October, 1999 Kiran went to her mother and told that accused and his mother were demanding Rs.50,000/- from her, otherwise they would kill her.DW-3 Ram Chander is the neighbour of the accused who used to supply milk to him.According to him, he never heard that there was any quarrel between the accused persons.It may be mentioned that such type of demands or harassment normally takes place within four corners of the house.Even the parents or relatives of the girl do not come to know about these facts unless they are informed either by the girl herself or demand is made directly from them.That being so, possibility of these facts coming to the knowledge of neighbours is very remote.In Hiralal & Ors.Vs State (Govt of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, Honble Apex Court observed that crimes that led to dowry deaths Crl.A.223.2003 Page 32 of 40 are almost invariably committed within the safe precincts of a residential house.The criminal is a member of the family, other members of the family are either guilty associates in crime or silent but conniving witnesses to it.Similar plea was taken in Randhir Singh Vs.Great stress was laid on the victims statement having no family discords before a person, however, close he or she may be.Merely because the deceased had not told close friends about the demand of dowry or harassment that does not positively prove the absence of demand dowry.The said circumstances had to be weighed along with the evidence regarding demand of dowry.It the evidence regarding demand of dowry is established, is cogent and reliable merely because the victim had not stated before some persons about the harassment or torture that would be really of no consequence."By examining DW-2 Kapur Chand, the appellants have tried to take a plea of alibi, inasmuch as, this witness has deposed that sister of accused Rajesh was married with him.On 25th October, 1999, there was Kuan Poojan at his house in Haryana on the occasion of the birth of his son.Accused Rajesh, his wife Kiran and wife of Jai Bhagwan attended the function in Haryana.While deceased Kiran and wife of Jai Bhagwan returned back to Delhi on the same day, accused Rajesh stayed back as he wanted to purchase a buffalo.It was rightly observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge that by examining this witness, appellant Rajesh has tried to take the plea of alibi.As regards Section 302 IPC, it is not required to dwell on this aspect since State has not preferred any appeal in this regard.As such, there is no infirmity in the order dated 22nd February, 2003 which calls for any interference.Coming to the quantum of sentence, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has almost served half of the sentence.That being so, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant for releasing the Crl.A.223.2003 Page 39 of 40 appellants on the period already undergone is against the letter and spirit of the Act. The punishment imposed upon the appellants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, even otherwise, cannot be termed to be too harsh which warrants any interference.Page 39 of 40
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,567,423 |
So far as the first question is concerned, there is no much dispute with regard to the nature of death of the deceased which was suicidal.Apart from it, Investigating Officer Arvind Kumar Kujur (PW-11) and the witnesses of Naksha Panchayatnama Ex.P/3, Ganga Prasad (PW-4), Babulal (PW-6) and Munna (PW-7) have stated that the death of the deceased Raniya was taken place on 7.8.2000 and the cause of death was consumption of some poisonous substance.Lateron, the dead body was sent to the hospital for conducting autopsy.(Delivered on 6th day of April, 2017) The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in S.T. No.135/2000 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- each and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.200/- each, respectively, with default sentence as stipulated in the judgment.In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that on 24.3.1999 Sitaram, father of the deceased Raniya Bai, received information about illness of the deceased.Thereafter, he along with his wife Asha Bai went to village Sapta and got information about the death of the deceased on account of consuming poison.Thereafter, during the enquiry of merg no. 12/99, Sitaram, father of the deceased informed the police of Police station Beohari, District Shahdol, alleging that the marriage of his daughter Raniya Bai (the deceased) was solemnized with the appellant no.1 prior to six years from the date of the incident.After three years of her marriage, Gauna was done and thereafter, the deceased lived at her in-laws house.Whenever the deceased came to her parents house, she used to make complaint that the appellants were making demand of T.V., Fan, Watch, Cycle and Rs.10,000/- from her and also about cruel treatment by her in-laws for fulfilling the said demand.She also complained that the appellants and other co-accused persons threatened her that if the demand was not fulfilled, she would be ousted from in- laws house.Lastly when the deceased went to her in- laws house, she told to her parents that if the demand was not fulfilled, she would not be spared alive by the appellants and other co-accused persons.On the basis of aforesaid report, a merg no. 12/99 was registered and after merg inquiry, crime no. 98/99 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 304-B of the IPC against the accused persons including the present appellants.After investigation was over, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the JMFC concerned who on its turn committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.The learned trial court on appreciation of entire evidence and material on record acquitted the co-accused Damri and Krishnadevi of the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 of the IPC and also acquitted the present appellants of the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC giving the benefit of doubt as the prosecution could not prove that the death of the deceased was taken place within seven years of her marriage.But the trial court found the appellants / accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC and by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced them.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the finding of the learned trial court is contrary to law.On record there is no reliable and plausible evidence to establish the charges against the appellants and on similar evidence; other co-accused persons have been acquitted.Hence, prayer is made to allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.Learned PL appearing for the respondent / State has argued in support of the impugned judgment and stated that the finding of conviction and sentence of the learned trial court is in accordance with law.Hence, the appeal be dismissed.Having considered the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the record, following questions emerge for consideration of this appeal :-(iii) Whether the appellants abetted the deceased to commit suicide?Dr. R. S. Pandey (PW-9) who conducted postmortem of the deceased has stated that on 25.3.1999 the dead body was examined by him and he opined that on account of taking some poisonous substance, the death was taken place.Postmortem report Ex.P/11 was prepared and viscera was preserved and the same was handed over to the police and thereafter, it was sent for chemical examination to FSL.As per the chemical examination report of FSL Ex.P/28, in the viscera, poisonous aluminum phosphate was found present.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence.Hence, it is found to be proved that the death of the deceased was taken place on account of committing suicide by her.So far as the questions no. 2 and 3 are concerned, on perusal of the record, it is found that in this case, there is no eye witness with regard to disclosing the fact of commission of cruelty with the deceased by the appellants.Only the parents of the deceased have disclosed that before death, when the deceased came to their house, she narrated the aforesaid facts.In this regard, the father of the deceased, Sitaram (PW-1) has stated in his statement that at once, her daughter / deceased said that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband asked her that T. V., Transistor, Fan and Rs.10,000/- were not given in dowry and on that account, they tortured her.Besides it, there is nothing in the statement of Sitaram (PW-1) which can be considered to be relevant with regard to the aforesaid facts.Asha Bai (PW-2) has stated in her statement that her daughter / the deceased said to her that her father-in-law and his both wives (her mother-in-laws) and her husband had demanded cycle, T. V., Fan, Transistor and Rs.10,000/- in dowry and in this regard, father in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the deceased used to abuse and beat her.In the last time, when the deceased Raniya came to her parental house, her mother-in-law and husband came to take her back with them but she refused to send her with them.Even they assured that they would not torture and harass the deceased and items of the dowry could be given as per her convenience.But after persistent efforts having been made by in-laws and husband of the deceased, 10 days prior to the incident, the deceased was sent with the appellant no. 1 who is husband of the deceased.Before sending the deceased with the appellant no. 1, the facts of demanding dowry and harassment were brought into the notice of two four neighbours but neither the names of them have been disclosed nor anyone of them has been examined.Ramayan Prasad (PW-5) who is brother of the deceased has stated in his statement that her sister (the deceased) had never disclosed the fact that in her in-laws house, she was harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry.Now, it is to be seen that whether the aforesaid evidence is reliable or sufficient to prove the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by her in-laws or they abetted for committing suicide to the deceased.The statement of Sitaram (PW-1) with regard to demand of dowry and harassment to her daughter / the deceased Raniya Bai, is not specific as no date, time, particular of the incident and the manner have been disclosed.He has also stated that he had never disclosed this fact to any other person before the death of the deceased.He has further stated that on the date of incident he went with her wife to the house of the appellants where the police were present and he and her wife informed the police with regard to the fact that her daughter was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and also stated that the police recorded the report which was lodged by his nephew Ramkishore.But, the Investigating Officer, Arvind Kumar Kujur (PW-11) has denied the aforesaid fact and stated that the parents and other relatives of the deceased had not made any report with regard to commission of the aforesaid cruelty by the appellants or other in-laws.When their statements were taken on 29.3.1999 they had disclosed the aforesaid facts.Sitaram (PW-1) has not stated that when the deceased was lastly sent to her in-laws house, any discussion was taken place before it with the husband or mother-in-law of the deceased or anything was disclosed to the neighbours before sending the deceased to her in-laws house.In this regard the statements of Sitaram (PW-1) and her wife Asha Bai (PW-2) are contradictory to each other.Apart from it, Asha Bai (PW-2) the mother of the deceased, has also disclosed that in-laws of the deceased had not demanded dowry.She herself interested to give some items in the dowry.When she disclosed her desire, the in-laws of the deceased asked her and compelled her to bring the dowry items from her parents.She has given general statement and she has also claimed that on the date of death, she disclosed all the facts to the police.But, as earlier stated, Investigating Officer, Arvind Kumar Kujur (PW-11) has denied the aforesaid fact.Asha Bai (PW-2) has also stated that she had made promise to give dowry items but the deceased died.Therefore, she and her husband were displeased and in anger with the in-laws and husband of the deceased and therefore, they stated against the in-laws and husband of the deceased.It is clear that the aforesaid evidence is not believable and sufficient to establish the fact that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry as the statements of the parents of the deceased are not trustworthy and cannot be considered to be reliable beyond reasonable doubt as they are full of contradictions, exaggerations and imprudent behavior and the statements have not been corroborated from any other independent source.The circumstance of non-disclosure of the fact to the police on the same day also makes the statements highly doubtful.Though depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide.However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned.In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that in this case, the evidence with regard to prove the necessary ingredients for commission of offence under sec.306 IPC for abetment to commit suicide has not been brought before the court and in such circumstances, the conviction of the appellants as awarded by the trial court for commission of the offence is contrary to law.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,573,027 |
The grievance of the petitioner is that the vehicle, Fire Brigade, bearing No. MP-47 L-0120 allegedly was driving by Bhadu Kumar sh caused the accident, because of which, Gurmeet Singh, the rider of e motorcycle collided and as a result of which, he passed away.ad Therefore, Crime No. 249/2016 was registered before Police Station, Pr Harda on 07.04.2016 for offence under Section 304-A of the IPC.The police filed charge-sheet and charges have been framed against Bhadu a hy Kumar.Subsequently, for the same Crime, another FIR has been lodged on 07.04.2016 against the present applicant Sharif and after ad investigation chargesheet has been filed for offence under Section 3-A M of the IPC.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,996,749 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State.In crime No.1109/2018 for offence punishable under sections 376-D, 384, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Baramati City police station, District Pune, the applicants are seeking regular bail.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 21:55:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 21:55:35 :::2 905) ba691-19.docHaving perused the investigation papers, what isnoticed is, the allegations are not supported by the medicalevidence.The niece of applicant No.2 lodged a complaint onApril 28, 2017 resulting into registration of crime no.285/2017 foroffence punishable under sections 376, 506 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the Protection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) Baramati Citypolice station, District Pune and the son of the complainant isclaimed to have obtained regular bail by mis-representation andproceedings for cancellation of his bail is pending before thisCourt.In the aforesaid background, acase for grant of bail is made out.Hence the order :-i) The applicants be released on bail in Crime No.1109/2018 for offence punishable under sections 376-D, 384, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code registered with ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 21:55:35 ::: 3 905) ba691-19.doc Baramati City police station, District Pune upon furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties each in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 21:55:35 :::ii) The applicants shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;iii) The application stands disposed of accordingly.(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 21:55:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 21:55:35 :::
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,249,985 |
The deceased, Arunbhai and Popatbhai Manilal, Jayantibhai Manilal and Ishwarbhai Manilal were 1 residents of Bapalal Ghanchi's Chawl, Chamanpura, Ahmedabad.Champaben Govindbhai Patni, the complainant, the mother of the deceased, was married to Govindbhai, who was at the material time working in Mumbai.They have three sons and three daughters, the deceased Arunbhai, being the eldest of the sons.The deceased, a rickshaw- puller by profession, was married 10 years back to Madhuben.She is the daughter of Chamanbhai Popatbhai, the uncle of the accused persons.But at the time of the incident Madhuben was not staying in the family of the deceased.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.6.1999, around 9.00 p.m., the deceased Arun was sleeping on a cot on the Otla (extended balcony) of the house after his supper.Accused No. 1, Popat was walking past by him when the leg of the deceased, which was dangling from the cot, touched him.At that the Accused no. 1 started abusing the deceased to which he protested and a scuffle ensued and in the process they reached the entrance of the chawl.The complainant, who 2 was inside the house heard the noise and came outto see that the two were quarrelling.So she toldher son not to quarrel and took him aside.Accused No. 1 Popat went to his house.Aftersometime, all the three accused came to the placeof occurrence, armed with weapons.Accused No. 1had a gupti (a long double edged knife) in hishand; Accused No. 2 Jayanti was armed with a pipewhile the Accused No. 3 Ishwar was holding aDhoka (a wooden log, used for cleaning clothes).At that time, the deceased Arun was standingalong with his sister Meghna (PW 4) and theAccused No. 1 caught hold of her.The deceasedtold him to let his sister go as the quarrel wasbetween the two of them.At that point of time,the Accused No.1 hit the deceased with the gupti,first on the chest and then on the stomach.TheAccused No. 2 hit the deceased on the chest withthe pipe and Accused No. 3 hit him with thedhoka.The deceased thus received several blowsall over the body.The deceased fell on the ground in front of his house thereupon all the three accused ran away from the place.The deceased was taken to the hospital by Champaben, her husband's sister Dadamben and her nephew, Vijay where he was examined and declared dead.A post-mortem examination was conducted, after which the complainant brought the dead body home.The police came to her house and her complaint was recorded.The complaint (Ex. 50) and the Report (Ex. 51) were sent to the police station to register the offence.PW 12 also recorded the statements of PW 4 and PW 5 on the same date.He also recorded statements of the relatives of the deceased and the other people present at the scene of incident.He made panchnama of the place of incident and also seized some pieces of bricks from there.PW 12 4 then went to the civil hospital where the deceased had been taken and made inquest panchnama of the dead body.The blood stained clothes and a sample bottle of blood of the deceased was brought to the police station by P.C. Maheshbhai Maganbhai and was seized under a panchnama (Ex.25).On 19.6.99, the accused persons were brought to the police station at 1.00 a.m. and their panchnama was made.The blood stained clothes of the Accused No. 2 was also seized and a panchnama was made.Since the police felt that there was enough evidence against them, the three accused were arrested at 2.30 a.m. on 20.6.1999 and were interrogated.The day after their arrest, at the behest of Accused No. 2, the police found the weapons of offence which were hidden in the mailia (loft).The police as well as Accused No. 2 went to their house, broke the lock and recovered a wooden dhoka, an iron pipe and a gupti which were seized 5 and panchnamas prepared.The accused were charged for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as IPC herein after) and in the alternative, under Sections 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC.In addition, Accused No. 2 Vijaybhai was also tried for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC while the rest were tried for the said offence punishable under Section 114 of the IPC.It may be mentioned that a cross- complaint was filed by the accused persons registered at 1:25 a.m on 19.6./20.6.1999 alleging that the accused No.1 was injured during the incident.The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.The contention of the State was that there was enough evidence for conviction of the accused persons and the Trial Court ought to have believed the case of the prosecution on the basis of the evidence of the star witness Champaben which was supported by other two eye-witnesses, namely Vijay (PW 5) and Meghnaben (PW 4).Hence this SLP by the complainant ChampabenGovindbhai, the mother of the deceased.The Statesupports the complainant's appeal.Dr. Jadav found the followinginjuries on the external part of the body:-(1) 2.5 x 1 cm vertical stab wound on left side of chest to midline end.2 cm inferior to nipple plane margins of wound are out sharply and inverted.(2) 2 x 1 x 1 cm incised wound on medical and superior of Rt.elbow directed downward positively.(3) 4 x m 11 near incised wound limited to skin on Rt.lower chest lateral aspect directed downward.(4) 2.5 c.m. transverse linear incised wound limited to skin on lateral end lower abdomen.Other injury which were found because of investigation of touch, if any.Fracture of left 4th and 5th sternochondral area of ribs.On internal examination, the doctor opinedon the chest "injury goes deeply posterior upwardsand laterally in a way.It cuts skin, tissue,sterno, chondral area of left 4th and 5th ribs alongwith fractures, inter costal muscles, pericardium,medical border of it.Verticle, it measures 2 cmthen pieres through and through on posterial wallit measures 1 cm then ultimately ends at lower lobeupper part of left lung it measures 0.5 x 05 cm andcausing - Hemo Pericardium and Hemotharax in leftThoaraic cavity.Blood and clots found about 1800ml." The doctor clearly opined that the cause ofdeath is shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury onthe chest.By characterizing these injuries as notsufficient in the ordinary course to cause death,the High Court, with respect, fell into a grave 14 error and its appreciation of evidence borders onperversity.The other reason given by the High Courtto support the judgment of acquittal of the TrialCourt is that much time has elapsed between theoccurrence and filing of a complaint.The HighCourt has also come to the finding that the bloodstained clothes, weapons were not examined and thishas created a doubt about the veracity of theprosecution case.It has been repeatedly pointed out by thisCourt that just as the witnesses are related to thedeceased that is no ground to discard theirevidence.In the instant case, there are threeeye-witnesses and one of them is an injuredwitness.Their evidence cannot be discarded just 15 on the ground that they are related to thedeceased.One G.D was entered by 11:05 onthe same night which was just after a gap of about2 hours.Therefore considering normal humanconduct, this delay of about 2 hours between theoccurrence and lodging of the complaint is not afactor for discrediting the prosecution case.Afinding of acquittal on the ground of this delay isnot a reasonable exercise of jurisdiction by anAppellate Court.It also appears from the record that theweapons of offence were examined to find out thatthey had stains of human blood, in group `B'.The High Court will now hear the State'sappeal afresh.We expect, having regard to the passage oftime, High Court will try its best to dispose ofthe State's appeal as expeditiously as possible.The observationswhich have been made here are for the purpose ofdisposing of the present appeal.The High Court isat liberty to apply its mind to the evidence andmaterials available on record and come to itsindependent finding.The appeal is, thus, allowed.
|
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,249,991 |
Apart from these appellants there was a fourth accused Ramashraya on whom the charge was of instigating the other accused to commit this murder.He has been acquitted of that charge.The prosecution case was that the deceased and the accused were employees of M.P.E.B. at Chachai.The deceased was an activist of I.N.T.U.C. union and the accused were members of Janta Union.Both unions were formed by the employees of the M.P.E.B. The background of this murder was that Vipin agitated in a legal manner against the management on behalf of I.N.T.U.C. union for certain demands of the employees and also organised strike.He succeeded in getting certain demands accepted by the management.There developed an atmosphere of tension between the 2 unions on this count.In this atmosphere on the night of the incident deceased Vipin, Budhesan (P.W. 14) Badriprasad (P.W. 15) were present in the area of Chachai market to take tea.They were present near a shop known as Mewa Sweet Mart and were talking to one another.At that moment the appellants reached there and Sharda collared Vipin and others dragged him to the ground.Then all these accused attacked with knives on his chest and abdomen.The fourth accused (acquitted) was allegedly instigating them.These accused escaped after so assaulting the deceased.Witnesses Budhsen, Badri, Naresh and S.P. Shrivastava took Vipin to the M.P.E.B. hospital but within some moments he breathed his last.P.W. 14 Budhsen lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P. 11 at police post Chachai at 9.30 p.m. on 22-6-82 itself which was marked to P.S. Amlai and on that basis formal F.I.R. was recorded at P.S. Amlal on 23-6-82 at 9 a.m. The inquest (Panchnama) Ex. P-3 A was prepared by Police in the presence of the witnesses and the body was sent to autopsy surgeon for post mortem examination at primary Health Centre Dhanpuri.P.W. 1 Dr. Patel conducted the autopsy and found the following injuries :--i. One stabbed wound over posterior auxiliary fold left side, thorax -- stabbed wounds two over pericardium, two over right chest wall and these wounds were leading to puncture of thoracic cavity and Effusion of blood into thoracic cavity, over the pericardium, two stabbed wounds were present, and over the heart two stabbed wounds over left ventricle of the heart, one on the anterior surface and one on the interior surface of the left ventricle 1/2 proximal to apex.They had noticed the stabbing and they shouted 'Mardala'.JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.The appellants challenge their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 67/82 vide judgment dated 24-2-86 of Addl.Sessions Judge, Shahdol.The trial Court has found that these accused, in pursuance of their common intention, committed murder of Vipin Shrivastava on 22-6-82 at about 9 p.m. in village Chachai in the area of P.S. Amlai Distt.On this issue the other union i.e. Janta Union was feeling let down in its popularity.Over the pericardium one in the fifth intercoastal space in the left side, two inches lateral to mid line, two wounds in the third intercoastal space 2" above and medial to nipple, one in the area of sternal notch, one in the posterior auxiliary fold at lateral end of spine of scapula, one stabbed wound over the left iliac fossa.Out of all, one wound of the fifth intercoastal space over the pericardium had punctured to chest wall and produced stabbed wound at apex of the heart leading to two stabbed wounds on the left ventricle of the heart, one anterior surface and one on interior surface leading to effusion of blood and the whole thoracic cavity was filled with blood.The stabbed wound over the left iliac fossa had punctured to abdominal wall, but there was no injury to intestine.Depth of the wound 2" from the chest wall and half an inch over the abdominal wall.The injuries were found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and were caused within 24 hours of the autopsy.The doctor found the following cuts on the shirt and baniyan of the injured :-Cuts due to stab injury four in number against pericardium 2" size one at the level of left iliac fossa similarly, as were found over the body and in addition one cut was present just medial to sleeve of the shirt left side of the hand.Shape of the cuts over the baniyan were linear, and over the shirt L-shaped, three buttons of shirt were broken and separated from the shirt.Ex. P. 1 is the Doctor's report, written and signed by him.It bears the doctor's signature A to A.In the F.I.R. these appellants were named as actual assailants.From Ramsewak, a Shirt (Article A) was taken into possession and sealed.It was sent to F.S.L. and was found to be having blood stains on it.A shirt and handkerchief of Sharda were also seized but that seizure is of no consequence from the angle of evidence.The prosecution had also relied on oral dying declaration made to some witnesses.This was only narrated in evidence of Swamidin (PW 8) but did not find mention in his statement before Police.So it was rejected as a piece of reliable evidence by the trial Court.The trial Court has based its findings of the guilt of accused mainly on the eye witness account of P.W. 14 Budhsen, P.W. 15 Badri, and account of P.W. 8 Swamidin who saw the accused running away with knives when he heard shrieks of 'Mardala', and of P.W. 9 Devideen before whose shop the incident had taken place.This witness had been projected as eye-witness, but he only partly supported the prosecution case and was cross-examined by the public prosecutor.He denied having seen the stabbing or having narrated the stabbing to the police.According to him, the deceased and witnesses Budhsen and Badri had taken tea at his shop and then Sharda accused came and grappled with Vipin and so grappling, they moved towards Pan Thela and then he heard shrieks of Badri witness 'Bachao Bachao'.The prosecution had examined 17 witnesses in all.P.W. 1 Dr. Patel is the autopsy surgeon.P.W. 2 is the constable who had taken the dead body to the autopsy surgeon, P.W. 3 Vikramaditya A.S.I. who recorded formal F.I.R. at P.S. Amlai on 23-6-82 On the basis of report from P.B. Chachai, P.W. 11 is Sadhuprasad A.S.I., of Police Post Chachai who recorded the diary entry Ex. P. 11 on statement of Budhsen and sent it to P.S. Amlai.He obtained the bedhead ticket of deceased from the hospital.P.W. 4 Shrawan, P.W. 10 Ramnaresh and P.W. 16 Baldev are witnesses to Panchnama of the dead body and also to seizure of various articles from the scene of crime.P.W. 5 Chhotelal is witness to seizure of shirt (Article A) of Ramsewak.Budhsen is his brother.P.W. 6 Balkrishna is a witness of seizure of various articles i.e. blood stained earth, controlled earth, one blue button and key of cycle, one Lantern and one chain from scene of crime.P.W. 14 and P.W. 15 have supported the prosecution case that all these 3 appellants stabbed the deceased.They are eye-witnesses to the stabbing of deceased.The case of the appellants in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is of total denial.They denied their presence on the spot or their participation and alleged false implication.They examined 5 defence witnesses also.D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 are Divisional Engineers of MPEB.According to DW 1 Budhsen was on leave from 23-6-1982 to 26-6-1982 and Badriprasad was not their employee.According to DW 2 Chhotelal (PW 5) was a muster roll employee and was working on 22 and 23rd June, 1982 at Birsinghpur.DW 3 is the reader (Criminal) of the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Budhar.According to him, in the file of FIR of year 1982, there was no copy of FIR of case'No.He admitted that these copies are not entered in register after receipt and he could not say if copy of this report was received and kept somewhere.He further narrated that these appellants were accused in 2 other cases which are under trial.According to him, the case property of this case was sent to FSL vide Ex. P. 20 which does not mention about knife.He did not investigate this case at all.D.W. 5 is another Divisional Engineer at Chachai.According to him on 23-6-82 one B.P. Tiwari was on duty at Chachai as Peon and that duty timings of peons remain from 9 a.m. to 5-6 p.m. with one hour break for lunch which is not at fixed time.He proves that bead hed ticket was scribed by his wife who was also a doctor in that hospital.Whatever injuries were found on the body of Vipin were recorded by her.By the time he (this witness) reached the hospital the injured had expired.The trial Court has, on a detailed analysis of the evidence of these witnesses and surrounding circumstances, concluded that the evidence of Budhsen (PW 1.4) and Badri Prasad Tiwari (PW 15) is credible, that they were present with Vipin Kumar Shrivastava deceased and the three accused appellants attacked Vipin Kumar with knives causing his death.This act was committed by them near the sweet shop known as Mewa Sweet Mart and a 'Panthella'.Their testimony was found corroborated by medical evidence which showed the knife injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased.The presence of these witnesses at that spot was found natural and the fact that these witnesses were members of a particular union of workers namely INTUC while the accused persons were members of Janta union made no difference to the reliability of the two witnesses.The FIR corroborated the witness Budhsen.It was found that their conduct was in no way unnatural nor contradictory to their statements in Court.Their statements to Police were found to be not delayed.It was found that there was sufficient light at the spot of assault on the deceased so as to enable the witnesses to see the stabbing.Their testimony was found to be further corroborated by the testimony of Swamidin who saw the accused running away with arms from that spot when he heard the shrieks of 'Mardala', although he did not see the actual stabbing.Similar supportive evidence was found in the testimony of Devideen, Sweet Corner owner.The witness Swamidin had admitted that on hearing shrieks, he rushed to the spot and found Vipin lying injured and the accused running away.He also stated that along-with him David and Naresh Jaiswal had also rushed to that spot, but David and Naresh Jaiswal were not produced as witnesses in Court and similarly one Naresh who was running a pan-shop nearby was not examined in Court, as a witness.So this omission was pressed by the defence as an infirmity in evidence by keeping away important witnesses.The trial Court further found that non-examination of these witnesses makes no dent on the credibility of the witnesses Budhsen, Badriprasad Tiwari, Swamidin and Devideen.It is not the number of witnesses examined which matters, but the evidentiary weight of testimony of the witnesses examined.If they are truthful and reliable mere non-examination of other witnesses, of similar nature, makes no difference.At best these witnesses who were not produced might have seen the accused running away as was seen by Swamidin.So it does not make a dent in the eyewitness testimony of Budhsen and Badriprasad.The fact that Budhsen and Badriprasad did not intervene at the time of attack was not found to be derogatory to the credibility of the witnesses as there is every apprehension of they being attacked similarly.After all they were unarmed.The accused were known to the witnesses from before.The fact that there was light near the spot of the incident is also established by the site plan prepared, on an inspection of the site.It shows an electric pole about 14 metres from the spot where the body was lying.The factum of presence of light was mentioned in the FIR, being there, as well as narrated by the witnesses.The trial Court found no substance in the plea of accused that Janta union members had demonstrated against Police in the case of death of Juggu Sarangia in Police custody while INTUC union had kept quiet in that incident and so the Police was inimical to members of Janta Union (which the accused were) and so the Police has created evidence to rope them in this murder.The trial Court found that these arguments were without any substance.The so called police officers, who might have been responsible for death of Juggu Sarangi were no longer in Police station and there was no reason for them to falsely implicate these accused only.The trial Court has also found established that from the body of Ram Sewak accused, his shirt was seized by Police on the next day of incident and it was found to be stained with blood although the origin of blood had not been established.This was found as a corroborative circumstance.The trial Court has also found that the motive of the accused in killing the deceased has not been established beyond doubt although his motive has been suggested about inter union rivalry, but this absence of motive creates no weakness in the prosecution case as in criminal case, this motive remains in the mind of the accused and may not sometimes be revealed.When there are credible witnesses to the crime, absence of motive makes no difference.The trial Court has found that these 3 appellants/accused reached the spot together armed with knives, they attacked the deceased together and acted jointly in pursuance of their common intention.So they were found guilty of committing murder in furtherance of their common intention.The learned Counsel for appellant has practically raised the same points again before us as were raised before the trial Court.The main argument is that the testimony of Budhsen and Badriprasad is insufficient to base conviction of the accused persons.It is urged that the FIR is anti timed and its copy was not sent to the Magistrate as required by Section 157, Cr.P.C. soon after being recorded and so no precaution has been shown to have been taken against interpolation of timings in the recording of FIR.The fact that the witness like Swamidin spoke of dying declaration by the deceased shows that he is a false witness and although the dying declaration part has not been found credible by the trial Court, his other testimony regarding having seen the accused running away with arms has been found credible.The name of Swamidin was not in FIR.He is a member of union of the-society and so he was introduced as a witness, next day after the FIR was recorded.There was inter union dispute going on and so the witnesses are speaking out of that rivalry to implicate these accused who are leading members of Janta union.In such background, much less weight should be given to the testimony of P. Ws. who belong to rival union and their evidence has to be screened with great caution.The origin of blood on the shirt of Ram Sewak is not proved and identity of the button found at the spot with the button of the accused Sharda is also not established.The public witnesses have not supported prosecution version regarding recovery of either the button or the shirt.So the important testimony of the I.O. which has been relied upon by the trial Court, is in fact insufficient to establish these factors.The argument is that if these supporting factors are ignored, the ocular testimony of Budhsen and Badriprasad is infirm in the face of several omissions in their statements to Police in comparison to what they have stated in Court.The timing of the FIR being uncertain in these circumstances, the accused should be given benefit of doubt.We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record in the light of criticism raised by the learned Counsel for the accused.The testimony of Devideen owner of the Sweet Mart, has a great significance regarding the witnesses who were at the scene of crime.The deceased and the two witnesses Budhsen and Badriprasad had just taken tea at the stall.These witnesses belong to one trade union.So it was natural that they were together taking tea.The witness knew them.There is nothing to doubt his testimony nor any reason for him to lie in order to implicate these accused falsely.The fact of these three taking tea at the shop of sweet mart was narrated in the FIR and was narrated by the two witnesses PW 14 and PW 15 themselves.There is no challenge to this fact in cross examination also.The accused tried to show from evidence of D.W.I Doulatram that Budhsen was on leave from 23rd June to 26th June.But it is in no way suggests that Budhsen could not be present at the spot of crime along with the deceased.This incident pertains to 22-6-1982 and so the defence evidence is of no value whatsoever as it relates to different dates about these witnesses.Even in cases of murder of members of one party by members of other party in the background of inter party rivalry, the witnesses who are members of the party of the deceased could not be dubbed as unreliable partisan witnesses, if otherwise their presence at the scene of crime is natural.After all in such cases also it will be accepted that members of the same party would be together and so they should be expected to be natural witnesses to such crimes.Accordingly to Devideen, at least one of the accused namely Sharda had grappled with the deceased and soon thereafter was the shriek of 'Mardala'.The witness took the deceased to Police post and Budhsen made the report.The accused were arrested much later.The incident has been vividly described in FIR.The copy of the FIR was sent to the Magistrate next day, according to the police officer.The defence examined the reader of the Magistrate to show that no such copy of FIR exists on the record of FIRs, but it is clear that although it is for the prosecution to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 157, Cr.P.C. by sending a copy of the FIR to the area Magistrate immediately after recording it, the non-compliance of such provision will not by itself establish that FIR was not recorded at the time when it purports to have been recorded.Such a circumstance along with other suspicious circumstances may lead to cautious approach to evidence but if the circumstance is alone and there is other evidence suggesting recording of FIR in time and at the earliest, we need not decry prosecution version.In this case, the Record Keeper of the Magistrate was called as defence witness but he did not maintain any such register about the receipt of FIRs.P.W. 11 Sadhu Prasad Mishra, A.S.I., has specifically narrated that the FIR of this case was recorded at Police Post, Chachai, where Budhsen had gone and made a report to him.Copy of that daily diary entry was sent to P.S. Amlai where formal FIR was recorded.He does not know about sending of copy of FIR to Magistrate as he was not at the Police Station where formal FIR was recorded.He had spoken nothing about sending of copy of FIR to Magistrate.He is silent and no question was put to him by any side.P.W. Vikrarnaditya had scribed the FIR himself on the basis of copy received from police post Chachai.He was not questioned whether copy of it was sent to Magistrate at once or when it was sent.Even defence put on question about it.No challenge was made in his cross-examination regarding the time of recording of FIR.On scrutiny of the entire testimony of all the witnesses, there appears no doubt to us regarding time of recording this information at Police Post Chachai.This incident had occurred at Chachai at a point only about one furlong away from police post.P.W. 14 Budhsen reached the Police Post and made report immediately after the attack.So it was not unnatural that the report was made at 1 1/2 hours after the incident, at 9.30 p.m. So the argument of appellant's counsel that the FIR was ante timed and witnesses falsely introduced has rightly been rejected by trial Court.It is thus revealed that the two P. Ws. 14 and 15 were present with the deceased.There was sufficient light when the assailants attacked.There were six stab wounds found on the body of deceased.The internal organs have been respectively cut under those wounds.The trial Court has rightly found that the medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony of these eye-witnesses.The three accused are mentioned in the FIR also as the actual assailants who used knives to attack the deceased.There is no suggestion in the cross-examination of any of these witnesses that they wer e not known to the accused.Their conduct in not intervening in the attack can be well understood as self-protective as they were not armed and ordinarily a person would not face the danger of being attacked himself to protect another.That is the common mentality these days.We find from perusal of the testimony of these two witnesses that it is natural.There may be slight variations but they are of no importance and give a stamp of truth rather than untruth to their testimony in Court.As regards recovery of shirt from Ramsewak accused, it is established beyond doubt It was recovered on 23-6-1982 from his body by P.W. 5 Chhotelal.He is a brother of Budhsen witness.This recovery is further established by Sunder Singh P.W. 17 who noticed blood stains on the shirt.This is so recorded in Ex. P. 4 seizure memo also.The report of Serologist, Govt. of India, Calcutta, about this shirt which was marked as 'C' stated that it had human blood stains on it.So this is an important circumstance and remains unexplained by this accused, how human blood was present on his shirt.16A. As regards the button found near the spot of incident and button found missing from the shirt of accused who was arrested on 24-6-1982, we do not find any scientific report that the button on the shirt and the one found from the spot of incident are of the same origin or similar, in their chemical or physical properties.In the absence of such report we do not find justification for the conclusion of trial Court.So the fact that a button was lying near the scene of crime and one button from the shirt of the accused Sharda was missing, even if the buttons were of the same colour as disclosed by the I.O., is insufficient to show that the button at the spot of incident was from the shirt of the accused.As discussed earlier the evidence of P.W. 14 and P.W. 15, is corroborated by immediate FIR where the accused are named and further corroborated by the medical evidence showing large number of injuries suggesting a member of assailants and still further corroborated by the fact that the shirt of one of the accused namely Ram Sewak bore human blood stains, when it was seized from him next day after the incident and supported by evidence of Devideen (P W 9), Swamideen PW 8 (to the extent of what they saw), are sufficient to establish beyond doubt that these three accused committed this murder in a sordid attack with knives, in pursuance of their common intention.We find that the accused have rightly been convicted under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment each.We confirm the conviction as well as the sentence.The appeal is therefore dismissed.The appellants shall undergo the sentence.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,009,484 |
Limited and his father Mr. B.L. Aggarwal is the Managing Director of M/sMechfeb Engineering Industries Private Limited situated at Meghalaya andGuwahati.The respondent was associated with both the abovementioned firmsas he used to bring business from various private firms and GovernmentDepartments on commission basis.b) During the course of business, the appellant herein issued a post-dated cheque bearing No. 925504 dated 01.08.2009 drawn on StandardChartered Bank, Guwahati, for Rs. 28,62,700/- in favour of the complainant-respondent herein in order to discharge his legal enforceable liabilities.Vide letter dated 21.01.2006, the appellant informed the Branch Manager,Standard Chartered Bank, Guwahati, as well as the officer in-charge, DispurPolice Station, Guwahati regarding missing of the said cheque.Thereafter,on 28.03.2008, the appellant wrote a letter to the Standard Chartered Bankfor stop payment of the said cheque as the same was missing.c) According to the respondent, on 13.08.2009, when he presented thesame for collection through its bankers, viz., Canara Bank, Bhiwani,Haryana, it was returned unpaid on 11.09.2009 due to stop payment by theappellant.When the respondent approached the appellant about dishonour ofthe same, he was told to present the same again for collection after onemonth.d) On 11.01.2010, the respondent sent a legal notice to the appellantasking him to pay Rs. 28,62,700/- within a period of 15 days from the dateof the receipt of the notice along with the interest, failing which, heshall be liable to be prosecuted under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act.The nativevillage of the respondent, namely, village Barsana is situated in DistrictBhiwani.The respondent owns ancestral agricultural land at villageBarsana, District Bhiwani.It is also asserted that the respondent isrunning his bank account with Canara Bank, Bhiwani and is also residing atthe present address for the last about two decades.In view of the same,it is the claim of the respondent that he bonafidely presented the chequein his bank at Bhiwani which was further presented to the drawer’s Bank atGuwahati.The cheque was returned uncashed to the respondent’s bank atBhiwani with the endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”.The respondentreceived the bounced cheque back from his bank at Bhiwani.InHarman Electronics (supra), the complainant and the accused entered into abusiness transaction.The accused was a resident of Chandigarh.He carriedon the business in Chandigarh and issued a cheque in question atChandigarh.The complainant had a Branch Office at Chandigarh although hisHead Office was at Delhi.He presented the cheque given by the accused atChandigarh.The cheque was dishonoured at Chandigarh.P.Sathasivam,J.Court, where a cheque is deposited for collection, would have territorialjurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the N.I.Act”) or wouldit be only the Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the draweebank or the bank on which the cheque is drawn?3) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated31.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh inCriminal Misc.No. M-32542 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed thepetition filed by the appellant herein on the ground that it is not a fitcase for invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).e) On 05.02.2010, the appellant herein filed a complaint petition beingC.R. No. 340 of 2010 in the Court of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,Kamrup at Guwahati under Sections 379, 381,411 and 420 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (in short “the IPC”) against the respondent.On 05.03.2010, therespondent filed a complaint being C.R. No. 9 of 2010 before the Court ofJ.M.I.C., Bhiwani under Section 190 of the Code for taking cognizance ofthe offence committed by the appellant under Sections 138 and 141 of theN.I.f) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, by order dated15.06.2010, in C.R. No. 340 of 2010, issued bailable warrants against therespondent.Thereafter, on 06.08.2010, the respondent filed an applicationfor recall of the bailable warrants issued against him.Ultimately,learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide order dated 05.03.2011, acceptedthe application with the observation that the Court at Bhiwani has nojurisdiction and the complaint was returned for presentation before theproper Court having jurisdiction.g) Dissatisfied with the order dated 05.03.2011, the respondent filedCriminal Revision Petition being No. 35 of 2011 before the Court ofAdditional Sessions Judge IV, Bihwani.By order dated 12.05.2011, theAdditional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate,Bhiwani and allowed the revision.h) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed Crl.M-32542 of 2011 before the High Court.The High Court, by impugnedorder dated 31.10.2011, dismissed the petition.i) Against the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal byway of special leave before this Court.5) Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent-the complainant.On the other hand, it is the specific claimof the respondent that insofar as territorial jurisdiction of the case onhand, namely, complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act isconcerned, the decision of this Court in K. Bhasaran (supra) squarelyapplies, accordingly, the Court at Bhiwani is competent to try and disposeof the complaint filed by him.It is also pointed out that the said issuewas rightly considered and accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge,Bhiwani as well as by the High Court.7) We have already narrated the case of both the parties in thepleadings portion.In order to answer the only question, it is relevant tonote that the undisputed facts in the context of territorial jurisdictionof the learned Magistrate at Bhiwani are that the drawee of the chequei.e., the respondent/complainant is a resident of Bhiwani.Thereafter, therespondent sent a legal notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to theappellant from Bhiwani.In turn, the appellant sent a reply to the saidnotice which the respondent received at Bhiwani.In view of non-payment ofthe cheque amount, the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 138 and141 of the N.I. Act before the learned Magistrate at Bhiwani.The complainantissued a notice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount from NewDelhi.The said notice was served on the accused at Chandigarh.Onfailure on the part of the accused to pay the amount within 15 days fromthe date of the communication of the said letter, the complainant filed acomplaint at Delhi.In the complaint, it was stated that the Delhi Courthas jurisdiction to try the case because the complainant was carrying onbusiness at Delhi, the demand notice was issued from Delhi, the amount ofcheque was payable at Delhi and the accused failed to make the payment ofthe said cheque within the statutory period of 15 days from the date ofreceipt of notice.It is further seen that the cognizance of the offencewas taken by the learned Magistrate at Delhi.The accused questioned thejurisdiction of the Magistrate at Delhi before the Addl.Sessions Judge,New Delhi.The Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate at Delhi hadjurisdiction to entertain the complaint as, admitedly, the notice was sentby the complainant to the accused from Delhi and the complainant was havingits Registered Office at Delhi and was carrying on business at Delhi.Thelearned Judge has also observed that the accused failed to make payment atDelhi as the demand was made from Delhi and the payment was to be made tothe complainant at Delhi.The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitionfiled by the accused.Thereafter, the accused approached this Court.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,018,335 |
The complaint then proceeds to narrate the steps taken by the complainant to set in motion the process of Criminal Law.The applicant preferred complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("Code") arraigning the non- applicants as accused of offences punishable under section 409, 420, 120(b), 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") read with::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 ::: 2 apl1036of2018 section 5 & 6 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at Universities Board and Other Specified Examination - 1982 ("Malpractices Act").::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 :::The learned Magistrate, as we find, while exercising the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has narrated the allegations and, thereafter, without any application of mind, has passed an order to register an FIR for the offences mentioned in the application.The duty cast on the learned Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot be marginalized.To understand the real purport of the same, we think it apt to reproduce the said provision:::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 :::8 The complainant claims to be a law abiding citizen and vigilant academician.The complaint then makes a reference to communications / complaints dated 21.8.2017 and 28.8.2017 forwarded to the Hon'ble Governor of the State of Maharashtra in the capacity of Chancellor of the University.The complaint then states that in the aforesaid two communications cum complaints, the failure of accused 1 to disclose that his daughter accused 2 was an examinee, was highlighted.It was apparent that even with respect to preparation of Mark sheet and declaration of results, unlawful advantages might have been given to the accused no.1 and::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 ::: 7 apl1036of2018 by misusing his office the Controller of Examination might have shown to have passed the examination.This requires an investigation by invoking section 154 of Cr.P.C. The accused no. 2 may be a beneficiary of her father's acts and also required to be investigated."::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 :::JUDGE RSB::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 04:21:49 :::
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,250,199 |
P.5 is the FIR.He had proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the mahazar-Ex.P.8 in the presence of witnesses and also had drawn the rough sketch-Ex.This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.127 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, which had arisen against the judgment in C.C.No.100 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Attur, Salem.The accused was charged under Section 304(A) IPC (2 counts) and 337 IPC.The case of the prosecution is that on 4.10.2001 at about 11.00 pm the injured P.W.2 along with his friends Suresh and Murugan were traveling in TVS-50 from North to South on the Kandasamy Pudur Malliyakari Thammapatti Road, the accused who came from the opposite direction in the lorry bearing registration No.The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when the charge was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined.4. P.W.1 is an ocular witness to the occurrence.He had prepared Ex.P.1-complaint with the police.According to him, at the time of occurrence, the accused had driven the ill-fated lorry in a high speed rashly and negligently and dashed against the TVS.50, in which three persons were proceeding from north to south and that 2 person died on the spot and P.W.2-Rajkumar had sustained grievous injury on his leg and that he send all the three in another vehicle which was passing by at that time to the Government hospital, Salem.5.P.W.2 is an injured in the accident.According to him, on the date of occurrence at about 11.00 pm he along with Murugesan and Suresh were proceeding in TVS-50 from north to south on the extreme left side of the road and that at the time of occurrence TVS-50 was stopped and he was attending to call of nature and at that time the lorry which came in the opposite direction driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the TVS-50 causing instantaneous death to Suresh and Murugesan and he had sustained grievous injury on his right leg and that he has lost three teeth in the lower jaw.P.W.5 has also seen the victims in the place of occurrence after the occident.7.P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police in Kariyapatti Police Station.At the time of occurrence he was incharge of Thammapatti Police Station and after receiving Ex.P.1-complaint from P.W.1 he had registered the case under Cr.No.261 of 2001 under Section 279, 338, 304(A) (2 counts) IPC.He had conducted inquest on the corpse of the deceased on the same day between 7.45 am and 9.45 am.P.9 is the inquest report for the corpse of Suresh and Ex.P.10 is the inquest report for the corpse of Murugesan.He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.The accused was arrested on 5.10.2001 at about 10.15 am and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and that the regular Inspector of Police had continued the further investigation.8.P.W.9 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of Murugesan and issued Ex.P.4-postmortem certificate.He has also examined P.W.2-Rajkumar for the injuries he had sustaiend and issued Ex.P.3-wound certificate.The doctor has seen two fractures on the right leg of P.W.2 and also two fractures on the lower jaw and also noted missing of two teeth in the lower jaw and he has also noticed an incised wound measuring 5 x 3 cms bone deep on the lower jaw.9.P.W.10 is the then Head constable of Malliyakari Police Station, who had registered a case under Cr.No.261 of 2001 on the basis of Ex.P.1-complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Section 279, 338 & 304(A) IPC.P.5 is the FIR.10.P.W.11 is the motor vehicle inspector, who had inspected the vehicles involved in the accident.The successor of P.W.12 has continued the investigation and field the final report.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity with the crime.After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has held that the accused is guilty under Section 279, 337, 304(A) (2 counts) IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 3 months RI under each counts and also levied a fine to the tune of Rs.8,500/-.The First Appellate judge, after meticulously weighing the evidence let in before the Court, has confirmed the judgment of the learned trial Judge, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision.13.Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the accused was driving the lorry bearing registration No.TN-59 E 8941 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS-50, in which P.W.2 and other two persons viz. Suresh and Murugesan were proceeding at the place of occurrence?14.The Point: The important piece of evidence which will go to show that the accused had driven the lorry rashly and negligently is Ex.P.7-rough sketch.P.W.1 & P.W.2 are the ocular witnesses.P.W.2 is an injured witness in the same occurrence.According to him, at the time of occurrence, he along with Suresh and Murugesan were proceeding in TVS-50 from north to south at the Thammapatti Attur road on the extreme left side of the road and the accused who was driving the lorry bearing registration No.TN59 E 8941, while,overtaking a mini lorry near the place of occurrence, was coming in the opposite direction swerve to his extreme right side of the road and dashed against the TVS-50 causing instantaneous death to other two persons viz. Suresh and Murugesan and caused grievous injury on his legs.According to P.W.1, at the time of occurrence both the accused as well as the injured along with the deceased were proceeding from north to south in the respective vehicles.But according to P.W.2, the injured,deceased Suresh and Murugesan were proceeding in TVS-50 from north to south and the lorry driver was proceeding in his lorry from south to north.In this connection if we peruse the complaint preferred by P.W.1, the complainant has stated that at the time of occurrence TVS-50 was proceeding from north to south and lorry was proceeding from south to north.So the documentary evidence alone will prevail.The other discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitiner is that according to P.W.2 TVS-50 was stationed and he (P.W.2) was attending to call of nature, but in Ex.According to the motor vehicle Inspector, he had inspected both the TVS-50 as well as the lorry after the occurrence and issued Ex.P.6-inspection report.He has noted damage both in the lorry as well as in the TVS-50 and that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect of both the vehicles.14(b) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on 1991 LW Crl. 232 (Chandrasekar Vs.A mere glance at Ex.P.7-rough sketch will derive us to arrived at an inference that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry/accused the accident had occurred.The I Additional Sessions Judge Salam.The District and Sessions Judge Salem.The Judicial Magistrate No.II cum Spl.Magistrate for Sandalwood cases, Attur Salem District.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Salem.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.The Sub Inspector of Police Malliakarai Police Station Chennai.[PRV/10654]
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,023,474 |
Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kakkar and Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3, learned A.G.A. for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 28.07.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in case no. 38/12/2018 arising out of case crime no. 0428 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, police station Tappal, district Aligarh as well as to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, not sustainable and the impugned proceedings are abuse of the process of court.It was submitted that applicant is a resident of village Hamidpur, district Aligarh and that grandfather and father of the husband of applicant were holding agricultural land in village Hamidpur as well as in village Gharbara, district Aligarh and that the applicant was granted a patta in land of gata no. 1851 in accordance with law and the proposal of land management committee was duly approved by Collector, Aligarh.However, after that as applicant came to know that her residential address has wrongly been mentioned in allotment letter as village Peepli instead of Hamidpur or Gharbara.The said patta/lease has become final and it has not been cancelled so far.Earlier opposite party no. 3 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. due to enmity with the family of applicant making false allegations of fraud and forgery in respect of documents pertaining to said allotment, whereas opposite party no. 3 was not a resident of that village, but his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected.In fact he has filed successive applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which were also rejected.Thereafter on the complaint of opposite party no. 3, an inquiry was conducted and thereafter Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh has directed opposite party no. 2 to lodge a first information report and the first information report of this case was lodged against the applicant and others.It was submitted that allegations made in first information report are false and baseless and that during investigation, no case was made out against the applicant and thus, police have preferred final report.The informant/opposite party no. 2 did not file any objections or protest petition against final report dated 23.01.2018, but opposite party no. 3, who has no locus standi, has filed a protest petition and thereafter the court below has directed further investigation in the matter.However, the Investigating Officer has again preferred final report.It was submitted that the court below has again directed for further investigation, but again final report dated 15.10.2019 was submitted.The C.J.M., Aligarh has passed the impugned order on protest petition filed by opposite party no. 3 against the third final report, which is against facts and law.It was submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of allegations made by opposite party no. 3 in protest petition without considering the fact that no evidence was collected by Investigating Officer during investigation.It was submitted that opposite party no. 3 is a resident of village panchayat Hamidpur, district Aligarh and in the year 2015, he was elected as the member of Gram Panchayat Hamidpur.The applicant has not come with clean hands, rather she has concealed material facts.Earlier brother-in-law of applicant, namely, Rishipal has got an illegal patta of land situated in gram panchayat Hamidpur in connivance with gram Pradhan in the year 1996 and thereafter to grab more land of gram panchayat, he has obtained another set of patta of land in the name of applicant and her husband.It was submitted that neither the applicant nor her family members including brother-in-law were eligible for allotment of gram sabha land and the lease/patta was obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.The applicant has shown herself to be resident of gram panchayat Peepli, but actually she was resident of Gram panchayat Hamidpur and later on after obtaining the 'patta' she has moved an application for correction of her permanent address in a well thought manner.P.C and can summon the accused person/s.It was found that during investigation, opposite party no. 3 has made a statement in respect of allegations made in FIR and he has also submitted documentary evidence, but despite that the Investigating Officer has submitted final report ignoring the same.The impugned order was passed after following due procedure of law.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,023,916 |
Five Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [1] year.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::(i) P.W. No.5 Devrao Champatrao Gunjkar and P.W.No.6 Panchfulabai w/o Devrao Gunjkar resident of village Umri Bazar, Tal.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded are the parents of deceased Chanda @ Chandra.After the marriage, couple resided for some period at village Umri Bazar and thereafter shifted to Hyderabad.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::(ii) According to the prosecution, under the influence of liquor, the Appellant always used to cause ill-treatment physically to deceased Chanda.Due to the constant physical assault, the relatives of deceased gave an understanding to the Appellant that he should refrain himself from causing ill-treatment to the deceased.Even at Hyderabad, ill-treatment to deceased Chanda was continued, since the Appellant under the influence of liquor used to beat her on the count of very minor issues.Ill-treatment which Chanda metes out, intimated by her to her mother on mobile phone.(iii) One month prior to the incident, Chanda contacted the complainant PW No.5 Devrao and it was disclosed to him that, she is pregnant.On getting this information, the complainant told the Appellant that the couple should be at Umri Bazar and after the delivery they can again go back to Hyderabad.Upon that, couple came from Hyderabad to Umri Bazar.Though they came at Umri Bazar, the Appellant started residing separately alongwith the deceased in one rented premises, owned by Anusaya Sadhubuwa Dongare.During his stay at Umri Bazar, the Appellant used to work with PW No.5 Devrao, father-in-law.He used to join the complainant daily in the morning hours.Since there was no response to his call, he pushed the door and found that his daughter Chanda was lying in a dead condition.Said fact, he immediately intimated to the Village Police Patil, in turn, Police Patil informed the same to the Police Station, Mandwi.On getting said information about the unnatural death of Chanda, police immediately came at the spot at village Umri Bazar.P.W.No.5 Devrao lodged First Information Report against the Appellant; where-in it is alleged that, under the influence of liquor, during the intervening night of 9th January, 2010 to 10th January, 2010, the Appellant assaulted deceased and as thus, responsible to cause her death.F.I.R. is at Exh.[19] According to PW No.5 Devrao on 10th January, 2010 in the morning, he had been to the house of Chanda and gave call to the Appellant to join him for work.Since there was no response, he pipped inside.When he pipped inside the room, he noticed that Chanda was lying and blood was oozing from her mouth and she was in a dead condition.As discussed earlier, that fact was intimated to the police.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.81 Of 2010 dated 21st December, 2010 by which the learned court below convicted the Appellant ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 ::: 2/14 Cri.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw (Ori.Accused) for the offence punishment U/Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three [3] years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- [Rs.The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishment U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rs.Ten Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three [3] years.The Appellant was further held guilty of committing an offence punishable U/Section 316 of the I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven [7] years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two [2] years.However, the Appellant was acquitted for the offences punishment U/Section/s 504 and 506 of the I.P.Code.The learned court below directed that all the sentences to run concurrently.[2] The facts giving rise to the present Criminal Appeal can conveniently be stated as under :-Deceased Chanda was the wife ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 ::: 3/14 Cri.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw of present Appellant.It is case of the prosecution that even during the pregnancy period also, under the influence of liquor, the Appellant used to inflict physical harm to the deceased Chanda.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::to the residence of Appellant at 6 O'clock and gave call to the Appellant to accompany him for the work.(v) On the basis of the F.I.R. Crime was registered bearing CR No. I 1/10 against the Appellant with Police Station, Mandwi, Tal.Kinwat, Dist.Investigation of the said Crime was entrusted with PW No.12 P.S.I. Vyankatesh Whivnaji Ranvirkar who, after completing the investigation, filed Charge-Sheet before the Court of law.(vi) After the order of committal, the case reached to the Court of Sessions.Charge was framed against the Appellant.The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.(vii) In order to bring home the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has examined in all twelve [12] witnesses.The ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 ::: 5/14 Cri.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, after examining the prosecution evidence and after considering the defence, as raised by the Appellant, reached to the conclusion that, the Appellant / accused is guilty of committing the offences for which he was charged.Accordingly, he was convicted as afore- stated.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::[3] We have heard Mr. D.Y. Nandekar, learned counsel appointed through the Legal Aid Committee and Mr. G.K. Naik-Thigale, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra.[4] P.W.No.1 Dr. Manoj Uttamrao Hude at the relevant time was attached to the Primary Health Center, Umri Bazar, Tal.Kinwat as Medical Officer.When he was on duty on 10th January, 2010, he received dead body of one lady by name Chandra Laxman Dhotre.for conducting the post mortem.He alongwith lady Doctor Smt. Alure conducted the post mortem.On external examination, it was found by the panel, reddish white fluid oozing through mouth and both nostrils, mouth clinched, tongue bitten in between both jaws, bleeding through bitten tongue present.Contusion on neck Rt.side 1 x 0.3 c.m. and 1 x 0.1 c.m.and Lt. side 1 x 0.2 c.m. reddish discoloration around neck anterior aspect present.According to the the Doctor, the injuries were anti mortem.On internal examination, it was noted that, the muscles of neck anterior aspect shows patechild, haemorrhage, mucosa congested, upper two tracheal rings fractures anteriorly.Both the lungs found congested.On cut section, reddish white froth oozed out.Heart found congested, Rt. side full with blood and Lt.side empty.Stomach mucosa congested with contents water with food particles.Liver, pancreas, spleen, kidney were congested, ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 ::: 6/14 Cri.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw bladder mucosa congested and empty congested.Uterus enlarged of 30 weeks and with male foetus 2.5 k.g. weight.It was also found that the death was within 4 to 6 hours after taking first meal.According to the Doctor, probable cause of death is "asphyxia due to pulmonary oedema in case of throttling.According to the Doctor, the internal corresponding injury with injury No.1 shows in column No.17 is sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::[5] What was the nature of death of Chanda, suicidal or homicidal.? This is required to be considered in view of the submission of the learned counsel representing the Appellant before us that the deceased committed suicide.[6] According to the Appellant, on conceiving the pregnancy, the couple had been to village Umri Bazar and he reached Chanda to her parents house.That time, he paid Rs.10,000/- for expenses and then left Umri Bazar on the very next day, intimating that, he will be at village Umri Bazar only after delivery of Chanda.According to the Appellant, he was having saving of Rs.7000/- and he raised loan of Rs. 2 to 3 thousand from his mukadam.Since he was to repay the amount of the mukadam, he returned to Hyderabad.According to the Appellant, he was arrested at Hyderabad and he is unaware as to why and how Chanda died.Thus it appears that, in his statement before the learned court below, he disclosed his defence of alibi.[7] However, from, the line of cross-examination of PW No.1 Dr. Manoj Hude, it was suggested that, symptoms like oozing reddish white oozing through mouth and nostrils are possible in case of poisoning.Suggestion was given to Dr. Manoj that, it was clear case of poisoning, which was immediately denied by Dr. Manoj.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::specific statement before this court, though it is the case of the Appellant that, Chanda committed suicide; said statement cannot be accepted in view of the injuries found on the person of deceased Chanda.We cannot forget one fact that, deceased was carrying foetus of 30 weeks.It is just impossible to imagine that a lady carrying such advanced pregnancy will commit suicide by taking poison.[9] However, there is nothing on record to show that any empty bottle of poison was found on the spot while drawing the spot panchnama.In that view of the matter and in view of the specific evidence of Dr. Manoj Hude, death of Chanda was homicidal death.[10] Next question is, who is the author.According to the Appellant after reaching Chanda at village Umri Bazar at her parents house, he left for Hyderabad.In the present case, there are no eye witness.The case is based on circumstantial evidence.According to the learned defence counsel, the prosecution has utterly failed to complete the chain of events pointing the guilty towards the Appellant.[11] According to PW No.5 Devrao and PW No.6 Panchfulabai, father and mother of deceased and PW No.10 Deubai one of the relative, Chanda had been to village Umri Bazar for her delivery alongwith her husband - Appellant.The couple started residing there in a rented premises owned by Anusayabai Dongare.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::He has proved the spot panchnama.It is at Exh.Accordingly, his evidence would reveals that the spot was house of Dongare.There was no reason for Chanda to reside separately alone in a rented premises of Anusaya Dongare; especially when she had been to Umri Bazar for her delivery.That fact itself proves case of the prosecution that the Appellant used to stay at Village Umri Bazar, in a rented premises.Even as per the evidence of PW 5 Devrao and PW No.6 Panchfulabai, couple used to stay in the rented premises.In their searching cross-examinations, their evidence is not shattered.Not only that, in the cross-examination of P.W. 5 Devrao, father of the deceased, it has been brought on record that, distance between his residential house and said rented premises is 20 - 30 fts.In that view of the matter, it is clear that, the Appellant used to stay with Chanda at Umri Bazar and not at Hyderabad, as suggested by him in his answer to the question put to him in his statement recorded U/Section 313 of Cri.[13] PW No.8 Sai Yellayya Irpulwar deposed that, he is employee since last five years in one country liquor shop of Baburao Bhumanna Tadalwar, which is situated at village Umri Bazar.Said Country Liquor Shop used to remain open from 10.00 a.m. till 10.00 p.m. His evidence would reveals that, he used to sell liquor to the customers being an employee.This witness has identified the Appellant in the court as the customer, who used to visit daily to the said country liquor shop to consume the liquor.[14] Thus, it is clear that, the Appellant was regular visitor to the said country liquor shop where-in PW No.8 Sai was an employee and who used to serve liquor to the customers.There is no challenge to this version of PW No.8 Sai.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::January, 2010 the Appellant had been to the liquor shop in the evening hours and that time, he purchased two country liquor bottles of 180 M.L. each and after purchasing the bottles, the Appellant left the shop and went to his house.[16] Spot panchnama is at Exh.No.27, mentioning the fact that two empty bottles of country liquor were found at the spot.Even PW No.7 Jivan Pundlikrao Kotrange [ Panch ] also testified from the witness-box that two empty bottles of country liquor of 180 M.L. were found at the spot.[17] The criticism was made in respect of the evidence of P.W. 8 Sai to the effect that, no receipt of purchase of country liquor bottles were issued; nor he disclosed the said fact to the police when his statement during the investigation was recorded by the Police that the accused / Appellant purchased two country liquor bottles of 180 M.L. each manufactured by Sanjivani Distilleries.Said omission, on which the Appellant wanted to rely heavily remained to be unproved; since it was not put to the Investigating Officer.Further the fact of recovery of two empty bottles of country liquor of 180 M.L. from the spot, corroborates the version of PW No.8 Sai.There was no reason to state falsehood against the Appellant, for this witness.In fact, there are no suggestion to this witness that for or on any count, he was nursing grudge against the present Appellant.[18] In view of the quality of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in absence of serious challenge thereto, it is clear that the Appellant was habituated to consume the liquor.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw impossible that on 9th January, 2010 after evening hours, he purchased two bottles of country liquor.At this stage, it will be useful to mention that deceased and Appellant belongs to Vadar community, the community traditionally used to engage in stone breaking.By common knowledge, it can be said that it is a job required hard physical work.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::Police party arrived at the spot.Since PW 5 Devram specifically asserted that it is the Appellant, who committed the murder of his daughter, investigation started immediately on that line.[20] PW No.4 Police Constable Nivrutti Marotirao Raman Bainwad deposed that, on 10th January, 2010, Investigating Officer Mr. Vyankatesh Ranvirkar took him to Umri Bazar in connection with CR No. I 1/10 i.e. Crime in question.That time, it was revealed to the police party that, the Appellant had gone towards the Navargaon by walk-path of Mohada to Navargaon road from Dar Sangvi.On getting this information, police party went to village Dar Sangvi by police jeep.PW No.4 P.C. Nivrutti Bainwad alongwith A.P.I. Rithe had been to Dar Sangvi.There they enquired with the villagers, whether they had seen the Appellant Laxman.Dar Sangvi must a small village, because the villagers gathered around the police party.One of them, amongst the gathering by name Nilesh Jadhav (PW No.11) told the police party that, the Appellant went towards the Navargaon by walk-path of ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 ::: 11/14 Cri.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw Mohda to Navargaon.Version of PW No.4 Nivrutti is corroborated by PW No.11 Nilesh.PW No.4 PC Nivrutti Bainwad further disclosed that, since they were unknown to the walk-path from Mohada to Navargaon, they took Nilesh alongwith them.This assertion made by PW No.4 Nivrutti Bainwad found corroboration in the testimony of PW No.11 Nilesh.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::[21] Evidence of PW No.4 Nivrutti Bainwad would further reveals that when they were on the said walk-path, they saw one person by name Sanjay Rathod, who was taking meal alongwith his wife.An enquiry was made with him.Upon enquiry, he disclosed that, though he do not know Laxman Dhotre but, one person went from that road just few time ago by that road.PW No.4 Nivrutti Bainwad requested said Sanjay (PW No.3) to accompany them; obviously because they were unknown to the road or walk path from Mohada to Navargaon.Thereafter, PW No.4 Nivrutti Bainwad, A.P.I. Rithe, PW 11 Nilesh and PW 3 Sanjay went by Mohada - Navargaon road till hillock as it was a forest area having several hillocks.After reaching to hillock, they saw one Tulsiram Sahir while sitting on the machan erected in the field.On enquiry, he also told that he do not know Laxman Dhotre but, he saw one man while passing from that road few time ago.Thereafter they tried to trace out the accused / Appellant till 11 to 121.30 a.m. but they could not traced out, therefore, they went back to Police Station, Mandvi.[22] During trial, Sanjay (PW No.3) identified the accused / Appellant as the person who had passed by the road.A criticism was made that when he was not knowing the name of the Appellant, how he was able ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 ::: 12/14 Cri.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw to disclose his name.However, even the question No.2 put to this witness by the Court below and answer given to it if we perused minutely then it is crystal clear that, He [PW 3 Sanjay] never claimed that person by name Laxman was passing by the road however, he said that the Appellant passed by that road and name is supplied to him by the police.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::[23] Nilesh (PW No.11) has specifically replied to the Court question, he was knowing the Appellant as he used to visit his field for breaking the stone.In that view of the matter, it is clear that, these persons are the witnesses to the fact that, on 10th January, 2010 in the morning hours the Appellant was found on the said road which is in near vicinity of village Umri Bazar.[24] We had evidence of PW No.9 Dilip Ramji Rathod.He is resident of village Sangvi Tal.He deposed that, in the morning hours when he was present in his field, he saw the accused while coming from Narvargaon towards Dar Sangvi by walk which go to Dar Sanvi from Navargaon, from his field.He saw that the accused was possessing 'sutk' [sort of hammer for breaking the stone] Having seen the sutk, he told the accused to break one big stone which is lying in his field and offered to pay him Rs.50/-.On negotiation, the accused showed his willingness to break the stone on payment of Rs.30/-.Said work was undertaken by the Appellant and after breaking the stone, Rs.30/- were given to him.When this witness reached to village Dar Sangvi, he found police jeep.This witness had been to the Police.That time and upon enquiry, he told that the accused had gone towards Navargaon.This witness also identified the Appellant in the court.These facts clearly show that the Appellant was present during the night time of 9th January, 2010 at village Umri Bazar.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::In order to buttress this submission, he has placed his reliance on the following reported case laws :-[i] Sheo Shankar and another V/s.K. Prema Rao & ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 ::: 14/14 Cri.Appeal 611.2011 (Judgment).sxw Ors.However merely making a statement that at the relevant time, he was at Hyderabad nothing has brought on record by the Appellant to show that at the relevant time, he was Hyderabad.Fees of Mr. D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate [ Appointed ] for the Appellant is quantified at Rs. 5000/- [ Rs. Five Thousand only].Criminal Appeal dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:01:00 :::
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,028,313 |
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Kakanwani, District-Jhabua, in Crime No.119/2015, under Sections 366, 376, 343, 368 of IPC.According to prosecution story, it is alleged that the present applicant took the prosecutrix, who was major at the time of incident with the help of co-accused, kept her for eight days and also committed rape on her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co- accused was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.So far as the present applicant is concerned, though, it is alleged that he committed rape on her, however, the prosecutrix went with the present applicant with her consent and no injury was found on her body, when she was recovered.Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,257,050 |
The details of tampering detected by W.B.S.E.B. officers are as follows:(b) On close inspection tampering of plastic seals was detected on Meter body and on optical part.(c) Tampered lead seal was detected on P.R. Box.(d) No seal in the Meter terminal cover.ACMRI was used to download date from the Meter analysed through laptop at side.The Meter was then uninstalled and opened and internal inspection reveal reset soldering marks across city secondary leads of red and yellow phases and also in neutral lead inside the Meter body.The tampered evidence was photographed by S & L.P. Unit of Hooghly (D) Circle by Digital Camera.The tampered Meter with other incriminating articles were also seized under proper seizure list in presence of the witnesses.(a) Tampering of manufacturing paper seals No. (L) 2341495 and (R) 2341495 having "VOID" marks on both sides of the Meter were detected.Following the discovery of the aforesaid theft of electricity by tampering the Electric Meter the opposite party No. 2 herein made a complaint in writing to the Officer-in-Charge, Gurap Police Station, Gurap, Hooghly, on the self same day immediately after the inspection was over.Upon receipt of the said complaint the police recorded a FIR and the Gurap Police Station Case No. 67, dated June 7, 2005 under Section 135(i)(b)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and that gave rise to G.R. No. 604/2005 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly.The Learned Magistrate by his order dated Feb-.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,809,308 |
4 M.Cr.5 M.Cr.6 M.Cr.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA ANIL KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, CHAURASIYA 2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51dae27e84c 266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2020.05.26 14:05:59 -07'00'Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 04-03- 2020 by Police Station Aron, District Guna in connection with Crime No.188/2020 registered for offence under Sections 376, 506-B of IPC.He referred the document annexed with the application in respect of physical and mental condition of the applicant in which he is 45% physically disabled and cannot walk properly without help of clutches whereas contents of FIR indicates that he ran before the prosecutrix.Actually the case was registered at the instance of prosecutrix because of pre-existing dispute between the families.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.He intends to perform community service by way of downloading Arogya Setu App.2 M.Cr.Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about him residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,894,002 |
The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andCase Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.452, 323, 294, 506-B, 36 of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) SCST Act registered as Crime No.12/2015 at Police Station AJK, District Bhind.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.u/Ss. 452, 323, 294, 506-B, 36 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SCST Act. Allegation against the petitioners is of house trespass and intimidation.The offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC & ST Act has also been alleged and is based upon the factual matrix that on account of certain altercation between the complainant and their mother altercation took place and the petitioners probably to save their mother, abused and assaulted the complainant with lathi, who is member of SC & ST community.From reading of the prosecution story it does not appear that intimidation and humiliation was caused merely because the 2 Ashish @ Golu and Another Vs.State of M.P.C.No.4019/2015 complainant is member of SC & ST community and therefore prima facie the offence under section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act does not appear to be made out.The petitioners have no criminal antecedents.Co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 01/05/2015 in M.Cr.The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bonds executed by them;A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,949,727 |
By subsequent order dated 29.07.2016 while recommending compensation to be awarded by Legal Services Authority under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. to PW-1 (mother of the deceased child), the trial court awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- as punishment to the appellant directing that she would undergo further simple imprisonment for three months in the event of default in payment of fine holding her entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The said judgment and order on sentence have been assailed through the appeal at hand.The evidence presented before the trial court unmistakably reveals that the deceased child was taken to GTB hospital Delhi (the hospital) by the appellant on 28.08.2012 in critical state.The child died on the night intervening on 28.05.2012 and 26.08.2012 at about 01:25 hours during the treatment, the initial cause of death having been noted as "septicemia".On the death being brought to the notice of local police, inquest was conducted and a request made for postmortem examination to be conducted to establish the cause of death.The inquest papers would show that, amongst others, the statement of PW-1, the mother of the deceased child was also recorded in which she revealed that she had been informed by the neighbours of the husband on 26.08.2012 that her child had been killed by the appellant, the step-mother.The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination by Dr. Arun Kumar (PW-2) who proved his report (Ex.PW-2/A) in the Crl.She explained that she had been married to Mohd. Shafiq about eight years ago and had delivered three children from out of said wedlock, the deceased child being the junior most.It may be mentioned here that Alisha, the victim child, was daughter of Mohd. Shafiq (the husband of the appellant) from his first marriage with Nazreen (PW-1), the first informant of the case, they having separated from each other about 1 years prior to the incident.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 1 of 12Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 2 of 12 course of trial.After the postmortem report dated 27.08.2012 (Ex.PW-2/A) had been issued, Sub-Inspector Shashi Kant (PW-5) moved an application Ex.PW-2/B for further opinion which was given by the autopsy doctor (PW-2) on 08.12.2012 (vide Ex.PW- 2/C).The postmortem examination report (Ex.PW-2/A), the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW-2/C) and the oral testimony of the autopsy doctor (PW-2) have not been challenged by the defence during the trial.The same reveal that during autopsy it was found that the child was suffering from greenish discolouration, on account of decomposition, on lower chest and abdomen.He noticed multiple bed sores present in midline on back in various stages of healing.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 2 of 12The child was found to have suffered the following external antemortem injuries:-Partially healed abrasion with pinkish base measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm present on right frontal area 3 cm from midline and 2 cm above right eyebrow.Brownish scabbed abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on left side forehead 3 cm from midline and 1.5 cm above left eyebrow.Reddish scratch scabbed abrasion measuring 1 cm x 0.2 cm present horizontally on left side face 2 cm from midline and 0.7 cm below left lower eyelid.Reddish brown scabbed abrasion measuring 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm present on left side face 6 cm from midline and 3 cm above left angle of mandible.Brownish scabbed abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present in midline just below the chin.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 3 of 12Partially healed abrasion with pinkish base measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm present on left side neck 1.5 cm from midline and 2.5 cm below the left angle of mandible.Partially healed abrasion with pinkish base measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present in midline of neck 4 cm below chin.Partially healed abrasion with pinkish base measuring 0.7 cm x 0.3 cm present on right side of neck 3 cm from midline and 1 cm below right angle of mandible.Partially healed abrasion with pinkish base measuring 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm present on right side of neck 2.5 cm from midline and 3.5 cm below right angle of mandible.Multiple brownish scabbed abrasions in an area of 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm present in midline chest 5 cm below suprasternal notch, three in number with size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm.Brownish scabbed scratch abrasion measuring 0.8 cm x 0.1 cm cresentric in shape obliquely placed on lateral aspect of right arm 2 cm above elbow joint.Brownish scabbed scratch abrasion measuring 0.8 cm x 0.1 cm cresentric in shape vertically placed on lateral aspect of right elbow joint.Multiple brownish scabbed scratch abrasions in an area of 2 cm x 2 cm cresentric in shape, three in number present on front of left forearm 2 cm above the wrist joint.Size varies between 0.6 cm x 0.1 cm to 0.8 cm x 0.1 cm.Brownish scabbed scratch abrasion measuring 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm cresentric in shape present vertically on right side back 1 cm from midline and 5 cm above the inferior angle of scapula.Brownish scabbed abrasion measuring 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm present on right side back 2 cm from midline and 1.5 cm below the inferior angle of scapula.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 4 of 12Brownish scabbed abrasion measuring 0.4 cm x 0.4 cm present on left side back 3 cm from midline and 3.5 cm below the inferior angle of scapula.Brownish scabbed abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on anteriolateral aspect of right leg 5 cm below knee joint with underlying fracture of upper 1/3 of tibia with extra vacation of blood into the surrounding tissue."The internal examination reveals that the child had suffered fracture in midclavicular line of the second left rib.There was pus formation in both the lungs.The 17th external injury and the injury to the second left rib were grievous in nature, which had been produced, in the opinion of the autopsy doctor, due to blunt force impact likely to be caused in the case of child neglect and abuse.The cause of death was stated to be indicated as septicemic shock on account of ante mortem infection of multiple bed sores.The autopsy doctor was unable to conclusively say if septicemia being due to natural disease process or as a result of injuries suffered.In his opinion, the injuries noted by him were not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death but would have attributed to the death.He did not offer any clear opinion whether or not the death was homicidal.After the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW-2/C) had been given by the autopsy doctor on 08.12.2012, the matter saw police action.Statement (Ex.PW-1/A) of Nazreen (PW-1) mother of the deceased child was recorded on 17.12.2012 by Sub Inspector Shashi Kant (PW-5).In the said statement, PW-1 reiterated that she had been told by the neighbours of her estranged husband that his second Crl.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 5 of 12 wife (the appellant) was ill-treating the child, often subjecting her to beatings and that the death had occurred due to these reasons as also on account of need for treatment of the child having been neglected.According to her, she had started living separately from her husband leaving her three children, including the deceased child, then aged about 2 years, for about 1 years prior to the death.According to her, the husband Mohd. Shafiq had started living with the appellant declaring her to be his wife, even prior to her separation.She stated that information about ill treatment of the child and she being physically assaulted often by the appellant was brought to her knowledge by Rahisan (PW-3).She stated it was PW-3 who had told her about death of the child and that when she had gone to see the dead body she was not allowed to do so.She stated that she was shown the dead body on 27.08.2012 after postmortem examination whereafter she had taken the same for last rites.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 5 of 12During the investigation that followed, statement (Ex.PW- 11/A) of Rahisan (PW-3) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Metropolitan Magistrate (PW-11).Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 6 of 12After completion of investigation, during which both the appellant and her husband Mohd. Shafiq were arrested, a charge sheet was laid, seeking prosecution for offences under Section 304/34 IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on which the Magistrate took cognizance and issued process.After the case had been committed, the sessions court considered the question on charge.It put the appellant and her husband Mohd. Shafiq on trial on the charge under Section 304/34 IPC, to which both pleaded not guilty.The prosecution led evidence by examining twelve witnesses they being Nazreen (PW-1); Dr. Arun Kumar (PW-2); Rahisan (PW-3); Shahnaz (PW-4); SI Shashi Kant (PW-5); HC Sunil Kumar (PW-6); HC Tilak Raj (PW-7); Sapna (PW-8); W/Ct.Hem Lata (PW-9); Ct.Ravinder (PW-10); Sunil Gupta (PW-11) and Insp.Devender Kumar (PW-12).Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of both the appellant and her husband were recorded in which they claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated.Noticeably, in the said statements, it was claimed that PW-1 had left the victim child in "unwell condition" at the house of the accused persons with the remarks "apne bachon ko khud sambhalo".It was claimed that after the death of the child in the hospital during treatment, PW-1 had threatened to falsely implicate the appellant and Mohd. Shafiq demanding money.It was claimed that PW-3 had grabbed the household articles of the accused persons in which regard complaint was lodged by Mohd. Shafiq with Police Station Nand Nagri on Crl.It was stated that PW-3 and other witnesses had deposed falsely on this account.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 7 of 12Three witnesses in defence were examined they including Smt. Varisha wife of Zulfiqar, (DW-1); Mohd. Shafiq (DW-2) the husband of the appellant (he himself being co-accused at that stage) and Head Constable Har Mohan (DW-3).It may be mentioned here that the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 does confirm that Mohd. Shafiq, the husband of the appellant, had lodged a complaint on 17.09.2012 (vide Ex.DW-2/A and DW-3/A) with regard to his household goods having been taken away by, amongst others, Rahisan (PW-3) and her husband Zakir at the instance of PW-1, his tenanted room (in the property of PW-3) having been locked and he having been denied entry against the backdrop of allegedly a false report having been lodged about his involvement in the death of the child.It is clear from this material that PW-1 and others, including PW-3, had been leveling allegations against the appellant and her husband Mohd. Shafiq as early as September, 2012 about their involvement in the events leading to the death of the child.The learned trial court found the evidence to be deficient so as to hold Mohd. Shafiq guilty.He, however, found the evidence worthy of reliance to return finding of guilty against the appellant holding her responsible for the death of the child, in the facts and circumstances, in his opinion, indicative of it being a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part- II of Section 304 IPC.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 8 of 12Pleading innocence, the appellant has come up in appeal questioning the view taken by the learned trial court.Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the light of evidence adduced before the trial court, this court is of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court does not call for any interference.The reasons are set out hereinafter.It is clear from the evidence that PW-1 had separated from Mohd. Shafiq about 1 years prior to the incident.Her three children had remained with the husband, the deceased child being the youngest.According to PW-1 the victim child was about 2 years old when she separated from the husband.Yet, she looked like one year old.This is how PW-8, another resident of the same property would describe her.It is clear from the evidence of PW-1, as indeed other witnesses of the locality, they being the landlady PW-3 and neighbours PW-8 and DW-1 that the deceased child was maintaining poor health and required medical attention.This also vivid from the observations in the autopsy report.But then, the defence theory that the child had remained with PW-1 who had left her at the place of Mohd. Shafiq and the appellant on 23- 24.08.2012, as is the version given by DW-2 in his testimony, is not believable.These witnesses confirm that the child was ill treated by the appellant during the period of 1 years.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 9 of 12The above mentioned witnesses described the ordeal of the child to the effect that the appellant would beat her up often and deprive her of medical treatment whenever required.Each of them supported the prosecution case that whenever they would object to such conduct, the appellant and her husband would respond by warding them off saying that it was their personal matter.Pertinent to add here, according to PW-4, the child had been beaten up by the appellant on 25.08.2012 which rendered her condition serious only whereafter the hospital was approached.PW-8 stated that the appellant had thrown the child as a result of which she had suffered from fits.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is unexplained delay in reporting of the case to the police.Indeed, the death having occurred on 26.08.2012, the registration of the FIR on 17.12.2012 was quite belated.Inaction was wholly that of the police.As mentioned earlier, even during inquest proceedings, PW-1 had made allegations about the child having died due to physical assaults.If at all, delay calls for some internal probe by the police department so that responsibility can be fixed and such delays do not recur in future.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 10 of 12The evidence of neighbours (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8) about routine assault on the person of the infant child by the appellant is corroborated by extensive external as well as internal injuries suffered by her as noticed during autopsy.Unfortunately, no investigation was carried out as to the nature of ailments suffered by the child.There is some reference to the child suffering from fits.But the cause for fits may by itself not even be the one leading to fatality.The bed sores noted on the dead body do indicate the child would have suffered utter neglect.It may be that the injuries noticed by him individually may not be sufficient to cause death.But, it has to be remembered that the deceased child was an infant, who seemingly was mal-nourished and keeping poor health.Denial of medical treatment to a child of such tender age and, instead, intentionally subjecting her to routine physical assaults, the Crl.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 11 of 12 assaults being so vigorous as to result in she suffering fractures are acts which collectively present a scenario from which knowledge that the intended bodily injuries were likely to bring about death can be inferred.In such fact situation, this court unhesitatingly upholds the conclusion that the death of baby Alisha was a case of culpable homicide within the meaning of the expression defined in Section 299 IPC.But, since the acts committed would not fit in within the four corners of the definition of the offence of murder, as given in Section 300 IPC, the case has to be held covered by the penal clause contained in Part-II of Section 304 IPC.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 11 of 12For the foregoing reasons, the finding returned by the learned trial court holding the appellant guilty and convicting her under Section 304 Part-II IPC is upheld.The appellant shall be informed by a copy of this judgment, to be served on her through Superintendent Jail.A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the Commissioner of Police for inquiry into the delay in registration of the FIR in the case at hand and for such administrative action as may be deemed necessary in accordance with law.(R.K. GAUBA) JUDGE JULY 03, 2017/vk Crl.Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 12 of 12Appeal No. 1084/2016 Page 12 of 12
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,986,847 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-Vochathevar, was a workman in a private mill, known was"Nithyakalyani Textile Mill" at C.K.Mangalam, Usilampatti Taluk, MaduraiDistrict.The appellant hails from Orissa State.PW.22, Mr.Pramoth Sammal, isalso from Orissa State.The accused as well as PW.22 were also working in thesame mill.(ii) On 13.2.2009, at about 8.30 a.m., PW.20 had gone to the water tapnear his room for taking bath.At that time, the accused came to the water tapand started washing himself.PW.20 noticed lacerated injuries on the body ofthe accused.There was also bloodstains on his body.PW.20, enquired aboutthe same.The accused did not know to speak any language other than Oriya andHindi.PW.20 did not know either of these languages.Therefore, by gesture,the accused conveyed to PW.20 that while cutting a chicken, he got bloodstainson his body and dress.MO.11 is the T.Shirtand MO.10 is the half pant worn by the accused at that time.(iii) PW.1 was the Village Administrative Officer during the relevantpoint of time at Athiyoor Village.On 13.2.2009 at about 9.00 a.m., while hewas in a hotel at Thiruvadanai, PW.6 - a Village Assistant attached to him,came to him and informed him that the body of a woman was found nearNithyakalyani Textile Mill.Immediately, PW.1 proceeded to the place at 9.30p.m., where he found the body of a woman.There was a petty coat and jacket onthe body.PW.1, then enquired PW.20 as he was in the room in the mill.PW.20told PW.1 that he found the accused washing himself at the water tap and at thattime, there were bloodstains on his body as well as on his dress.On enquiries,PW.1, came to know that the dead was one Latha W/o.Alagar (the deceased).Basedon the above information, PW.1 drafted a complaint in Ex.Immediately, PW.1proceeded to Thiruvadanai Police Station and presented Ex.P1 complaint to PW.23,the then Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the said Police Station.On thebasis of the said complaint, PW.23 registered a case under Section 302 IPC(Ex.P.14 is the FIR).Then, he forwarded Ex.P.1 and P.14 through PW.18 to thejurisdictional Judicial Magistrate.(iv) PW.18 received a cover containing Exs.(v) PW.23, thereafter, handed over the case for investigation to PW.25.PW.25 proceeded to the place of occurrence at 1.00 p.m., and prepared anObservation Mahazar under Ex.P.9 in the presence of PW.16 and another witness.He also prepared a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence under Ex.P15 andthen from the place of occurrence, he recovered MO.6 bloodstained earth, MO.7sample earth and MO.8 plastic pot and MO.9 blue colour polyester sari.PW.7 identified the deceased as Latha,his wife.PW.8 is the daughter of the deceased and she also identified the bodyas that of her mother.P16 is the inquest report.On the same day, heexamined PW.6, PW.7, PW.8, PW.20, PW.22, PW.21 and few more witnesses andrecorded their statements.PW.22 could not speak any language other than Hindiand Oriya.Then, he forwarded the body for post-mortem.(vi) PW.2 Dr.Selvasekaran, was the Assistant Surgeon, attached to theGovernment Hospital, Thiruvadanai.15) Right cheeck deep cut.P2 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.He opined that the deceased would havedied of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on her body.He furtheropined that the death would have occurred 8 to 12 hours prior to thecommencement of the post-mortem.(vii) During the investigation, PW.25, came to know that the accused hadalready left by train towards Orissa.Therefore, he alerted the railwaypolice.On 13.2.2009, PW.11, who was the Inspector of Police, attached torailway police station at Villupuram, on the information passed by PW.25, madean inspection in the Howrah Express Train proceeding from Tiruchirappalli toBavaneswar.From the identifying features mentioned by PW.25 and from thelanguage spoken, PW.11 identified the accused while he was travelling in thesaid train.The accused was travelling in the said train in an unreservedcompartment.On seeing PW.11, the accused tried to close his face.Onsuspicion, PW.11 enquired him.The accused disclosed his name to him as"Susanth Prathan".He had also had an unreserved ticket in his possession totravel to Bhuvaneshwar.Then, PW.11 took him into his custody as he wasinformed by PW.25 that the accused was wanted in connection with the murder ofthe deceased.Since the accused spoke Hindi, PW.25 got theassistance of a translator by name, Ilango (examined as PW.24).At that time, the accused waswearing bloodstained jeans pant and blue colour 'T' Shirt and yellow thread.PW.25 recovered all the above Material Objects in the presence of the witnessesunder Ex.P.11 Mahazar.In the said confession, the accused had disclosed thathe had thrown away Aruval at a place in C.K.Mangalam and he told PW.25 that ifhe was taken to C.K.Mangalam, he would produce Aruval and Towel from the placewhere he had thrown them.Based on the disclosure statement, the accused tookPW.25 and witnesses to C.K.Mangalam.The accused took them to the backyard ofNithyakalyani Textile Mill from where he produced MO.1 - Aruval and MO.13 -yellow towel.PW.25 recovered the same under Ex.P13 Mahazar and then, examinedthe mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements.At that time, PW.25found that the accused had minor injuries on his body.Therefore, PW.25forwarded him for treatment to the Government Hospital, Thiruvadanai.(ix) PW.3 Dr.Sivakumar, Assistant Surgeon, attached to the GovernmentHosptial, Thiruvadani, examined the accused on 14.2.2009 at 9.00 p.m.,.Theaccused told PW.3 that he sustained those injuries on account of assault made bya female.PW.3 found the following injuries on the accused:-"Linear abrasion in left hand 10 x 0.5 cm.Liner abrasion in left little finger 10 x 0.5Linear abrasion in left leg 10 x 0.5Due to thorn injury."Continuing the investigation, PW.25, made arequest to the Court for forwarding the Material Objects for chemicalexamination.Accordingly, they were forwarded.On examination, PW.5,conducted chemical examination on the Material Objects and he submitted Ex.P6Chemical Analysis Report and Ex.P7 Serological Report.According to Ex.She has also stated that the deceased wanted her to accompany, but PW.14did not go.Thereafter, the deceased was not seen.However, her body wasfound at the place of occurrence.PW.15 is another neighbour, who has statedthat on 13.2.2009 at 8.00 a.m., she found the deceased returning to her housefrom the mill premises by taking water.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.78 of 2009 on the file of thelearned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.He stood charged for theoffences under Sections 302 and 404 IPC.The Trial Court, by its judgmentdated 30.04.2010 convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment forlife for the offence under Section 302 IPC (no fine was imposed) and to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 404 IPC.Thesentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the saidconviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.At that time, the accused was wearing a T.Shirt and ahalf pant.There were bloodstains on the dress also.Then,he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.During the inquest, heexamined PWs.7, 8, 9, 10 and others.He conducted autopsy on the body of thedeceased.He commenced autopsy on the body of the deceased at 4.15 p.m.During autopsy, PW.2, Doctor found the following injuries:-1) Mouth deep wound with sickle extending 4 cms to the above jaw bone.2) 5 deep wound with sickle tip on neck right side>3) below jaw deep cut also left side>4) Left ear below deep wound5) Deep cut above left eye on zygoma bone (part separated)6) Left cheek to nose deep cut7) Behind Right ear and neck 4 deep wounds8) Right wrist deepest cut 4 cms x 1 cms deep9) Forehead 6 cms x 1 cms x 2 mm X 2mm wide deep width10)Little finger left side separated by cut sagging.11) .'.of Cut left side face fracture zygoma andMaxillary bone12) Kidney - Normal intestine - Normal Empty.Heart empty lungs - Normal, stomach - Normal empty, smear taken from(torn) (N.C.)Sliced slurry fluid present.13) Right shoulder deep cut14) Left palm deep cut(x) Then, PW.25 forwarded the accused to the learned jurisdictionalMagistrate for judicial remand.(xi) According to Serology Report, blood found on the Material Objectsother than T.Shirt and Billhook was of "A"Group.The result of grouping of bloodin the T Shirt and the billhook was inconclusive.(xii) On completing the investigation, PW.25 filed a final report againstthe accused.The accused was supplied with all the relevant documents as requiredunder Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The documents were inTamil.After the committal of the case, since the accused submitted that hewanted to have the aid of a counsel and he had no means to engage a counsel, alegal aid counsel was appointed.In the presence of the legal aid counsel,charges were explained to the accused by the Trial Court and he denied the same.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 404 IPC.Since theaccused denied the charges, he was put on trial.During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 25witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited besides 15 MaterialObjects.The evidence was recorded in Tamil since it is the language of theCourt.Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. inrespect of the incriminating materials against him.The said questions wereagain in Tamil since the same is the language of the Court.Since the accuseddid not know Tamil language, the services of a translator was requisitioned andaccordingly, the questions were translated into Hindi.The accused did not choose to examine any witness nor to prove anydocuments in his favour.In the statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., hemade only a general denial.Having considered the above materials, the Trial Court found him guiltyand accordingly, punished him.As we have already mentioned, PW.1, the then V.A.O was the one whoset the law in motion by preferring Ex.P1 complaint after seeing the dead body.He has also stated that he was told by PW.20 - Vochathevar that the accused wasfound with bloodstains on his body and dress.PW.3 Dr.Sivakumar, who examinedthe accused, has spoken about the injuries found on the accused.PW.4, who wasthe Forensic Science expert during the relevant time in Ramanathapuram District,on a request made by PW.25, inspected the spot and found no incriminatingmaterial, which would be useful for forensic opinion.P4 is her report.Aswe have already stated PW.5 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Sciences Lab,who has spoken to about the chemical analysis report and serology report.PW.7 is the husband of the deceased who has statedthat he was residing in his house situated near Nithyakalyani Textile Mill.Hehas further stated that his wife Latha used to go into the mill for the purposeof taking water.On 13.2.2009, according to him, at 8.30 a.m., when he wasaway, he was informed that Latha had been done to death by somebody and herushed to the spot and identified the dead body as that of his wife.PW.8 isthe daughter of the deceased who has also spoken to about the identification ofthe petty coat worn by her and she also identified the dead body as that of hismother.PW.9, who was then working in Nithyakalyani Textile Mill, where theaccused was also working, has spoken to that on 13.2.2009 at about 8.30 a.m.,when he was making a round of the mill, looking after the maintenance work, hefound the accused at the water tap washing himself.At that time, he foundbloodstains on his body as well as dress.He has further stated that PW.20 -Vochathevar was present.At that time, he also found PW.20 enquiring theaccused about the bloodstains.The accused told him that while cutting chicken,he got bloodstains on his body as well as dress.He has stated that on 13.2.2009 at 7.00 a.m.,morning shift work commenced in the mill but neither the accused nor the otherswho hail from Orissa turned up for duty on that day.PW.11 is the Inspector ofPolice, attached to the Railway Police Station, Villupuram, and he has spoken toabout the arrest of the accused at 7.00 p.m., on 13.2.2009 at Villupuram RailwayStation in Howrah Express proceeding to Bhuvaneshwar.PW.13 is the brother-in-law of the deceased.He has stated that he identified the dead body as that ofLatha.She has stated that theaccused used to visit the house of the deceased frequently.She has furtherstated that on 13.2.2009 at 8.00 a.m., when she was proceeding towards Oorani inthe village, she found the deceased proceeding into the mill premises for takingwater.Then, she told PW.15 that she wasproceeding to the local village forest for collecting firewood.He has also spoken about theconfession made by the accused and the recovery of the Material Objects as wellas the preparation of recovery mahazar.PW.19, who was the Head Constable, handedover the dead bodyto the Doctor for conducting post-mortem.PW.20 - Vochathevar has spoken toabout the fact that he saw the accused washing his body.At that time, therewere bloodstains on his body as well as in the dress i.e. jeans pant and Tshirt, which was, subsequently, recovered by PW.25 from the accused.PW.25 tookphotographs of the dead body.PW.22 is yet another important witness.He also hails from Orissa.He, along with few more persons from Orissa, and the accused were employed inthe mill.He has stated that on 13.2.2009, he was on leave.At about 8.00a.m., he went to the village forest situated near the mill for the purpose ofattending nature's call.At that time, he found the accused coming from theopposite direction.The accused was in possession of an Aruval, which wasfull of bloodstains on either side.He also found bloodstains on the T.Shirt and on the pantworn by the accused.He has identified MO.11 and MO.10 as the dress worn bythe accused at that time.He has further stated that he withdrew and ran awaysince accused was in an aggressive mood with bloodstained Aruval.PW.23 is theSub Inspector of Police, who has spoken about the registration of the case andPW.24 is the translator who helped PW.25 to translate during the interrogationwhen the accused gave confession.PW.25 has spoken about the investigation doneby him and the final report submitted by him.The Trial Court has believed theprosecution case and has found the accused guilty under both the charges.In this Appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant wouldraise number of grounds in order to substantiate his contention that theprosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel appearing for theappellant is that Ex.The FIR has reached the learned Judicial Magistrate onlyat 7.30 p.m., and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there isno explanation for the said delay at all.He has further stated that duringthe examination of PW.18, she has stated that the FIR was registered only at3.00 p.m., whereas according to the FIR, the same was registered at 11.30 a.m.In our considered opinion, there is no much force in the said argumentof the learned counsel.The FIR has been given by an independent person,namely, Village Administrative Officer, to the effect that the dead body of thedeceased was found at about 9.30 a.m.,.PW.6 - the Village Assistant, hadseen the dead body at 9.00 a.m., and thereafter, he informed PW.1 about thesame.Though in Ex.P1, it is stated that PW.20 - Vochathevar, stated that theaccused was found with bloodstains, the said fact has not been spoken to byPW.20 - Vochathevar.Of course, PW.1 has stated that PW.20 found the accused atthe earliest point of time near the mill with bloodstains.But, the evidence ofPW.20 on this aspect goes inadmissible as the same is hit by hearsay rule.Atany rate, going by the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot hold thatthe prosecution case is doubtful simply for the reason that there was some delayin forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant isthat PW.18 has stated that the FIR was registered only at 3.00 p.m.,.In ourconsidered opinion, a perusal of the evidence of PW.18 would go to show thatthere is no such version at all stated in her evidence.She has only statedthat the FIR was handed over for the purpose of being handing it over to theJudicial Magistarte, at 3.00 p.m.,.PW.18 has clearly explained the time gapbetween handing over of FIR to her and by her to the the Judicial Magistrate.Thus, in our considered opinion, there could be no doubt in respect of the factthat the complaint came into being at 11.30 a.m., on the date of occurrence.Nextly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contendthat the time of occurrence as it is projected by the prosecution has not beenexplained.Relying on this, the learnedcounsel would submit that the time of occurrence has not been clearlyestablished by the prosecution.In this argument, we do not find any substanceat all.A close reading of the evidence of PW.2 would go a long way to showthat it is a positive opinion that the death would have occurred from 8 to 12hours prior to autopsy.The autopsy commenced at 4.15 p.m., on 13.2.2009.During cross-examination, when a suggestion was made to him as to whether it waspossible that the death would have occurred prior to 4.00 a.m., the Doctor hasanswered in the affirmative.According to PW.1, thearrest of the accused was made at 7.00 p.m., on 13.2.2009 at Villupuram RailwayPolice Station.PW.25 rushed to Villupuram Police Station and in his presence,confession was given.It is the evidence of PW.25 that the accused was wearingT.Shirt (MO.11) and jeans pant (MO.10) at that time.A perusal of the evidence of PW.20, PW.22and others would go to show that the accused was wearing MOs.10 and 11 at thetime when they found him with bloodstains.Thechemical analyst has also stated that there was human blood on these twomaterials objects.The blood grouping test alone was inconclusive, probably,becasue the bloodstains would have disintegrated.Thus, it has been clearlyestablished that there were bloodstains of human origin on MOs.10 and 11 and thesame corroborates the evidence of PW.20 and PW.22 who have identified the sameas the ones worn by the accused at the time, when he was seen at or about thetime of the occurrence near the place of occurrence.Thus, the recovery ofMOs.10 & 11 from the possession of the accused clinchingly establishes the guiltof the accused.The learned counsel would, nextly, contend that though it is allegedthat the Material Objects were recovered as early as on 14.2.2009 itself, theywere sent to Court after 15 days.Thus, according to the learned counsel, itcreates a doubt.In our considered opinion, though it is true that there wassome delay in forwarding the Materail Objects to the Court, that by itselfcannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution.We holdthat the prosecution has clearly established that the accused was foundtravelling in the train proceeding to Bhuvaneshwar at 7.00 p.m., at VillupuramPolice Station on 13.2.2009 and he was detained and handed over to PW.25 byPW.11, on the next day at 7.00 a.m., and he was in possession of gold jewels(MOs.2 to 5) worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence and MO.1 Aruval wererecovered on his disclosure statement.Apart from that, the evidence of PW.22 assumes much importance.PW.22 also hails from Orissa and he happens to be a friend of the accused.Hewas also a workman along with the accused in the mill.According to him, on3.2.2009, he was on leave and at 8.00 a.m., he proceeded towards the villageforest situated on the back of the mill, for the purpose of answering nature'scall.At that time, he found the accused rushing out of the forest armed withMO.1 Aruval which was full of bloodstains.He has also stated that at thattime, the accused was wearing MO.10 and MO.11, namely, jeans pant and T Shirt,which were also bloodstained.He has stated that, out of fear, he did notdisclose about the occurrence to anybody and he simply went to the bazaar.Onthe same day, PW.25 found him in the bazaar and examined him.That is howhe was cited as an eye-witness to the above facts.PW.9 is yet another witness who has spoken to the movement of theaccused near the place of occurrence at or about the crucial time.He hasstated that he, along with PW.20- Vochathevar, found the accused around 8.00a.m., washing himself in the water tap, and, at that time, there werebloodstains on his body and dress.The accused told them that he came tosustain the bloodstains while cutting chicken.Thus, from the evidence of PW.9,PW.20, PW.22, it has been clearly established that the accused was found armedwith bloodstained weapon and he was also found with bloodstains on his body aswell as on his dress at or about the time near the place of occurrence.As we have already narrated, on the same day, that was on 13.2.2009itself, the accused was found proceeding to Bhuvaneshwar.He was found byPW.11 in the train and he was having an unreserved ticket to proceed toBhuvaneshwar in Howrah Express Train which commenced its journey from Trichy.There is no explanation as to why on the same day, the accused was proceeding tohis native place.Thus, the conduct of the accused in fleeing away from TamilNadu towards Orissa is yet another circumstance, which is consistent with theguilt of the accused.The accused has offered noexplanation in respect of the possession of these jewels worn by the deceased.From the fact that the accused was found with bloodstains, from the fact thatMO.1 Aruval was recovered from him, and from the fact that the jewels worn bythe deceased were recovered from his possession, it has been clearly proved thatit was the accused who committed the murder of the deceased and took away thejewels from her.Thus, from the circumstances, narrated above, we find thatthe prosecution has clinchingly proved the guilt of the accused.It is the settled law that in a case based on circumstantialevidence, the circumstances projected by the prosecution should be proved beyondreasonable doubts and all such proved circumstances should form a completechain, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and there shall be noother hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.In thecase on hand, as we have discussed and concluded above, the circumstancesenumerated supra have been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the chain ofcircumstances, unerringly, prove the guilt of the accused.Thus, we are in fullagreement with the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused on boththe charges.We find no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trialCourt.In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court isconfirmed.1.The Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, Ramathanathapuram District.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,028,060 |
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,062,590 |
One Ku.P. aged about 21 years lodged report with Police Station Sindewahi, Dist.Chandrapur and stated therein that when she was taking education in D.Ed.College and residing with her close relative, she had a love affair with applicant-Sachin, who promised her from time to time that he would marry her and ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 ::: 3 aba218.257.309.15.odt would not marry anybody else.In 2008, when she was studying in the 9th standard again, he had extended to her similar promises for marriage and with that promise committed rape on her and she allowed him to do so only because of promise of marriage.S. aged about 20 years, lodged report with Police Station, Pandharkawda on 02.05.2015, that she had received a phone call on her mobile number from unknown person who told her that he loves her and thereafter when she had gone to Patanbori along with her neighbour and friend, a boy, aged about 23-24 years came near her and offered to marry her but she went away.On the second occasion, she received a call on her mobile phone from applicant-Syed Abubakar Syed Mir, the same boy who called her near road going to Tipeshwar forest.She went at 6.00 p.m. to meet him when she told her that he loves her and would marry her and, therefore, she became ready for marriage.They used to ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 ::: 4 aba218.257.309.15.odt meet near the same road and thereafter on last visit he took her under nullah bridge and committed rape on her, thereafter, he refused to marry her.A. and in the year 2013 when she was residing as a tenant of one Shri Gupta at Amraipura, S.T. Stand Chowk, Yavatmal, the applicant had gone to meet her and told her that he wanted to marry her.She told him that in the year 2004 itself, she was already married with one Amar Dashrath, r/o Narkhed, Nagpur and, thereafter, there was a divorce between them and therefore she was residing alone.These are the applications for grant of anticipatory bail filed by various applicants in relation to the offence registered under Sections 376 (2)(n) of the Indian penal Code read with other sections of the Indian penal Code.Criminal Application No. 309/2015::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::However, thereafter, when she was pressing him to marry her, he avoided her from time to time and finally stopped talking to her and as such she lodged report with Police Station Sindewahi on 17.06.2015 and an offence, as stated above, has been registered against the applicant.Criminal Application No. 257/2015She lodged report accordingly with police Station Pandharkawda.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::Criminal Application No. 218/2015A. aged about 30 years lodged report with Police Station, Kasarkhed, Dist.Yavatmal on which offence under Section 376, 312 of the IPC was registered against the applicant.She stated in the FIR that she was working and earning Rs.6,000/- per month as Field Officer in the office of Sant Gadge Baba Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Dist.There was a friendship between the present applicant and the complainant Ku.He told her that he wanted to marry her and upon that promise, committed rape on her on 2-3 occasions.In 2014, when she was at Darwah, the applicant came to her and ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 ::: 5 aba218.257.309.15.odt gave her promise of marriage and committed rape on her.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::Thereafter, at Pusad when she was residing in a rented room, there again the applicant had committed rape on her.In the meantime, she conceived from the applicant and told him about it.She requested him to marry her but he did not.On the contrary, he gave her tablets for abortion.It is thus from him, she conceived and twice she aborted.In June-2014 when she was residing in the house of Shri Khandale at Wadgaon, both resided together and there again she conceived and asked him to marry but he did not marry.Thereafter, the applicant stopped talking to her.Having got suspicion, she went to Sayatkharda and came to know that he had married one Shilpa Khobragade by registered marriage.Then she lodged the report with Police that she was raped by him on several occasions on the promise of marriage and was cheated accordingly.On the basis of the above facts, the learned counsel for the applicants argued that these complainants are admittedly major and the facts clearly demonstrate that they had consensual sex with the applicants.Counsel for the applicants, therefore, argued that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail since the complainants were voluntarily willing party to the intercourse which does not constitute rape.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the arguments advanced by the applicants are based on the old unamended provisions of Section 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the offence having been committed after coming into force of the amendment, the defence of consensual sex cannot stand.The learned A.P.P, therefore prayed for dismissal of these applications.The question involved in these applications is of some importance.The question has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicants, at this stage of consideration of application for ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 ::: 7 aba218.257.309.15.odt grant of anticipatory bail.The learned counsel for the applicants relied on the decisions in Deepak Gulati ..vs.. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Kaini Rajan ..vs.. State of Kerala; (2013) 9 SCC 113; K. P. Thimmappa Gowda ..vs.. State of Karnataka;::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::A man is said to commit "rape" if he---(a) to (d) .....::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::Punishment for rape-shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine."The use of word "unequivocal" in the above Explanation-2 is most crucial in the amended provision.Hence, there was voluntary agreement.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::(i) Criminal Application Nos.218/2015, 257/2015 and 309/2015 are rejected.JUDGE kahale ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:56 :::
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,109,367 |
sentence imposed on appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma Datta, are thus :As PW2 Nirakar had gone for attending his work on 25 th March 2011, the victim/PW1 was all alone at her house.Her daughter had been to the school.At about 2.30 p.m. of that day, the victim/PW1 heard knock on door of her house.She opened the door.Accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak was outside the door of her house.She refused to let him in the house.Upon that, accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak pressed her mouth and dragged her inside her house.She was beaten by accused no.1 avk 3/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc Sunilkumar Nayak.Her earrings and chain were snatched by him.By pointing a knife at her, appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma asked her to deliver ornaments and valuables from her house.She, then, handed over ornaments from the cupboard to accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::(b) According to the prosecution case, after robbing the victim/PW1 of her valuables and ornaments, accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak committed rape on her, and thereafter, appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma also committed rape on her.They, then, tied the victim/PW1 to the bed and fled from the spot by latching the door of the house of the victim/PW1 from outside.(c) The victim/PW1 somehow managed to rescue herself and from the window of her house gave a call to PW3 Balkrushna Ambawane.Accordingly, PW4 Steevo opened the door.avk 4/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc Neighbours gathered there.The victim/PW1 disclosed the incident to them.Her husband i.e. PW2 Nirakar was intimated about the incident telephonically.He reached Police Station Kolsewadi directly from his workplace.The victim/PW1 was taken to Police Station by police and there her report Exhibit 53 came to be recorded.challenging the judgment and order dated 13 th November 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in Sessions Case No.174 of 2011 thereby convicting him of offences avk 1/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc punishable under Sections 394, 452 and 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused No.1 Sunilkumar Nayak also came to be convicted by this judgment.However, accused nos.2 and 3 came to be acquitted by the learned trial court.So far as appellant/accused no.4 is concerned, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code apart from directing him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months.For the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.4 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 month.For the offence punishable under Section 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from imposition of fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 month.All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::That is how, Crime No.73 of 2011 for offences punishable under Sections 394, 397, 343 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::(d) During the course of investigation, the spot came to be inspected and Spot Panchnama came to be recorded.The victim/PW1 was sent for medical examination to Rukminibai Hospital, Kalyan, where she was examined by PW5 Dr.Neeta Bhagwat.Statement of witnesses came to be recorded.Some looted ornaments came to be seized.It was found that appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma had sold some of the looted ornaments to PW8 Dalpatbhai Soni.Gold ingot came to be seized from him as he had melted those avk 5/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc ornaments.After conducting routine investigation, appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma along with co-accused came to be charge-sheeted.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::(e) The learned trial court framed and explained Charge to the appellant/accused no.4 so also the co-accused.They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.However, something went wrong and husband of the victim/PW1 came to know about her illicit relations.Therefore, she had falsely implicated the accused persons in the crime in question.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::impugned judgment and order was pleased to convict the appellant/accused no.4 and he was accordingly sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.3 I have heard Ms.Bajoria, the learned appointed advocate to represent the appellant/accused at the costs of the State.She has spoken out a false theory of robbery and rape.She has falsely implicated accused nos.2 and 3 in the crime in question so also the appellant/accused no.4, because of her illicit relations with accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak.Except her sole interested testimony, there is no evidence to implicate the appellant/accused no.4 in the crime in question.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::impugned judgment and order of conviction by contending that evidence of the victim of the crime in question is well corroborated by medical evidence adduced by the prosecution on record.Even evidence of PW8 Dalpatbhai Soni is showing complicity of the appellant/accused no.4 in the crime in question.5 I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the record and proceedings including oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties.6 At the outset, let us examine evidence of the victim of the crime in question as she is the sole eye witness to the incident in question.Her evidence makes it clear that on 25 th March 2011, as her daughter had gone to attend the school, she was all alone in the house.As per her version, at about 2.30 p.m. of that day, she opened the door after hearing knocking at the front door of her house.This witness testified that then she saw a person with dark complexion outside her house and that person disclosed avk 8/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc name of her husband as well as maternal uncle.He, then, pressed her mouth and dragged her inside the house.This witness identified this witness as accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak.She, then, stated that, thereafter another accused who as identified by her was appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma, entered in her house.She was then beaten by appellant/accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak.He had snatched her earrings and chain.The victim/PW1 further deposed that then appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma threatened her with knife and demanded ornaments and valuables from her.She, therefore, gave all ornaments to accused persons by taking them out from the cupboard.The victim/PW1 further deposed that, thereafter, she was rapd by accused no.1 Sunilkumar and thereafter by appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma.The victim/PW1 deposed that thereafter she was tied to a bed.As per her version, after accused persons left the spot by latching the front door of her house from outside, she managed to free herself and then gave a call to neighbour, whom she used to call as Ambawane uncle.Thereafter, front door of her house was opened by her neighbour called Steevo.As per version of this witness, she avk 9/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc lodged report Exhibit 53 with Kolsewadi Police Station.The victim/PW1 has also stated about identification of accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak and that of appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma Datta by her in the Test Identification Parade.7 During her cross-examination, the victim/PW1 denied suggestions that she was acquainted with appellant/accused no.1 Sunilkumar since long and he used to visit her house frequently and while coming to her house, he was bringing food parcel for her.Except this, as well as suggestions to the effect that she was having illicit relations with appellant/accused no.1 Sunilkumar Nayak, which she denied, nothing more could be brought in her cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::She was calling him as Ambani uncle.PW4 Steevo has also stated about opening of the front door of the house of the victim/PW1 as it was latched from outside.Both these witnesses have stated that the victim/PW1 narrated to them that two persons committed theft at her house.PW4 Steevo has stated that the victim/PW1 was having scratch and marks of assault on her cheek.PW3 Balkrushna Ambawane has deposed about narrations of the victim/PW1 to the effect that she was raped.Careful scrutiny of evidence of both these witnesses goes to show that their version is corroborating version of the injured victim/PW1. 9 The victim/PW1 was then referred to Rukminibai Hospital, Kalyan, by police where she was examined by PW5 Dr.Neeta Bhagwat.Evidence of PW5 Dr.Neeta Bhagwat shows that the victim/PW1 had given history of forceful sexual intercourse with her by robbers after committing robbery at her house.Evidence of PW5 Dr.Neeta Bhagwat which is corroborated by the contemporaneous Medico Legal Certificate shows that the avk 11/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc victim/PW1 was having mild dried bleeding at her both ears apart from abrasions on her cheek, right side of nose, at jaw line as well as upper border of lip.Apart from these injuries, the victim/PW1 was also found to be having contusion on lumber region as well as right side of back.Thus, evidence of PW5 Dr.Neeta Bhagwat shows that the victim/PW1 was assaulted by robbers at the time of the incident.As such, evidence of the victim/PW1 is gaining corroboration even from medical evidence adduced by the prosecution on record.10 Evidence of PW8 Dalpatbhai Soni shows that on 27th March 2012 a person named Bhisma came to his shop along with one another person and they had sold gold ornaments weighing about 80 grams to him.Though this witness could not identify the appellant/accused no.4 in the dock, his evidence to the effect that a person named Bhisma sold gold ornaments to him on 27 th March 2012 is not shattered in the cross-examination.Even otherwise, this witness had no reason to mention name of the avk 12/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc appellant/accused no.4 as the person who sold gold ornaments to him.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::11 While in the witness box, the victim/PW1 has categorically identified appellant/accused no.4 Bhisma as a person who had pointed out a knife at her and robbed her of her ornaments.He was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 3 rd July 2012 and he was subjected to the Test Identification Parade on 6 th August 2012 before PW11 Anant Sakpal.Evidence of this witness who was Nayab Tahsildar at the relevant time, shows that the victim/PW1 had identified the appellant/accused no.4 in the Test Identification Parade by touching him.Despite searching cross- examination of this Nayab Tahsildar, nothing could be brought on record to doubt his version.No such suggestions avk 13/14::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 ::: 201-APPEAL739-2015-J.doc were given even to the victim/PW1 by the defence despite the fact that she vouched about identifying the appellant/accused no.4 before the Nayab Tahsildar in the Test Identification Parade.12 The net result of the foregoing discussion requires me to hold that the prosecution has established the fact that the appellant/accused no.4 had committed robbery at the house of the victim/PW1 by causing hurt to her and after trespassing at her house and wrongfully confining her.In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and therefore the order :::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::i) The appeal is dismissed.ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, Criminal Application No.483 of 2016 stands disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 23:43:07 :::
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,277,555 |
CRL.M.C. 3300/2014 Page 1 of 6The complainant/respondent No. 1, Pooja, who is also present in Court, is identified by her counsel, as well as the investigating Officer, SI Nitin, Police Station Nand Nagri.She states that she has received all the amounts mentioned in the said statement, and that she also has custody of the minor child in terms of the said statement.Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 5/08 registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on 04.01.2008 at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi, and proceedings emanating therefrom.It is stated that the FIR came to be registered as a result of certain matrimonial disputes between the petitioner No. 1, Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Rohilla and respondent No. 1/complainant, Pooja @ Varsha Rohilla, and that all disputes and differences have since been resolved between the parties.A certified copy of said joint statement has also been annexed as Annexure 'C' to this petition.Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court.Here charge is proved CRL.M.C. 3300/2014 Page 5 of 6 under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."CRL.M.C. 3300/2014 Page 5 of 6I am of the opinion that the matter, which is arising purely out of matrimonial dispute and has been settled between the parties, and since there is little likelihood of the prosecution succeeding in the matter, deserves to be given a quietus.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 5/08 registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on 04.01.2008 at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi, and proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,312,948 |
Briefly stated, the informant Sudhanshu Mohan Degwekar is the builder and works under the name and style of "Kanchan Ganga Realtors Pvt. Ltd.", Khamla Road, Nagpur".He had executed development agreement with the brother of the accused named Dinkar Borkute R/o Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur, in respect of development and construction of flat scheme on Kh.No. 58/1K and since last 2 years the work was in progress.It is alleged that the accused was also builder and he threatened the informant that the said site belongs to Borkute family and he will make construction over it.Thereafter, there was another development agreement with Dinkar Bhaskarrao Borkute on 26/10/2011 in respect of adjoining plot.On 07/12/2011, JCB was brought on this site for leveling the land.The informant along with his Engineers Kunal Shelke, Sanjay Bhakre and Supervisor Ashish Deshpande was present on this site.At about 12.45 p.m., the accused came and asked them to stop the work.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::3 920cri.apeal22.19 However, they did not stop the work.It is alleged that the accused then took out revolver and pointed it towards the informant and warned him to leave from there, else he will fire the revolver.He also threatened the JCB operator to stop the work.The accused came in front of JCB and fired the revolver towards the JCB operator, as a result, after breaking the wind screen of JCB, the operator received the fire arm injury on his forehead.At the relevant time, the deceased Rampal Sewakrao Dhurve was operating the JCB.He sustained injury.He was immediately sent to the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur.The accused was present there with revolver.The deceased succumbed to the injury.PW-3 - Sudhanshu Mohan Degwekar is the informant.He testified that on 07/12/2011 he was on the spot.The plot leveling work was in progress through JCB.The JCB was going ahead::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 ::: 6 920cri.apeal22.19 and, therefore, the accused was moving back.The accused lost his balance and then they heard the noise of firing of revolver.JUDGMENT : (PER PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 07/01/2019 passed by the Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 200/2013, thereby convicting the appellant / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 ::: 2 920cri.apeal22.19 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::On information, the police reached the spot.On the report of informant - Sudhanshu Mohan Degwekar - PW-3 (Exh. 60) Crime No. 278/2011 was registered vide Exh. 61 and police conducted investigation.After completion of investigation charge-sheet came to filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in its turn committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial as the offence punishable under Section 302 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.The charge was read over to him, which he denied and claimed to be tried.His defence is of total denial and that the shot was accidentally fired after he lost his balance while he was requesting JCB operator to stop the JCB.The prosecution examined in all five witnesses.The trial court recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused also submitted his written statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused did not prefer to examine any defence witness.The learned Sessions Court found the accused guilty of murder and hence, pronounced the judgment of conviction and sentenced him for life imprisonment.We have heard Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Udeshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.We also perused the record with the assistance of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties.At the outset, appellant / accused does not dispute for holding revolver at the time of incident.He also admits that the police::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 ::: 5 920cri.apeal22.19 seized revolver from his hand.His specific defence is that while he was asking JCB operator, not to proceed further, as he was in front of JCB machine with revolver in his hand, on the directions of informant PW-3 JCB operator was proceeding further and the accused lost his balance and in that process there was accidental firing from the gun.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::Before proceeding to discuss about the defence of accidental firing, it is necessary to see as to whether the prosecution establishes the act of intentional firing by the accused.The accused - Pravin s/o Bhaskarrao Borkute came there.He asked to stop the work.They did not stop the work as JCB was brought on rent on hourly basis.The accused then went in front of JCB and asked the JCB operator to stop the work.The accused took out revolver.There was a barbed wire fencing in between his plot and plot of accused.He told the JCB operator to break the barbed wire fencing.The JCB operator got injured.He was sent to hospital.On his report police registered First Information Report.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::On perusal of the testimony of this witness, it appears that he is supporting the accused rather than the prosecution.Though PW-1 also admits his presence on the spot and witnessed the incident, prosecution examined him as a panch witness for seizer panchnama.PW-1 testifies that in his presence police seized one pistol from Pravin Borkute.He admits his signature to the spot panchnama and arrest-cum-seizer panchnama (Exh. 30 and 31 respectively).::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::PW-4 and 5 are the police witnesses, they deposed about investigation they have done in the case.The appellant / accused - Pravin Borkute in his written submission under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in paragraph 10 states as under :"However, because of incitement given by the complainant Sudhanshu, the JCB Operator did not stop the JCB even after the accused took out the revolver in his hand.The accused was moving back with the revolver in his hand and the JCB was proceeding towards him.Since the ground was uneven, the accused lost his balance, as a result of which, a shot was accidentally fired from his revolver, which it appears hit the JCB Operator after breaking the windscreen of the JCB."In law, the initial burden to prove the guilt is on the prosecution.Once the guilt against the accused is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the onus is shifted on the accused to establish his defence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.As stated earlier, on prosecution side there is no substantive evidence on the point that the accused intentionally fired at the JCB operator.Holding the gun and pointing it towards JCB operator and seizing the same by the police from the accused, is not::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 ::: 8 920cri.apeal22.19 sufficient to establish intention or knowledge of the accused in causing homicidal death.It is not disputed that the accused was holding a valid license for the revolver.On the day of incident, he was in possession of the revolver.Even if, a case was put to PW-1 by the defence Counsel in his cross-examination that accused was pointing revolver to the JCB operator in order to stop him, that itself does not prove the intention of firing as contemplated in law for homicidal death, unless and until it is proved that firing was done.At the same time, pointing revolver towards destination without firing, would also not cover within the ambit of 'knowledge' as contemplated in law for homicidal death.For 'knowledge', the acts shall be so risky that in all probabilities it leads to an injury by which death is likely.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::The learned Sessions Judge relied on Exhibit 85 in his judgment which is stated to be a report given by the accused to the police on the date of incident (Exh. 85), wherein he has admitted that as JCB operator brought JCB on his person, he lost balance and he aimed revolver at the leg of the operator and he fired.In the absence of any substantive evidence on record by the prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence of murder for which minimum sentence is life imprisonment, only on the ground that he admitted before the police that he lost balance and he aimed revolver at the leg of the operator and it was fired.In this view of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following order :::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::The accused - Pravin s/o Bhaskarrao Borkute is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.Since accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2020 03:58:07 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,264,414 |
Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. XIX of April, 1992 which arose out of Nayagram P. S. Case No. 39 of 1990 dated 20-12-90 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 482 of 1990 of the Court of the Ld. SDJM, Jhargam convicting thereby all the appellants of the charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.It was directed in the order that both the sentences were to run simultaneously.One Soumendra Nath Das, Block Development Officer of Nayagram and Officer-in-Charge of Nayagram panchayat Samity went to the Nayagram Police Station and handed over a written complaint at 09.00 hrs.on 20-10-90 alleging that 20-10-90 was fixed on behalf of Panchayat Samity for taking charge of sailing of boat at Dahivasra ghat and accordingly, at 8.30 a.m. he went to the police station with Sri Mrinal Patra, Secretary of the Panchayat and asked the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to accompany them.The Officer-in-Charge of the police station informed him that the car had been sent to some other place for a special work for which he would start when the car would come back.Accordingly, the Block Development Officer asked Shri Patra to come with the vehicle of the police station after its arrival.But Shri Patra accompanied the Block Development Officer by his car.At about 8.45 a.m., both of them reached near Dahi ghat and leaving the vehicle on the road, started to go on foot for the ghat as the road was broken.On the way they met Jyotish Bera, President of Nayagram fishermen Co-operative Society and started to proceed along with him.Shri Patra was standing on the road and was talking to two persons.The BDO proceeded further and having heard one hue and cry, he looked behind and saw that some persons armed with tangis, spears and axes came running and attacked Shri Patra.As a result of that attack, Shri Patra sustained bleeding injuries on head.The BDO asked the attacking persons to stop after proceeding some distance and saw that the body of Shri Patra fell down on the nearby field in bleeding condition.Later on he came to know that Mrinal Patra died on that spot in that condition.At that time two persons threatened the BDO with bows, arrows and tangis and asked him to leave that place and also threatened him that his fate would be like that of Shri Patra unless he left that place at once.At that time, Jyotish Bera also associated himself with the attacking persons and asked the BDO.to leave the place and also threatened him.Being frightened, he left that place and stated everything before the Officer-in-Charge of the Police station.On the way, the BDO also heard that one Bimal Bolai was one of the attacking persons.On the basis of the said written complaint, Nayagram P. S. Case No. 39/90 dated 20-10-90 under Sections 147, 148, 149/302 of the Indian Penal Code was started.The case was investigated by the police.In course of investigation, the dead body was recovered from the field and sent for post mortem examination.Several witnesses were examined.JUDGMENT Gorachand De, J.Weapons of offence were recovered and as many as 25 persons were arrested in connection with the case and ultimately, charge-sheet No. 38 of 1991 dated 31-12-91 under Section 148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the present seven appellants and also against one Kalipada Bera.However, prayer was made for discharge of the rest of the arrested persons.Since all the eight persons were on bail, the ld. SDJM at the time of committal of the case to the Court of Sessions allowed the prayer of the accused persons to remain on the previous bail till the order of confirmation by the ld.Sessions Judge, Midnapore.Before the Sessions Court, all the eight accused persons appeared and they were allowed to remain on the same bail and the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.Accordingly, 22 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.Excepting the accused Kalipada Bera the remaining seven accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.No witness was produced on behalf of the defence in spite of giving ample opportunity and ultimately, after hearing the argument, the ld.Additional Sessions Judge found all the seven accused persons guilty to the charges levelled against them and convicted them in the manner indicated hereinabove.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal was preferred by all the seven convicted persons.During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 7, Sarat Bera was reported to be dead.The evidence on behalf of the prosecution was adduced against all the eight persons facing the trial.In course of examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Kalipada Bera submitted that he was aged about 17 years.The ld.However, the ld.Additional Sessions Judge opted to ascertain the age of Kalipada Bera, and thereby directed the Superintendent of Midnapore State Hospital to fix up a date for ascertaining the age of the said Kalipada Bera.Kalipada Bera was also directed to appear before the SDJM, Jhargram for the said purpose.Since no report was received and the Sessions Trial was at the stage of conclusion, the ld.Additional Sessions Judge by his order No. 33 dated 22-8-94 directed splitting up of the record of the accused Kalipada Bera with a further direction that the case against the remaining seven accused persons would proceed.Since the ld.But the matter did not proceed further.Ultimately after the close of the argument, on prayer of the ld.Hope the trial Court as well as the prosecution will taken care in this regard.It is already stated above that for proving the charges levelled against the seven accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses including the autopsy surgeon (P W-19) and the Investigating Officer (PW-22).Before scanning the evidence of these witnesses, we deem it proper to examine the post mortem report which was clarified and proved by the autopsy surgeon (PW-19) and marked as Ext. 7 In the case.From the Ext. 7 and the evidence of PW-19, it is proved that the post mortem examination was held over the dead body of one Miral Kanti Patra on 21-10-90 at about 12.05 p.m. The body was identified before the autopsy surgeon by Constable No. 1322, Sanjoy Kumar De of Nayaram police Station (PW-20).On examination the PW-9 found the following four injuries.An incited injury placed horizontally on the forehead 5" x 1/2" cranial cavity from the middle of the right eye-brow extending to the left.An incised injury placed vertically 4" x 1/2" x cranial cavity extending from the end of the above injury downwards just leading to the left eye upto the middle of the left cheek.A horizontal incised injury extending from the middle of the left cheek passing backwards below the left ear to the occipital bone measuring 12" x 1/2" cranial cavity.A horizontally placed incised injury extending from the middle of the left eye brow passing backwards upto the occipital area about 10" 1/2" x cranial cavity."It was clarified by the PW-9 that as a result of the assault, a small skull near the lower end of the head was hanging and brain matter expansion from the cranial cavity was detected.So the autopsy surgeon opined that the injuries were supposed to cause instantaneous death.It was also indicated in the postmortem report that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the head injuries which are ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.So from the evidence of the autopsy surgeon as corroborated by the post mortem report, it can safely be concluded that Mrinal Patra was murdered.The PW-20, Sanjoy Kumar De, a police constable proved that he was present at the time of preparation of the inquest by the police officer, SI, Sitanath Das.The PW-20 clarified that Saibal Patra (PW-13) who was the brother of the deceased identified the dead body before them and thereafter, the dead body was given in the custody of the PW-20 who took it to the Jhargram S. D, Hospital and identified the dead body before the post-mortem doctor.He also pointed out that the dead body was recovered from a paddy field.Sri Saibal Patra as PW-13 also stated that he identified the dead body of Mrinal Patra at the time of preparation of the inquest report by the police personnel.He also narrated how the dead body, with bleeding injuries was lying in the paddy field near DahighatIt is also clarified by the PW-13 that the appellant No. 1 Jyotish Bera was the President of the Nayagram Matsajibi Sambaya Samity.The appellant No. 2 Bimal Chandra Dolai was the Secretary of the said Samity and the other accused persons were the members of the said Samity.It is clarified that there was a ferry ghat in between Bhasra Ghat and Dahighat and it being a Government property, the Zilla Parishad controlled that ghat.The PW-13 further stated that every year auction is called and in 1396 B.S. one Kumud Mahapatra (PW-14) was the highest bidder.Since the ferry ghat was under the control of the Sambaya Samity in the preceding year.The said Kumud Muhapatra did not get possession of the ferry ghat for which a complaint was made before the B.D.O. and also to Mrinal Patra.It is also stated that the said Kumud Mahapatra was threatened by the President, Secretary and members of the Matsajibi Samity with dire consequences in the event he attempts to take possession.It is also clarified that Marinal Patra tried to take possession through the Panchayat Samity for which the President, Secretary and.members of the Samity became very angry with him.So it is alleged that the murder of Mrinal Patra, when he went to take such possession on 2nd Kartick 1397 B. S. along with the B.D.O., was the outcome of such enmity.The P.W. 14, Kumud Mahapatra practically reiterated the facts disclosed by the P.W. 13 as regards control of the ferry ghat by the Matsajibi Samabaya Samiti in 1395 B.S. The subsequent highest bidding by him was in 1396 B.S. It is also clarified that litigation is pending between the Matasajibi Samity and also Kumud Mahapatra and the Government.The accused Jyotish Bera in his cross-examination under Section 313, admitted that he was the President of the said Matsajibi Samity at the relevant time and that on the issue of taking control of the ferry ghat a litigation was pending before the High Court.Documents are also produced on behalf of the defence that there was a litigation on the issue of control of the ferry ghat between the said Samabaya Samity and the Government and others.In the backdrop of these facts the evidence adduced by the witnesses is to be assessed.Mrinal Patra was the Extension Officer of the Panchayat Samity.The eye-witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7} also clarified that the saw Mrinal Patra near Dahighat on the date of the incident.So the time and place of the crime of murder have been established beyond any reasonable doubt.The manner of assault; is also clarified by the said eye witnesses.It is clarified by the eye witnesses that the assailants gave tangi blow on the head of Mrinal Patra after which he fell down with bleeding injuries on the field and died.The description of the assault is also corroborated by the post mortem report.Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that Mrinal Patra was murdered in the morning of 20-10-1990 by a group of persons.So the next question is who are the assailants ?It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the learned Sessions Judge noticed three injuries though the autopsy surgeon on the basis of the post mortem report proved the four injuries on the upper part of the victim.The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not clarify the part played by Jyotish Bera.The learned counsel for the appellant made a forceful argument on this score and contended that the finding of guilt against Jyotish Bera is without any basis.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, tried to argue that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 as well as the other witnesses, it can be said that Jyotish Bera was the main brain of the incident.If is also argued on behalf of the State that the evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that on the issue of taking possession of Dahighat, there was tension between Matsajibi Samity and the Government as the highest bidder (P.W. 14) could not get possession of the ferry ghat.So from the argument of the prosecution it appears that an attempt has been made to entangle Jyotish Bera with the alleged offence since he was the President of the Samabaya Samity.So, let it is be considered how far prosecution has been able to prove the charges against Jyotish Bera.In the FIR, the B.D.O. (P.W. 1) stated that while Jyotish Bera was with him and was proceeding towards the ferry ghat being attracted by one hue and cry he looked behind and found that some persons armed with tangis and axes came near Mrinal Patra and started to assault him.At that time the B.D.O. was at a distance of 10-15 metres from Mrinal Patra.When the BDO asked the assailants to stop, two of them threatened him.It is also stated that at that time Jyotish Bera associated himself with the attacking persons and asked him to leave that place with the threat his fate would also be the same of that of Shri Patra.In his examination-in-chief, the BDO (P.W. 1) stated that when he was at a distance of 10-15 metres from Mrinal Patra and was talking with Jyotish Bera, he saw that some persons surrounded Mrinal Patra with arms in their hand and started assaulting him.The P.W. 1 asked the assailants not take the law in their own hand.At that time, Jyotish Bera and his associates threatened the BDO that he would also face the same fate.So from the evidence of the P.W. 1, it is clear that as Jyotish Bera asked the P.W. 1 to leave the place to avoid the fate of Mrinal Patra, it was believed by the PW 1 that Jyotish Bera was siding with the assailants.But there is nothing in the evidence of PW1 to show or indicate that the assault on Mrinal Patra was perpetrated at the instance of Jyotish Bera.The P.W. 2 Anadi Kakran was a local resident and in his examination-in-chief he claimed that Jyotish Bera was shouting with the BDO.It is also claimed by the P.W. 2 that when BDO and Mrinal Patra was proceeding, he heard that Jyotish Bera was expressing his grievance against Mrinal Patra.It was also stated that Jyotish Bera thereafter called the villagers to kill Mrinal Patra and after hearing such a call, the assailants Bimal Dolai, Sadananda Bera, Sum Bera and Mantu Guin came to the spot carrying arms in their hands and started assaulting Mrinal Patra, In the cross-examination, the PW-2 claimed that he stated before the police that Jyotish Bera and Sarat Bera was shouting by saying "salaka mar" (kill the rascal).But from the evidence of the I.O. (PW-22), it appears that such a statement was not made by the PW-2 before him.So this statement is undoubtedly in the nature of embellishment.It is also to be noted that the PW-2 was answering the call of nature when he heard the voice of Jyotish Bera .So it is not an authentic version of PW-2 that Jyotish Bera called the villagers to kill Mrinal Patra.The other three eye witnesses namely, Bharati Pariary (PW-3), Arati, Mahapatra (PW 4) and Renubala Pariary (PW 3), Arati Mahapatra (PW-4) and Renubala Pariary (PW-7) never claimed that Jyotish Bera took any part of in the alleged assault.So from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7, it is not at all possible to entangle Jyotish Bera directly with the alleged assault.On the other hand, it is sufficiently clear that Jyotish Bera was with the PW-1 when Mrinal Patra was assaulted at a distance.True it is that the other assailants were members of the Samiti of which Jyotish Bera was the President, But there is no evidence to connect Jyotish Bera with the alleged assault.Mere strained relationship between Jyotish Bera with Mrinal Patra cannot connect the former with the alleged offence without any proof.The presence of other accused persons with arms in their hands before the assault has been proved by the eye witnesses.It also transpires from the evidence of the eye witnesses that; initially the accused Bimal Dolai, Sadananda Bera, Mantu Guin and Suru Bera with tangis and axes in their hands attacked Mrinal Patra first and subsequently the other accused persons joined them with bow and arrow and all of them were present at the time of incident.After the arrest of the accused persons, the arms were also recovered on the basis of their statements, and those arms were identified in course of the evidence.But those questions can not be construed to be of vital nature.It appears that the trial Court after analysing the evidence on record rightly and Justifiably came to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the other appellants have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,546,951 |
If some person dies under other than normal circumstances, the offence can be constituted.So far as the ground for custody is concerned, that also does not appeal this Court to allow the application.In the backdrop of nature of crime, the evidence available on record and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to deviate from the earlier view on any of the ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.Therefore, the petition is dismissed.(Virender Singh) Judge das Digitally signed by REENA PARTHO SARKAR Date: 2019.10.03 10:04:34 +05'30'
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,599,964 |
This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.146/2017 for offence under section 456, 354(A), 294, 323 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station-Sendri, District- Tikamgarh.The facts relating to the case are as such.On 18.08.2017, in the night, the prosecutrix while she was going to answer natures call, the applicant is stated to have entered into the common compound between the house of the applicant and that of the prosecutrix and caught hold of her hand with evil intent and upon her raising an alarm and her husband coming to the scene of occurrence, the applicant is stated to have pushed her husband away and then abusing all of them and went away from the scene of occurrence.The FIR was not registered on 18.08.2017, thereafter on 19.08.2017, there is a quarrel between the applicant and the husband of the prosecutrix during the day time, in which the applicant is stated to have abused the husband.Upon being asked by this Court with regard to the delay in registering the FIR, learned counsel for the State informs that they waited for father-in-law to return and, thereafter, registered the FIR.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk Digitally signed by RAVI KANT KEWT DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482008, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a8d9b14ac58cf947b7ed23741112684b5277de5c828d98b 25803bbc1b20fce6e, serialNumber=b4adf2781367121a8c6194ca0d70e6499c424f691eb 777334632e1b1713fb624, cn=RAVI KANT KEWT Date: 2017.11.08 21:26:06 -08'00'
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
196,853,141 |
W.P.(Crl.) 2789/2019 Page 3 of 3BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 269/2019, under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at W.P.(Crl.) 2789/2019 Page 1 of 3 P.S.: Mayur Vihar Phase-I. Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.W.P.(Crl.) 2789/2019 Page 1 of 3The petitioner and respondent no.2 submitted that they have settled their disputes on their own free will, without any force or coercion.Respondent no.2 stated that the does not want to pursue the matter.Respondent no.2, who are present in Court, has reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that they have amicably settled their dispute.Respondent no.2 further submitted that he has no objection to the FIR being quashed and the petition being allowed.In 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. 269/2019, under section 308 of the IPC, registered at P.S.: Mayur Vihar Phase-I and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, subject to deposit of 100 plants of Pomegranate (Anar) by the petitioner with the Dy.Director, Horticulture, D-2/85, Pandara Road Nursery, New Delhi.Parties are directed to file compliance report within a period of two weeks before the Registrar General, failing which cost of Rs. 20,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.W.P.(Crl.) 2789/2019 Page 2 of 3Petition is disposed of accordingly.Copy of this order be given dasti, as prayed.(BRIJESH SETHI) JUDGE DECEMBER 06, 2019 savita W.P.(Crl.) 2789/2019 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
196,859,556 |
Item No. 51And In the matter of: Amar Nath Jha & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal & Anr.Opposite Parties Mr. Kajal Roy For the Petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur For the State Mr. Sparshamoni Saha Podder For the O.P. No.2 The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Shibpur Police Station Case No.1015 of 2013 dated 25.09.2013 under sections 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for parties.It appears that there was a delayed deposit of Provident Fund dues because of which the present complaint has been lodged.The Petitioners have now deposited an amount of `1,00,765/- with the Provident Fund Authorities.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
196,866,888 |
Heard on I.A. No.9051/2019, second application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence filed on behalf of appellant Ajay Kachhi.T h e appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation and under Section 342 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year.Heard both the parties.The appellant filed first application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. being I.A.No.4958/2019, that application has been dismissed as Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 21/06/2019 10:38:05 2 CRA-9873-2018 withdrawn on 29.03.2019 and this second application for suspension of custodial sentence filed on 13.05.2019 within two months.What is the reason for filing this second application in this short period is not mentioned in the application ?Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on perusal of the statement, there is no primafacie case made out against the appellant and prays for suspension of custodial sentence.Perused the judgment of the trial Court and the statement of the witnesses recorded before the trial Court.There is an evidence against the appellant that the appellant took the prosecutrix forcibly inside the room and forcibly committed rape upon her.When, someone came on the door then, appellant fled away from the room by locking the door from outside.Hearing the shouting, mother of the appellant came on the door and found the prosecutrix inside the room, then prosecutrix went to her house and narrated the whole story.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 21/06/2019 10:38:05
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
196,871,756 |
1 Form No.J (1) In the High Court at Calcutta ( Criminal Appellate/ Revisional Jurisdiction ) Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No.3463 of 2013 Khodabox Sk. @ Md. Khoda Box & Ors.Sabina Bibi & Anr.For the petitioners: None.For the State : Mr. Amarta Ghosh.For opposite party No.1/de facto complainant:Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Mr. Arnab Sinha, Mr. Rajiv Lochan Chakraborty.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
196,877,092 |
The facts of the case are as follows:The respondents/accused are the resident of Gotkhindi.The deceased had purchased 1.5 acres of land from NarayanShivaji Thorat- accused no. 1 in 2001, however, sale deed was notexecuted by him of 5 gunthas out of this land and there was somedispute between deceased Prakash and accused no. 1-NarayanThorat.On 16th August, 2008, the accused formed unlawfulassembly and they attacked Prakash, his cousin Dattajirao Thoratand Shobha, wife of Dattajirao with sticks.Accused no. 5 VikramHanmant Thorat gave fist and kick blows to Prakash Thorat.Prakash was also beaten with sticks by all the respondents.Hewas shifted to hospital immediately.2 of 63. Learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge oughtto have taken into account the evidence of PW-6 Sonali PrakashThorat and PW-7 Deepali Prakash Thorat.Both the girls havestated that on the night of 16 th August, 2008 at around 11 p.m. thequarrel was going on near the house of injured Dattajirao andShobha between the respondents and all the respondents wereassaulting Dattajirao and Shobha with kick and fist blows and alsowith sticks.At that time, their father Prakash rushed to the spotAfter sometimes, both the girls also went there.They found thatDattaji and Prakash were lying on the road in injured condition andthereafter they were shifted to the hospital.Ms. S.S. Kaushik, APP for the appellant-State.Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, i/b.DATED: 1st October, 2018 ORDER : (PER MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)This Appeal is filed for enhancement of sentence under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2016 passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, District Sangli.Respondent nos. 1 to 6 were prosecuted and charged for the offence punishable under sections 302, 326, 324 r/w. 149 and sections 323, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code.Respondent nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted from the offence under sections 302, 326 and are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 324 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- each 1 of 619.APEAL696_2017.docwithin 15 days and in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months.Therespondents/accused are also found guilty under section 323 r/w.147, 148 of Indian Penal Code.The amount of compensation, ifreleased, it should be given equally to PW-6 Sonali Prakash Thoratand PW-7 Dipali Prakash Thorat, daughters of deceased Prakash.Hence, this Appeal.Learned APP hassubmitted that though Dattaji and Shobha did not support the caseof the prosecution, the evidence of PW-6 Sonali and PW-7 Dipali isvery material.On the point of injuries, PW-17 Dr. ManoharNabhiraj Kabade has stated that Prakash was brought in thehospital at 2 a.m. in injured condition and on the next day, he dieddue to injury caused to head after having convulsion.Theconviction given by the learned trial Judge only under sections 324and 323 is inadequate and it is to be enhanced andrespondents/accused are to be convicted under section 302 oratleast under section 326 of Indian Penal Code.3 of 6The learned counsel for the respondents/accused hassupported the judgment and order passed by the learned trialCourt.He submitted that the cause of death of Prakash was dueto head injury and PW-17 Dr. Manohar Kabade gave admission inthe cross-examination that patient Prakash when was brought tothe hospital, his general condition was normal.He also gaveadmission that if a person is assaulted with blunt object like stickthen CLW could cause and not incised wound.The incised woundmay cause due to fall on sharp edged object.He has submittedthat if the said injury, as admitted by the doctor, is possible due tofall on sharp edge, then the prosecution has failed to prove that hisdeath was due to assault by sticks and fist and kick blows from therespondents.He pointed out that PW-12 Shobha did not supportthe case of the prosecution.Other panch witnesses on seizure ofclothes also did not support the prosecution's case.Perused the evidence of PW-6 Sonali Thorat and PW-7Dipali Thorat, who are the main witnesses of the prosecution onthe point of incident.These two witnesses have stated that theyhave seen respondents armed with sticks and have assaulted 4 of 6Their evidence thatthereafter Prakash was lying injured on the road and he wasshifted to the hospital, cannot be doubted, as the evidence is foundconsistent.PW-17 Dr. Manohar Kabade, who has examinedPrakash, has stated about the injuries on his person.However,certain major circumstances and evidence is missing to completethe chain.Though these two girls are eye witnesses, they havenot specifically stated as to who has actually assaulted Prakash.The cause of death of Prakash is due to head injury, which is in theform of incised wound.Our attention is drawn to the cross-examination of the doctor who has admitted that such wound canoccur due to fall on pointed or sharp stone.The witnesses havestated that they saw their father running towards the spot of thequarrel and thereafter they saw their father and uncle lying on theroad.Thus, the incident described by PW-6 Sonali and PW-7Dipali and the injuries sustained on the person of Prakash and hiscause of death cannot be established that Prakash died due tointended assault of the respondents.Moreover, the respondentswere quarrelling with Dattaji and Shobha in their house which wasaway from the house of Prakash.Prakash went to rescue Dattaji 5 of 619.APEAL696_2017.doc and both got injured.The learned Judge of the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the assault and the injuries and has rightly convicted the respondents under section 324 r/w. 149 and section 323 r/w. 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code.The condition of the deceased was normal when he was brought to the hospital and treated initially.The deceased died on next day after having convulsion.Out of 22 witnesses, 13 witnesses did not support the prosecution.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.
|
196,881,155 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties.This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.4.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Katni in ST No.18/13 whereby against the applicant charges under Section 376 (2) (H) of the IPC and Section 9 (M ) / 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Aayurvighyan Adhiniaym, 1987 have been framed.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has not assailed the charge under Section 9 (M ) / 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Aayurvighyan Adhiniaym, 1987; but with regard to the charge under Section 376 (2) (H) of the IPC it is submitted that in the FIR there is no averment with regard to commission of the aforesaid offence.Learned counsel for the applicant has not argued on the grounds raised in the petition and submitted that he wants to withdraw the petition.Looking to the evidence available against the applicant, he is rightly being prosecuted for the commission of the aforesaid offence.Hence, this petition is dismissed.Consequently, interim order dated 9.12.2013 staying further proceeding in Special Case no. 18/13 is also vacated.Apart from it, it is found that in charge no. 1 in place of Section 376 (2) H, Section 376 (2) (e) and in charge no. 2 in place of IPC words POCSO are required to be substituted.Hence, learned trial court is directed to correct the language of the charge accordingly.A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information.CC as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE 2 CRR-798-2013 JP Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2018.06.29 14:50:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,219,271 |
During the investigation, it was revealed that the name and the address of the co-applicant Rupinder Singh were correct but photograph and occupation as mentioned in loan application was not that of the complainant.It was Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 2 of 19 further alleged that the petitioner had earlier forged General Power of Attorney and some other documents in respect of flat bearing no. 7152, Block B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.This factum is admitted by learned APP under instructions of the Investigating Officer.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 3 of 19The petitioner undertakes to join the investigation.He is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when summoned and not to tamper with the evidence; he will fully cooperate with the investigation.It has been stated that Dr. Rupinder Singh was also running into rough weather so far as his marriage is concerned, and in order to find solace and peace, he started paying visits to the petitioner and showed that he had soft corner for her.They came nearer to each other and their friendship blossomed into a live-in relationship.During this relationship, the petitioner alleges that she got pregnant and Dr. Rupinder Singh wanted the pregnancy to be terminated for fear of social stigma for which she did not accede to and she gave birth to the male child.During the pregnancy, she came to Delhi where she came to stay at different places in Pitampura, etc. and Dr. Rupinder Singh visited her towards the weekend in order to give her financial help.It is the case of the petitioner that she was helped by him.Whatever papers for loan were signed by her were Bail Appl.(i) The petitioner shall join the investigation;(iii) The petitioner shall not change her place of residence without the prior permission of this court;Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 19 of 19These are two anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioner in respect of two different FIRs lodged by the father and the son against the present petitioner.The bail application no. 2492/2009 is a case registered Bail Appl.The allegations made in the FIR no. 271/2009, u/S 419/420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered by P.S. Kotwali, Delhi are that Dr. Rupinder Singh along his wife Monika Singh was residing at 128-A, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi and he was informed by Manager, Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi on 27.12.2008 on his mobile phone no. 09812005900 that there was a housing loan of Rs.14.25 lakhs in the name of Ms. Monika Singh and himself as a co-borrower and the payments of the loan had been defaulted and the same were to be paid immediately.On 29.12.2008, after an enquiry by the Vigilance Branch, a case was registered against the present petitioner.In sum and substance, the complainant had made allegations of cheating, forging the documents, and using the forged documents as genuine and criminal conspiracy against the present petitioner along with the other persons who are purported to have impersonated as the co-owner of the property and taken loan.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 1 of 19Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 2 of 19The petitioner feeling aggrieved, approached the High Court by filing the present bail application and the following order was passed on the first date in the bail application on 23.12.2009:"Notice.Counsel for the State accepts notice.State report has been filed.The complainant is Dr. Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 3 of 19 Rupinder Singh, the husband of the petitioner.Allegations are that the petitioner had taken a house loan of Rs.14.24 lacs in her own name as also in the name of a co-borrower i.e. the complainant husband and defaults have been made in the said payment; the document in support of the loan application of the complainant were found to be fake and forged in the course of investigation.It is pointed out by counsel for petitioner that the loan amount has since been paid.Till then no arrest.INDERMEET KAUR.A perusal of the aforesaid order would show two things.First, so far as the allegation of non-payment of loan of Rs.14.25 lakhs purported to have been borrowed by the present petitioner and the complainant allegedly as a co- borrower is concerned that stood paid to the bank.The petitioner was directed to join the investigation and Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 4 of 19 appear before the IO as and when summoned and she was not to tamper with the evidence and in the meantime, no arrest.This interim order of no arrest has continued till date.It has now been urged that as the interim order has continued for a long time, the bail order be confirmed.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 4 of 19The complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application.The sum and substance of opposition of the grant of anticipatory bail from both the sides i.e. prosecution and the complainant's side has been that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature in as much as they are not only of cheating the bank but also forging the documents and using the forged documents as genuine by the petitioner for the purpose of borrowing that money from Allahabad Bank and representing somebody else whose identity is yet not known.It was contended that repayment of loan does not obliterate the offence.The second limb of argument has been that the petitioner Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 5 of 19 is a habitual cheater and forger, who forged documents.The copy of the order has been placed on file.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 5 of 19During the course of submissions, the learned APP has also pointed out that the petitioner had been declared proclaimed offender in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by Chandigarh Court which was refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner was not served, and therefore, Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 6 of 19 she was declared a proclaimed offender and in any case she has put in appearance in the Trial Court and it has granted her bail.It is further alleged that the FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant in the instant case.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 6 of 19So far as the bail application bearing Bail Appl.No.238/2011 is concerned, this was also a case in respect of FIR No. 113/2010, under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC, registered by P.S. Rani Bagh, Delhi.This FIR had been lodged by Dr. Waryam Singh, father of Dr. Rupinder Singh wherein the allegations have been made against the petitioner that she has forged the documents of property bearing no. G-1219-A, Chitranjan Bail Appl.It has been alleged that after forging the documents in respect of the aforesaid property, the petitioner had conspired with Prem Singh, Ramesh Chand, Sanjay, Ashok Kumar, UDC in the office of L&DO, Attar Singh, LAO, DDA forged and fabricated a power of attorney dated 04.09.1998 and got prepared a conveyance deed dated 11.05.2004 in her own name in respect of the aforesaid property.Thereafter, it has been alleged that the said forged documents were presented as genuine documents to establish her ownership with the State Bank of India, Shakur Basti, Rani Bagh, Delhi and she was able to secure a medium term loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 08.06.2005 by mortgaging the said property.Accordingly, the case under Section 420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC was Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 8 of 19 registered.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 7 of 19Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 8 of 19The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 19.02.2011 by observing that the petitioner is involved in three other similar cases, and therefore, the grant of anticipatory bail was refused.The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred the present bail application, which the Court was pleased to refer the matter to Meditation Cell vide order dated 24.02.2011 because the Court felt that there is some matrimonial discord between Dr. Rupinder Singh and Ms. Monika Singh as they had a live in relationship and the matter could be settled amicably.In the meantime, the petitioner was protected.This direction has continued from time to time till date, although, Mediation did not bring about any fruitful result.The matter has been heard on different dates and this is one of such rare cases where there has been great deal of opposition from the side of the complainant as well as Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 9 of 19 the learned Prosecutor to grant the anticipatory bail.Normally, I have not seen such a great opposition by the learned APP, as has been done in the present case.In case a person has committed a crime, he must meet the consequences but in the instant case, it seems that as there was a live in relationship between the petitioner and Dr. Rupinder Singh and as they have fallen apart each one of them wants to score a point over the other.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 9 of 19In the second bail application the grounds for opposition of bail is almost the same, therefore, I do not want to repeat the same.So far as the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, her case has been that she had live-in relationship with Dr. Rupinder Singh which also resulted in a birth of a son to the parties.The son is presently with the petitioner.The petitioner was a divorcee and from the previous marriage, she has a daughter.It is the case of the petitioner as she was a divorcee, she was very depressed and lonely.So far as Dr. Waryam Singh is concerned, the petitioner is alleged to have forged the signatures of Dr. Waryam Singh or somebody else and shown herself as the owner of the property.The bail application has been opposed on two counts.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 13 of 19 questioned document.That in itself would clearly establish that Dr. Rupinder Singh is not a co-borrower, therefore, this bogie of custodial interrogation or the petitioner not joining the investigation does not convince me as the real reason for opposing the bail of the petitioner by the prosecution.Similarly, in the case of Dr. Waryam Singh, the allegation is that the petitioner has taken a loan by forging the documents and presenting herself as the owner of the property bearing no. G-1219-A, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and this can be established by subjecting the petitioner to simple interrogation.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 13 of 19Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 14 of 19I have also gone through the police files and I am at a loss to understand what type of investigating officer is conducting the investigation which was in the form of questions and answers, and subsequently, the accused was made to sign the same.Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 17 of 19(iv) The petitioner shall also make her mobile number Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 18 of 19 available with the SHO concerned within whose jurisdiction she is residing:Bail Appl.Nos. 2492/2009 & 238/2011 Page 18 of 19(v) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or create any conditions which are not conducive to the fair investigation.The petitions are accordingly, disposed of.V.K. SHALI, J March 19th, 2012 KP Bail Appl.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,972,211 |
The saidforeign company having registered under the Companies Act at London is ajuristic person.When the Reserve Bank noticed from the audited financialstatements of the foreign company for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, it revealedsignificant erosion in its capital.Its net worth level also came down.The petitioner, claiming to be the Chairman of one St. Mary Forex BureauPvt.Ltd., having its office at London (U.K.), has come forward to file thepresent writ petition seeking for the issuance of a writ in the nature ofmandamus forbearing the second and third respondents from refusing/rejecting theapplication of the petitioner company under the Payment and Settlement Systemsand also the second respondent from refusing/rejecting the issuance of the Full-fledged Money Changer License on the ground of pendency of the criminalprosecution against the petitioner in his individual capacity and to pass anappropriate order.Pending the writ petition,this court granted an interim injunction restraining the second and thirdrespondents from implementing the order of the third respondent, dated 5.7.2010and also to extend the Full-fledged Money Changer License pending disposal ofeither writ petitioner or the appeal lying with the Secretary, Ministry ofFinance, Government of India, New Delhi or on reaching a finality in the SupremeCourt.When the vacate stay application cameup, with the consent of both sides, the main writ petition was directed to beposted.Accordingly, the matter was taken up for final hearing.Itis at the stage of appeal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitionand got an interim order as noted above.14.Further, in the writ petition anticipating objection regarding hislocus standi, it was stated that the Foreign company had entered into anagreement with St. Mary Forex Bureau Ltd., Nagercoil, which is a public limitedcompany.The petitioner was an Ex-Chairman of the same.It is claimed that theLondon company and the Indian Company are one and the same.Therefore, he hasfiled the writ petition in his individual capacity as well as the Chairman ofthe U.K. based company and also as Ex-Chairman of the Indian company.Therefore, he prayed for the relief claimed in the writ petition.Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel pleaded for dismissal of the writ petitionon that short ground.Therefore, even if the appellate authority (in the present case the CentralGovernment) had power for granting an interim order, the relief claimed by thepetitioner could not have been granted pending passing final orders in theappeal.Hence the petitioner could not have approached this court for getting anorder which the appellate authority themselves could not have granted to thepetitioner.24.The contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for theRBI are well founded.First of all, a perusal of the averment made in theaffidavit does not disclose any cause of action for the petitioner to move thiscourt.The authorisation stands in the name of the U.K based company.There isno record to show either the company had decided to file such a writ petition orit had authorised any one in India including the petitioner to approach thiscourt.Even otherwise, the entire events that led to the RBI's communicationarose within Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra.Therefore, the petitioner couldnot have created a cause of action on the plea that he has an office atNagercoil and that he was the Ex-Chairman of the Indian company and that theIndian Company and the U.K company are one and the same.25.It is seen from the appeal memo pending before the Central Governmentthat the appeal itself was filed by the U.K based company.But, on the contrary by instituting an independent proceedings beforethis court seeking for continuance of his authorisation without regard to theoutcome of the appeal, he got an interim order for his authorisation.The RBI directed afresh application to be made so that they can consider the same on its merit andcredentials of such application.The petitioner had tried to create a cause ofaction only to come before this court.The petitioner had also not filed thewrit petition after being authorised by the U.K based company.Hence he has nolocus standi to file the present writ petition.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,972,257 |
ORDER R. Regupathi, J.The suo mottu criminal revision petition has been taken on file by this Hon'ble Court, on coming to know about the irregularities committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, while conducting an enquiry in a case in Crime No. 701 of 2003 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station.The Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station, on conclusion of the investigation of the case, filed a final report against these six accused for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 214, 307, 307 r/w 114, 307 r/w 149, 450 IPC.The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the complainant was done to death by the first accused along with his henchmen and a case in S.C. No. 3 of 2003 was pending.On 15.07.2003 all the accused under the leadership of the first accused, alleged to have visited the residence of the complainant for offering illegal gratification of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant and her mother, in consideration of concealing the offence and to help the accused by not deposing against them.3. A-1 was armed with iron rod and a bag containing cash.A-2 and A-3 was with a bag containing cash and knife, respectively. A-4 to A-6 were the members of the unlawful assembly.When the offer was refused by the complainant, it is the case of the prosecution that on the instructions of A-1, A-4 alleged to have made an attempt at the uncle of the complainant with his knife, which was warded of.However, he sustained cut injury on his right hand.It is alleged that such an attack has been made with a view to commit the murder of the witnesses.14 witnesses have been examined during the course of the investigation and a final report has been filed on 19.10.2004 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 22.02.2005 after deleting the Sections 307 and 450 IPC.On the same day, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 323 Cr.The learned Magistrate on 15.09.2005 passed a detailed order, refusing to entertain such a prayer and further, passed severe strictures against the Assistant Public Prosecutor for moving such an application during the course of the trial.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor preferred a complaint before the Hon'ble High Court and after receiving the report from the District Judge, Nagapattinam, the present suo mottu revision has been taken on file by this Hon'ble Court.Notice was sent to the complainant and accused.Learned Counsel appearing for A-1, A-3 to A-6 submits that they are prepared to take up the trial even if the case is committed to the Court of Sessions.The Magistrate at the stage of 209 Cr.Had the Bench been apprised of the historical perspective, we have no doubt in our mind that the comprehension of the word 'inquiry' as meant for Section 209 CrPC would have been the same as gathered by us on becoming cognizant of the legislative scheme for early disposal of cases triable by a Court of Session.In the case on hand, after framing of charges, trial has been taken up.P.W.1 to P.W.4 consistently has given evidence that on the instigation of A-1 , A-4 stabbed P.W.2 and when P.W.2 warded of such an assault, sustained injury on his right hand.The knife was snatched from the accused and thereafter the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.When substantial materials are available to constitute an offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC, I am unable to understand, how the learned Magistrate has deleted these two Sections of graver offences.After recording the evidence, he would have corrected himself.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,230,794 |
A. 621/2020 Page 1 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 1 of 25commission of criminal intimidation to the victim 'A' and were sentenced as under:Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years each, a1ongwith a fine of For the offence U/s 6 of Rs.5,000/- each.A. 621/2020 Page 2 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 2 of 25to the effect that there is no appeal filed by the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam, in relation to FIR No. 113/16, Police Station Aman Vihar.The Trial Court Record was requisitioned and has been received and perused.JCL(A1) was also found involved in the matter and the charge sheet qua him was filed before the JJB with the charge sheet having been filed under Section 377/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant herein as well as against the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam before the POCSO Court.Charges were framed against the appellant herein and the co- convict on 25.7.2019 qua the offence punishable under Section 5(g) read with Section (6) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with an alternative charge qua the offence punishable under Section 377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to which the appellant and the co-convict had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Written submissions were submitted on behalf of the appellant as well as oral submissions have also been made on behalf of either side.Charges were framed against the appellant and the co-convict on 25.7.2016 in relation to the allegations levelled in the charge sheet against the appellant herein and the co-convict to the effect that on 25.1.2016 at about 3 a.m. in the cabin of a truck bearing Registration No. HR-55T-2966, parked behind the Haridas Vatika, Aman Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Aman Vihar, both the appellant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 3 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 3 of 25The minor child 'A', as per the Trial Court Record, was examined on 7.12.2016 in camera proceedings with the appellant herein and the co-convict having been seated in a manner that they could hear the testimony of the victim but could not have any ocular contact with him.The child when he was examined on 7.12.2016 was about 13 years of age and was administered oath by the learned Trial Court after having spoken to the child asking him a few preliminary questions to ascertain whether he was capable of giving rational answers and after ascertaining that the child was capable of understanding the sanctity of oath.The child Victim 'A' thereafter had testified on oath to the effect that on 24.1.2016 at about 10 p.m. he had gone to watch a jagran with his friend child N near Haridass Vatika, and at about 3 a.m. three boys between the age group of 18-25 years came there and asked him to accompany them as they wanted to speak to him about something and he went with them from the back gate of the jagran pandal for a distance of about 25-30 paces and when he refused to proceed further with them they beat him forcibly and made him board the cabin of an oil tanker which was lying parked there and those boys also boarded the said cabin.The child A further Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 4 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 4 of 25testified that thereafter the two boys who appeared to him to be around 20-25 years of age committed penetrative sexual assault on him through his anus one by one and the third boy who appeared to the child victim A to be around 18 years of age kept a knife at his neck asked him not to raise an alarm failing which he would stab him.The child further testified that after sometime his friend child N came there along with one uncle from the jagran in search of him and found him and on seeing that uncle and the friend N those three boys ran away.The child N is stated to have been carrying a mobile phone at that time and the uncle thus asked him to make a call at number 100 and thus the child N made a call to the police and thereafter after five minutes of the call, the PCR van came to the spot.The local police also came to the spot and the child victim A was taken to the hospital where he was medically examined whereafter his father also reached the hospital and the victim child A was taken to the police station and his statement was recorded by the police.The victim child A identified his signatures on the statement at point 'A' on Ex PW-4/A. The child further stated that he went along with the police party in search of those boys in the area and he found one of those boys standing near Budh Bazar Road and he pointed out to that boy to the police to be one of those boys who had waylaid him and had committed penetrative sexual assault on him and then that boy was arrested by the police and his name was learnt to be as Chand, i.e. the appellant herein.The child A further testified to the documents i.e. the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 5 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 5 of 25appellant having been prepared by the Investigating Officer on which he stated that he had signed being Ex. PW-4/B to D and also testified to Ex.PW-4/E being the pointing out memo of the spot of the incident prepared at his behest by the Investigating Officer.He also stated he had shown him the place of the incident to the Investigating Officer who prepared the site plan and that the child victim A also pointed out towards the cabin of the oil tanker which was lying parked near the main gate of the police station which oil tanker was also seized vide the seizure memo vide Ex.PW-4/G bearing his signatures thereon.The child A further stated that the accused i.e. the appellant herein was brought to the police station and that he disclosed the names of the two other co-accused boys as Benam and JCL(A1).Thereafter the police party had taken him to the house of the other two co-accused but they were not present at their rented accommodation.The child also stated that his statement had also been recorded prior to his testimony by a Judge and was thus shown his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. taken out from a sealed cover on which the child identified his signatures at point A on Ex.PW-4/H. It was also stated by this Child witness A that on 15.4.2016 he had received a call from the police and he was asked to come to the police station and accompany the police party in searching the co-accused persons and went near the Chaudhary Baldev Senior Secondary School where the co-convict Benam was present and the child A pointed him out to the police and that Benam @ Sajid (since convicted as the co-convict) was arrested and the documents in relation to his arrest were prepared.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 6 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 6 of 25Inter alia, the child victim A had stated that he had informed the police that the accused had shown him a knife and had held him by his hand.The child victim 'A' further stated that the police had called him at the police station again after some days and the police had shown him a video clip and he was asked to identify A1, ie.the JCL and he duly identified him in the said video clip.The child identified the tanker through the photographs placed on record.The identity of the tanker was not disputed on behalf of the defence.During the course of the trial the child victim A also identified the appellant herein and the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam in the Court correctly.Inter alia, during the course of his cross-examination on behalf of the appellant and the co-convict, it was stated by the child victim A that he can read and write English and that he also gave the registration number of the oil tanker as HR 55T 2966 and stated that there were other vehicles apart from the tanker at that time.He also stated that whilst he was being forcibly taken by the accused persons he had raised an alarm but they gave him beatings and he had to stop screaming.The child victim A denied that he knew the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam and used to go to the Mosque to offer Namaz on Fridays.He stated that when his friend came along with an uncle no public person had gathered there at that time.He also stated that the accused persons had taken the knife along with them at the time of fleeing from the spot.to this incident and stated that he did not know who had organized the jagran and for what occasion it was being done.He stated that the jagran was a family function of the organizer and people were coming and going and that the organizers were not even known to his friend N. He stated further that there was only one gate for entry and exit of the persons attending the jagran and from inside the pandal there was a separate entry from the back side for taking prasad/food.He further stated that there was only one camera in that jagran.He stated that he had taken dinner at the jagran.He stated further that he had not given the facial description and clothing of the accused persons in his statement and but had given their age only.The child victim A stated that he did not know whether at the place in front of the jagran there was any SBI and ICICI ATM and stated that in front of the jagran venue is Vijay Dharam Kanta but denied that the tanker was standing in a gali in front of that Vijay Dharam Kanta and stated that the tanker was on the way between the venue of jagran and Vijay Dharam Kanta.He stated that he did not know the colour of the seat of the tanker on which he was laid.The child victim A further denied that he is a pickpocket or that any injury was caused while he had fallen down in a chase by people whose pocket was picked by him at that time or that people in the jagran had pulled him by his legs due to which his pant had gone off and some pointed object might have struck his anus.He denied that small pebbles and concrete pieces were lying scattered near the venue of the jagran.The other child witness N examined as PW-5, the friend of the child victim A was also aged 13 years at the time of his examination on 7.12.2016, the same date when the child Victim A was examined as PW-4. PW-5, the child witness N was also administered oath by the learned Trial Court after ascertaining the capability of the said child to understand the sanctity of oath.This child stated that the child victim A is his friend and resides in his neighbourhood.He stated that on 24.1.2016 he and the child victim A had gone to attend the jagran of Khatu Shyam Ji being held at Baba Haridass Vatika and at about 3.00 a.m. when they were both inside the pandal three boys came there and they called the child victim A outside on the pretext of discussing something with him and the child victim A went out of the pandal from the back gate with the said three boys.This child witness stated that he too followed them but one other person hit him with a belt and asked him to go back so he went back.He stated further that there three/four other friends of his in jagran and that he told them about the said three boys having taken away the child victim A and they all came out of the pandal from the back gate in order to search the child victim A but five/six boys blocked their way and gave beatings to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 9 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 9 of 25The child witness N further stated that the said uncle knocked the door of the cabin of the tanker and one of the boys opened the glass and told them that they were truckwalas and were sleeping there and that when that uncle asked him to open the door, they all ran away through the other gate.Inter alia, the child witness N stated that at that time he had a Karbon mobile with him but did not remember its number at the time of his testimony nor did he remember the name of the police officer who had recorded his statement though he stated that he had come with the same police officer who had recorded his statement to the Court that day (the name of the said police officer had been recorded by the Court as being SI Jitender).This witness N reiterated that he had seen the said three boys who had taken the child victim A with them.He, i.e., N had stated that in the jagran he, i.e., N and the child victim had sat side by side and had decided that they would leave the pandal together.This child witness N further stated all their friends were sitting in different directions at a distance in the pandal among the rows and that all the friends had been maintaining ocular contact with each other in the pandal but stated that their other friends had not seen the child victim A being taken away by those three boys.The child witness N further stated that it was correct that he came to know as to what happened to the child victim A only as told by him, i.e., the child victim A. He further stated that he had a very good friendship with the child victim A and with other friends he was on talking terms.He however stated that if one of them fell in a problem the others would be eager to help the other out.He denied the suggestion put forth on behalf of the accused persons that when he was beaten by the four/five boys outside the pandal none of his friends Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 11 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.had come to his rescue and stated that the two friends had come who had also been beaten.He stated that he did not make a call either at home or to the police nor after the forcible waylaiding of the child victim A but denied that he had not made such a call because he was carrying a stolen mobile or that the child victim A had also run away after picking someone's pocket in the jagran.He stated further that he was hit with a belt near the pandal and the remaining beatings were received by him near the tanker.The child witness N denied that he was a member of the team of pick pockets or that was the reason he could not tell the mobile number which was with him at that time of the alleged incident and denied that he was beaten by five to six boys as they caught him while stealing a mobile phone.PW- 10/B and the patient was referred to SR surgery for further opinion.It was stated by this witness Dr. Gurdeep that he could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr.The accused persons did not cross-examine this witness Dr.As per the endorsement on Ex.PW-10/B the MLC of the child victim A, it was mentioned to the effect:" Alleged H/o Sexual Assault, sodomized by 03 persons today at about 4 a.m., as told by B/B and self e/e conscious/oriented P 78/min, vitals stable S/E Non.L/E Abrasion + over Anal region Adv.It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that there are major discrepancies in the version putforth by PW-5, i.e., the child witness N, and PW-9 the independent witness who did not support the prosecution version in relation to the child PW-4, i.e., child victim A, having informed of his having been sodomized by the accused persons.Inter alia, on behalf of the appellant it was submitted that neither PW-4, i.e., the child victim A nor the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-17 nor any other witness explained as to how they learnt that the appellant could be found in Budh Bazar Road, or that the appellant was the culprit and that PW-13 Shamshad, the truck driver, as to how he received information about the incident nor did PW-8, the owner of the oil tanker Arjun Bal inform as to how he received the information of the incident.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.educational opportunity, vocational training and skill development programme to enable a livelihood option and an occupational status;shaping of post release rehabilitation programme for the appellant well in advance before the date of his release to make him self-dependent,; ensuring in terms of Chapter 22 clause 22.22 (II) Model Prison Manual 2016, protection of the appellant from getting associated with anti-social groups, agencies of moral hazards (like gambling dens, drinking places and brothels) and with demoralised and deprived persons; adequate counselling being provided to the appellant to be sensitized to understand why he is in prison; conducting of Psychometric tests to measure the reformation taking place;and that the appellant may be allowed to keep contact with his family members as per the Jail rules and in accordance with the Model Prison Manual.Furthermore, it is directed that a Bi-annual report is submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail-03, Tihar, New Delhi to this Court till the date of release of the measures being adopted for reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant.Copy of this judgment be also sent to the Director General, Prisons, Delhi and to the Secretary, Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, GNCTD, Delhi to ensure compliance of the above directions.The CRL.A.621/2020 is disposed of accordingly.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.ANU MALHOTRA, J.In default of the POCSO Act payment of fine, the convicts were directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 30 days, each.For the offence U/S Simple Imprisonment for three 506/ 34 IPC years each, alongwith a fine of Rs.3,000/ -each.In default of payment of fine, the convicts were directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 30 days, each .with both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently, the fine in the instant case having observed to have not been paid with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, having also been given to the appellant and the co-convict.Along with the appeal was Crl.Vide order dated 9.12.2020 the Crl.M.(Bail) No. 8424/2020 filed on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal was declined.The report was called for from the Registry as to whether any appeal had been filed by the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam qua which the report has been received dated 19.1.2021 from the Registry Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.9. 18 prosecution witnesses were examined by the State:The child also denied that the accused since convicted Benam used to study in his school.He inter alia stated that he never made any complaint of the similar nature to the police prior Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 7 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 7 of 25The child victim A further denied that he had falsely identified the accused persons to be the assailants and denied that the offence was committed with him in a truck which was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 8 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 8 of 25The child witness N i.e. PW-5 further stated that the child victim, i.e. A , was found inside the cabin with his pant half removed and on the asking of that uncle he, i.e. N, made a call to the police at number 100 and the police came there.The child N further stated that the child victim A was in a state of shock and was not able to tell the facts properly and he, i.e., N, told the facts to the police after asking them from the child victim and thereafter the police took the child victim A to the hospital for his medical examination and he, i.e., N was also taken to the police station.This child witness N on being cross-examined by the counsel for the accused persons, i.e., the appellant herein and the co convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam, stated that he did not raise alarm after being hit by a belt by the boy because his other associates were present there and stated that he did not inform about the said three boys having waylaid the child victim A initially to anyone in the pandal but had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 10 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 10 of 25told it to other boys of his team.This child witness N however stated that the entire area of the pandal was covered by the camera but stated that he did not remember the name of that uncle.The child witness N further denied that the child witness A was dragged by the public as he saw him being beaten by the said boys.It was also denied by this witness PW-5, i.e., the child witness N that his friends did not make any sincere attempts to fight with those five/six boys as they all were members of the pick pocket gang.19. PW-9, Mr.Pushpender, examined before the learned Trial Court by the prosecution stated that in the night intervening 24/25.01.2016 he was present in the jagran of Shri Khatu Shyam Ji being organized at Baba Haridass Park where he had gone of his own and was neither a member of the organizing committee nor was he invited there and at about 1:30 p.m.(sic) he came out of the pandal as he was feeling tired because had been sitting in the jagran from 10 p.m. onwards and there he saw a child aged about 12-13 years weeping and he asked him the reason of his weeping, he told him that 2-3 boys had forcibly taken Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 12 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.away his friend at the back side of the pandal and pleaded with him to help him in tracing his friend.PW-9 stated that he went along with that boy whose name he did not remember, towards the backside of the pandal on foot and they had moved about 50 paces when he found an oil tanker lying there and also found 2/3 boys passing through the road in front of the tanker and thus he made an inquiry from them as to whether they had seen some boys forcibly taking another boy to which one of the boys told him that some children are there in the cabin of the tanker.PW-9 stated that he knocked at the door of the cabin of that tanker which led to the opening of the latch and he saw 2-3 boys jumping and running out of the other gate of the cabin and saw a child whose pant was lying half removed and he brought him down from the cabin and asked him as to how he had come there and it was informed by the child that 3 unknown boys had forcibly taken him to the tanker and at that time as the battery of mobile of PW-9 was dead, he made a call to the police at number 100 from the mobile phone of that boy (N) with whom he had been searching this boy (child victim A) and then the police of the PCR as well as from the police station came and thereafter PW-9 left the spot and went back home and he was called by the police next day and an enquiry was made from him and his statement was recorded.This witness PW-9 however on being cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State denied that the child victim A had told him that the three boys who had forcibly taken him to the tanker had committed penetrative sexual assault upon him per annum on the point of a knife and denied that he had deliberately Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 13 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 13 of 25concealed this material fact from the Court to save the accused persons.21. PW-10 examined by the State was Dr.Gurdeep, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, who stated that he had seen the MLC No. 1283 and 1330 in the name of the child male, aged 13 years dated 25.01.2016 who had been brought to the casualty for the medical examination by Constable Bhargav at about 6:35 a.m. with the alleged history of sexual assault/sodomy by 3 persons and that the patient was examined by Dr.Rajesh in casualty and on local examination an abrasion was found present over the anal region and that Dr.Rajesh had prepared the MLC and made observations on the MLC Ex.Voveron 1 im stat Surgery opinion (Dr.Shashi Kant) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 14 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 14 of 25S/R Surgery""25.1.16, 9:30 Am Forensic opinion Possibility of Anal Penetration or Intercourse cannot be ruled out on the basis of Surgical examination.Mahipal Singh M.O."PW-13, Shamshad, the driver of the oil tanker bearing registration No. HR-55T- 2966, belonging to Arjun Bal, stated that the appellant herein, is the brother-in-law of his brother Naushad and he was working, as a conductor/helper with him,i.e., Shamshad on that oil tanker and stated that he used to pay him Rs.5,000/- as his salary and that on 24.1.2016 he had to get the fitness of the said tanker, he had brought it near Haridass Vatika near Vijay Dharam Kanta, Prem Nagar, and had left the accused Chand on the said vehicle as he had to go to his in-laws house with his wife at Dilshad Garden and on 25.1.2016 in the morning hours he received a call from the police station Aman Vihar informing him that he should reach the police station as his vehicle had been broken and he reached the police station and came to know that accused Chand, i.e., the appellant herein, was missing and had committed some wrong act in the tanker with a minor child with his other friends and he made search for accused Chand, i.e, the appellant herein with the police, who was found at the house of his sister Farzana at Budh Vihar Road.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 15 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 15 of 25This witness on cross-examination on behalf of the accused stated that he could not produce any document before the police to show that he had been employed as driver on that tanker nor could he produce any document before the police which could show that he had employed the accused Chand, i.e., the appellant herein as a helper on the said tanker and that he had been paying Rs.5000/- per month to him as salary.This witness denied that it was he who committed the wrong act with the victim child or that in order to save himself he had falsely projected accused Chand, i.e., the appellant herein as his helper on the said tanker.This witness denied that he had not visited the police station 25.1.2016 as he was under fear that he could be recognized by the child victim as being the real assailant.Apart from the above witnesses, the other prosecution witnesses examined were:PW-11 R, father of the victim child A PW-12 SI Devender PW-14 W/Ct.Snehlata PW-15 Dr.Mahipal Singh PW-16 HC Munde Tuka Ram PW-17 SI Jitender Joshi and PW-18 ASI Mahender Singh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.02.2021 18:07:32 This file is digitally signed by Crl.A. 621/2020 Page 16 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 16 of 25In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the appellant, herein, denied the incriminating evidence led against him and claimed innocence stating that he had been falsely implicated in the instant case and his signatures were obtained by the police on blank papers on printed proformas and denied that that he was a driver or the helper on the said tanker and stated that in order to save the real culprits he was planted as an accused in the case.A. 621/2020 Page 17 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.A. 621/2020 Page 19 of 25 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,972,312 |
The facts giving rise to this appeal are thus.The appellant along with his wife Sonkunwar Bai (since deceased) and the child were going on 12-5-1986 to the bank of river for fishing.On way, altercation took place between the two.During the altercation, the deceased slapped the accused across the face.On this, the accused took out his bow and shot an arrow on the chest of his wife.The deceased cried for help.Hearing this, Phoolmatia Bai (P.W. 1) came there.She saw Sonkunwar Bai lying near the bank of the river; blood was oozing from her chest.On asking by P.W. 1, the deceased told that her husband shot an arrow on her chest, she will not survive.Then P.W. 1 asked the accused about it.Accused told P.W. 1 that first his wife had beaten him then he shot the arrow.After telling this, the accused took up the child and ran away towards Hasdo river.P.W. 1 frightened of it went to fishermen near the river.Parents and brother of the accused were informed about the occurrence, who came and saw the child weeping near the river; but the deceased was not found.On way to the village one Sonsai met them and told that Sonkunwar is lying in a small cottage in front of his house.All reached there and saw Sonkunwar with profused bleeding from her chest.She was not in a position to speak and died in between 3.00, 4.00 a.m. Phoolmatia Bai (P.W. 1) lodged the report (Ex. P.1) at about 7.00 p.m. on 13-5-1986 at Police Chowki Korbi.A Marg under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at 'O' number was registered vide Ex.From the spot blood stained earth and controlled earth was seized vide Ex.The dead body was sent for post mortem.Dr. Bhimprasad Kanwar (P.W. 16) performed the autopsy on 15-5-1986 at about 11.15 a.m. The post mortem report is Ex.The arrow was found in the left ventricle of heart.JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J.The appellant stands convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for uxoricide vide judgment dated 29th April, 1988, passed in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 1986, by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur.The direction of arrow was out to in medially and downwards and backwards.It pierced through pleura and lobe of the left lung.Autopsy Surgeon did not give any definite opinion about the cause of death due to highly decomposed body.The accused denied the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.To prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents.The trial Court after appraisal of evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.Kaushal Sen for the appellant and Shri A. S. Gaharwar, Panel Lawyer for the State, heard.Death of Sonkunwar Bai was homicidal is not in dispute.From the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, it is evident that the accused and his wife were living amicably.There was no enmity between the two.On the day of occurrence both were going for fishing.On way altercation took place between them.In that altercation, the deceased slapped the accused.Then the accused took out his arrow and shot it on her.Tribals commonly keep bow and arrow or tangia with them in their dwelling places and whenever they go out, they keep bow and arrow with them and tangia for cutting wood.The accused and the deceased were living amicably.On the day of occurrence, both left their house with their child for fishing.On way altercation and quarrel took place.The accused was taken into custody on 18-5-1986 and since then he is in jail.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,724,022 |
Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State opposed the appeal.Digitally signed by BARKHA JHA Date: 2018.04.16 17:29:56 +05'30'
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,243,067 |
He is a student.Prosecution story, in short, is that a complaint was lodged on 25/3/19 against the present applicant, who is neighbour of the prosecutrix, to the effect that the applicant wanted to be friends with her and while the prosecutrix was returning from her College, the applicant caught hold of her hand with bad intention, slapped her and threatend her with life.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,724,445 |
This is a second bail application on behalf of the applicant, Sanjay Dubey, in Case Crime No.65 of 2017, under Sections 326A, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Iliya, District Chandauli.Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Indradeo Maurya, learned counsel appearing on behalf the complainant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.In the said deposition, the Doctor has reaffirmed the sites, where the injuries were suffered by the victim.The burn is said to be 20%.On further cross-examination at the instance of co-accused Ashraf, the Doctor has said that there was no smell of any chemical emitting from any of the wounds.The hair had not burnt away, therefore, the active agent was described as a chemical.He has also said that acid or nitric acid if present, emits a smell, so does sulphuric acid.The Doctor on seeing the injury report said that he cannot say what chemical was used in the attack, nor has he written that in his report.He has further said that at the time of examination, the condition of the victim was stable.The Doctor has further said in his cross-examination that the injured did not tell him as to who threw the chemical on his body.The injury is only skin deep, and has not been opined to be either simple or grievous.It is further argued that the criminal history of the applicant noticed in the bail rejection order dated 26.02.2018 regarding involvement in Case Crime no.63 of 2008, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Eliya, District Chandauli, also stands belied in view of the fact that a final report dated 10.02.2009 relating to the said crime has been submitted by the police in Court, along with an application dated 17.02.2009, recommending prosecution of the first informant of the said crime for lodging a false FIR.It is emphasized by Sri Manish Tiwari, learned senior counsel that the said FIR was also lodged at the instance of the same informant, who has brought the present prosecution.Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the changed circumstances indicated by the medical opinion of the Doctor in the ongoing trial, the fact that the criminal history of the applicant is belied, which was one of the considerations while the first bail application was rejected, where indeed there is a final report with recommendation for the prosecution of the informant of that case, who happens to be the same informant as the one here, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.Let the applicant, Sanjay Dubey, involved in Case Crime No.65 of 2017, under Sections 326A, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Iliya, District Chandauli, be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,246,729 |
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,248,665 |
S.S. Jadhavar advocate for the petitioners Mr.K.S. Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 _______________ CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ (Date : 16th APRIL, 2016.) ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J) ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:35:40 ::: {2} cri application 5558.14.odt 1 Rule.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:35:40 :::2 Heard.By consent of the parties, the application is taken for final decision, at admission stage.3 The instant petition is presented seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, in pursuance of filing of the first information report (FIR) by respondent No.2, registered at Police Station Rahuri bearing No.4 The complainant is a sectional Engineer functioning in the Irrigation Department, whereas the accused are the employees of Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth.There was some dispute in respect of blockage of a water distributory.It is alleged that the accused refused to remove the impediments which had an effect of blocking flow of water in the distributory.5 On perusal of the FIR, there does not appear to be any allegation referable to ingredients of an offence punishable under section 353 or 506 of IPC.It is pointed out by the learned APP that the charge sheet has been presented and as such no interference be caused.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:35:40 :::6 We have perused the first information report as well as the statement of the witnesses annexed to the charge sheet.On perusal of the papers, it transpires that there are absolutely no allegations made by the informant as well as any of the witnesses in respect of assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, in respect of offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 IPC stands quashed.It would be open for the prosecution to proceed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences under sections 93, 94 and 96 of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:35:40 :::
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,396,617 |
2.The appellants along with other accused namely A-2, A-8 and A-9 stoodcharged and found guilty as detailed below.(1) A-1 and A-3 to A-9 were charged under Sec.341 of I.P.C., and A-1 and A-3 toA-7 were found guilty and directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a defaultsentence.(2) A-1 and A-3 to A-9 were charged under Sec.302 read with 149 of I.P.C. and A-1 and A-3 to A-7 were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.(3) A-6 stood charged under Sec.324 of I.P.C. and found guilty, and no separatepunishment was awarded.(4) A-7 stood charged under Sec.326 of I.P.C. and found guilty, and no separatepunishment was awarded.(5) A-6 and A-7 were charged under Sec.307 of I.P.C., found guilty and sentencedto 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine.(a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Natrayan.P.W.2 is their son.There was a land dispute between the deceased and the accused.On the date ofoccurrence i.e., 4.10.2000, in the evening hours, the accused made anintimidation.Hence, the deceased along with his wife proceeded to Palani togive a petition to the Minister Thiru.I.Periyasamy complaining about the act ofthe accused and seeking for protection also.The deceased was driving his TVS50 moped, while P.W.1 was the pillion rider.They were proceeding in the roadleading to Kombaipatti.When they were just crossing the Railway Gate at about9.00 P.M., A-1 to A-6 armed with aruval, A-7 with a crowbar and A-8 with an ironpipe, formed into an unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking andmurdering the deceased.A-7 waylaid them and then pushed down the deceased.Atthat time, they surrounded the deceased and attacked him indiscriminately.WhenP.W.1 raised alarm and made her attempt to come to the rescue of the deceased,she was attacked by A-6 and A-7 respectively, in which she had sustainedinjuries.P.W.2, the son of the deceased who was coming on his way, met hisparents just before the occurrence, and he also witnessed the entire incident.P.W.2 then proceeded to the village to inform the same to the villagers.P.W.3Gunasekaran, took the deceased and P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, where at11.20 P.M., P.W.24, the Doctor, recorded the statement of the deceased, whereinit was found that he was conscious, and he has also stated that he was attackedby known persons.The accident register copy in his regard was marked asEx.Following the same, P.W.1 was also examined by the said Medical Personat 11.30 P.M. He has given the accident register copy in her regard, which wasmarked as Ex.P35, the rough sketch.The Doctor has issued Ex.Pending the investigation,it came to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that A-1 to A-7surrendered before the Court. A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-9 came forward to giveconfessional statements, which were recorded by the Investigator.Theadmissible parts of the same are marked as Exs.P2, P3, P4, P10, P11, P12, P16and P17 respectively.Pursuant to the same, he recovered three sickles and onecrowbar from the respective accused, and sent to the Court.All the materialobjects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body and from therespective accused pursuant to their confessional statements, were subjected tochemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, which resulted in Exs.P26and P26A, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P27, the Serologist's report.According toP.W.2, he went to his village to inform to the villagers.!For Appellants .. Mr.N.Natarajan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Sunder Mohan for appellants in CA 232/2004 and for Mr.G.Ravi Kumar for appellant in CA 233/2004^For Respondent .. Mr.N.Senthurpandian, A.P.P.(6) A-1 and A-3 to A-8 stood charged under Sec.148 of I.P.C., and A-1 and A-3 toA-7 were found guilty and sentenced to 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along withfine.(7) A-9 stood charged under Sec.147 of I.P.C.A-8 and A-9 were acquitted of all the charges by the lower Court.A-2 died afterthe charge sheet was filed.He conducted inquest on the dead body of Natrayan inthe presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report,Ex.He recovered M.Os.10 to 12 from P.W.1 at the hospital.Thereafter, thedead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy.(c) P.W.26, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,Palani, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body ofNatrayan and found the following injuries:"(1) Sutured wound of 5 x 1 x BD cm over RT frontal region.(2) Crescent shaped sutured wound of 3 x .5 cm x BD on centre of fore head.(3) Triangular abrasion of 2 x 2 cm over RT shoulder.(4) Cut injury of 1.5 x 1.5 x 1 cm above the right elbow joint with linearabrasion of 8 cm x .05 cm towards medial side of the arm.(5) Oval shaped cut injury of 5 x 4 x 2 cm just above the RT elbow jointexposing neuro vascular bundle.(6) Semi circular cut injury of 7 cm diameter 7 x 3 x 1 cm below RT elbow outeraspect.(7) Lacerated injury of 1 x 1 cm x exposing fracture bones on medial aspect ofRT wrist.(8) C.S-2 x .cm at base of RT little finger.(9) Elliptical C.S. 4 x 1 x 2 cm, 1 cm x 2 cm - 15 cm above RT knee joint.(10) Punctured wound 1.5 x 1 cm x BD -12 cm below RT joint knee.(11) Punctured wound of 1 x 1 x BD - 6 cm below injury No.10.(12) A gapping C.1 of 7 x 3 x 3 cm - 14 cm above RT ankle joint exposing neurovascular and muscles.(13) Sutured wound of 3 x 1 x 1 cm - 3 cm above left wrist exposing bone.(14) & (15) Multiple abrasion on and around left knee.(16) Incised wound 6 x 2 .x 2 .(18) Punctured wounds 1 .x 1 .x BD - 16 cm above left ankle joint.Fractureboth bone with disfigurement."P33, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion thatthe deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injurysustained.(d) A requisition Ex.P21, was given to P.W.21, the Judicial Magistrate,Palani, who came over to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement ofP.W.1., which is marked as Ex.At that time, the Doctor has also certifiedthat she was conscious enough to give the statement.The further investigation was taken up by P.W.29, the Inspector of Police.Herecovered the vehicles TVS 50 and M 80 under a cover of mahazar.The case wasthen transferred to the CB CID for the purpose of investigation, where two moreaccused were added.P.W.30, the Inspector of Police, CB CID, took up furtherinvestigation, recorded the additional statements of the witnesses and filed thefinal report, on completion of the investigation.4.The case was committed to the Court of Session and necessary chargeswere framed against all the accused.In order to substantiate the charges, theprosecution marched 30 witnesses and relied on 45 exhibits and 21 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, thetrial Court questioned the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined; but, onedocument was marked on their side as Ex.The trial Court heard the argumentsadvanced on either side, made a thorough scrutiny of the materials available,found A-1 and A-3 to A-7 guilty as per the charges and awarded the punishmentsreferred to above. A-2 died pending the proceedings, and the charges becameabated in his regard.So far as A-8 and A-9 are concerned, the trial Courtfound that the prosecution has not proved the case and thus, recorded a findingof acquittal.5.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals,the learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.Natarajan, would submit that in the instantcase, the prosecution rested its case on the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2;that out of these two witnesses, P.W.2 could not have been in the place ofoccurrence for the reason that according to P.Ws.9 and 10, P.W.2 came to thevillage and informed to the villagers that the bodies of his parents were found,and further he has added that who were responsible for the said act was notknown to him; that the circumstances would clearly indicate that P.W.2 could nothave been present at the place of occurrence; that had it been true that P.W.2has witnessed the occurrence in which his both the parents are being cutindiscriminately by others, he would have gone to the rescue either, or he wouldhave taken them to the hospital; that in this case, he neither sustained anyinjury nor took them to the hospital; that this would clearly indicate thatP.W.2 could not have been present at the place of occurrence; that if theevidence of P.W.2 has got to be excluded, then the prosecution had only theevidence of P.W.1; that there are number of circumstances available in the caseto indicate that P.W.1 is thoroughly an unbelievable witness, and her evidencecould not be relied; that according to P.W.1, she was coming along with herhusband at the time of occurrence, and all these accused waylaid her, and sixwere armed with aruvals and one was armed with crowbar, and they attacked themindiscriminately; that she has given the full details of the occurrence inEx.P1, the report, which, according to the prosecution, came into existence atabout 1.30 A.M. in the General Hospital, and recorded by the Sub Inspector ofPolice; that in Ex.P1, she gave a thorough detail of all these accused alongwith their names and their fathers' names also; but, when she was examined inCourt, she has categorically admitted that she did not know the father's name ofany one of the accused; that according to P.W.1, the Doctor was also presentwhen such a statement was given, and further particulars were also given by her;that under the circumstances, it casts a doubt whether Ex.P1 could have comeinto existence as put forth by the prosecution; that it is also highly doubtfulwhether P.W.1 was the author of the document; that the Judicial Magistrate onrequisition, came to the hospital and has also recorded her statement, whereinshe has given a different version altogether, as to the number of accused, actof the accused and weapons of crime, etc.; that the third version was given byher in the Court when she was examined as a witness; and that all these threeinconsistent versions of P.W.1 would indicate that the incident has not takenplace in the manner as has been deposed before the trial Court.6.It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel thataccording to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 9.00 P.M.;that as per the observation mahazar and rough sketch, there was no lightavailable at the place of occurrence; that even in the earliest document namelythe F.I.R., it is averred that the witnesses saw the occurrence through themoonlight and also with the help of the light available in both the motorbikesdriven by the deceased and P.W.2 respectively; that it is pertinent to point outthat both these motorbikes having light, by which they were able to see theassailants, were not recovered by the investigating agency for a period of oneyear; that no explanation worth mentioning was coming from the prosecution; andthat while the light was not available in dark hours, they could not have seenthe occurrence at all.7.The learned Senior Counsel would further add that the furtherinvestigation was taken up by P.W.30; that he has also clearly deposed thatduring the relevant time and date, A-1 was in the Panchayat Union Office of hisplace; that the same came to the knowledge of the Police Officials; thataccording to P.W.30, he also examined some witnesses in that regard; but, theirstatements were neither recorded nor produced before the Court; that they werealso not examined before the Court for the reasons best known to theInvestigator; that apart from that, in the instant case, according to P.W.1, shewas indiscriminately cut by the accused, and six were armed with aruvals and onewas armed with crowbar; that a perusal of Ex.P29, the accident register copy ofP.W.1, would clearly indicate that three injuries were seen, out of which twowere abrasions; that the medical evidence adduced through Ex.8.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that so far as the confessionand recovery are concerned, the witnesses have not supported the prosecutioncase; that even the evidence of the eyewitnesses who have spoken about thatpart, is also shaky; that it did not stand the cross-examination, and thus, thatpart was also not available to the prosecution; that the lower Court withoutconsidering these aspects of the matter, has believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2 and recorded a conviction, and hence, it has got to be set aside by thisCourt.9.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.10.The Court paid its full attention and anxious consideration on thesubmissions made and had a thorough scrutiny of the available materials.11.It is not in controversy that one Natrayan, the husband of P.W.1,following an incident that took place at the place of occurrence, was taken tothe Government Hospital, Palani, and admitted by P.W.24, the Medical Officer, at11.20 P.M., and he died at 12.20 A.M. on the next day.Following the inquest,the dead body was also subjected to postmortem by P.W.26, and he has given acertificate to the effect that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage.Apart from that, it is also not a fact questioned by the appellants/accusedeither before the trial Court or before this Court, and hence, it could besafely recorded that Natrayan died out of homicidal violence.12.Now, the next question that would arise for consideration is whetherthe prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.P.W.2 is the son ofthe deceased.13.According to P.W.1, they proceeded to Palani to meet the Minister togive a petition.The P.A. to the Minister has been examined as P.W.19, and hehas not spoken anything about that fact.It is pertinent to point out that evenin the earliest document F.I.R., this fact has not been spoken to.Thus, it isdoubtful whether they went over to Palani at that time.According to P.W.1,when they were coming back at about 9.00 P.M., they were waylaid and attackedindiscriminately by the accused, and at that time, A-1 to A-6 were armed witharuvals and A-7 was armed with a crowbar.It is true that the deceased wasadmitted in the hospital.According to P.W.24, he was conscious enough and hehas also made a statement stating that he was attacked by known persons.Thus,it would be quite clear that he was attacked by known persons at that time.When P.W.1 was examined by P.W.24 medically, she has also spoken about the factthat known persons with aruvals and crowbar attacked them.The earliestdocuments namely Exs.P28 and P29, the accident register copies, issued inrespect of the deceased and P.W.1 respectively, would go to show that they wereattacked by persons known to them, with aruvals and crowbar.Now, it has to beseen whether this fact would be suffice to find these appellants/accused guilty.P1 is the statement given by P.W.1 to P.W.27, the Sub Inspector of Police, at1.30 A.M., in which a clear narration of all the accused along with theirfathers' names are also mentioned.The F.I.R. runs to number of pages and isthoroughly descriptive also.When P.W.1 was cross-examined, she hascategorically stated that she did not know the name of the father of any one ofthe accused, and thus, it would be quite clear that the statement, Ex.14.The next stage was that the Judicial Magistrate on requisition, came tothe Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, which ordinarilycould be taken as a dying declaration, had she died.At thisjuncture, a perusal of the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate,Palani, would clearly show that at the time of the occurrence, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6 and A-7 were present, out of whom, A-1, A-2 and A-7 attacked her and shesustained injuries, and so far as the deceased was concerned, A-1, A-4, A-6 andA-7 dragged him and indiscriminately cut him.Now, at this juncture, it has tobe pointed out that nowhere she has spoken about anything as regards A-5 or anyof his overt act; but, in Ex.P1, it is mentioned that A-5 was also present witharuval and attacked.At this stage, it remains to be stated that when Ex.P1came into existence, it was about 1.30 A.M. From this, it would be quite clearthat it could not have been the first information as found therein.It ispertinent to point out that the Judicial Magistrate has recorded the statementafter a period of three hours.According to the Doctor, she was very consciousenough to give statement.At this juncture, the Court can well infer thatbefore recording the statement by the Judicial Magistrate, she could have beentutored; but, she was unable to mention what was found in Ex.P1, the report.P1 do not find place in the statement recorded bythe Judicial Magistrate.15.Apart from the above, so far as the weapons were concerned, originallyshe was telling about 6 persons having aruvals and 1 having crowbar.Further the third stage was her evidence given before the Court.In view of this part of theevidence, the evidence of P.W.2 was given a go-by as to his presence at theplace of occurrence.Now, at this juncture, it is also to be mentioned that theoccurrence has taken place at 9.00 P.M. If to be so, according to theprosecution, they were able to see the occurrence through moonlight and apartfrom that, the lights were available in the motorbikes namely TVS 50 and M-80.Thus, both these vehicles should have been present at the place of occurrence.Though the investigation was actually commenced within a few hours by P.W.28,the Inspector of Police, he has not recovered either of the vehicles.But, themotorbikes were recovered after one year period by P.W.29, the Inspector ofPolice, who took up further investigation.But, no explanation worth wasforthcoming from the prosecution.17.Apart from all the above, in the instant case, as regards the arrest,confessional statement and recovery of weapons, though an attempt was made bythe prosecution to prove the same, the evidence in that regard remained shaky,and thus, that part of the evidence was also not available for the prosecution.Asregards P.W.1, her different versions at different point of time would make itclear that it would be highly unsafe to rely on such evidence so as to hold thatit inspired the confidence of the Court.So long as the prosecution relied onthe evidence of the related witnesses, a duty is cast upon the prosecution toprove that their evidence remained trustworthy and inspired the confidence ofthe Court.In the instant case, there are too many versions of P.W.1 whichwould be suffice to make her evidence unbelievable.It can be well stated that it would be highly risky to rely on theinterested testimony of P.W.1 to sustain a conviction.Therefore, the judgmentof the lower Court has got to be necessarily made undone only by upsetting thesame.This Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed toprove the guilt of the appellants/accused beyond any reasonable doubt, and theyare entitled for an acquittal giving benefit of doubt to them.18.In the result, both these criminal appeals are allowed, setting asidethe judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.Theappellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.The fine amounts paid by them, if any, will be refunded to them.1)The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.2)The Inspector of Police CB CID, Dindigul Dindigul Trust (Crime No.429 of 2000 on the file of the Ayakkudi Police Station)3)The Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,666,022 |
12) resident of 128, Gaurav Nagar, Prem Nagar, Kirari, Delhi gave information, which was recorded in D.D. No.4-A at Police Station Sultanpuri at about 2.15 a.m., that at about 12.15 a.m. in the night intervening 22.08.1989 and 23.08.1989, the appellant Shakuntala, who was the wife of Kishan Lal (deceased) and resident of House No.130, Gaurav Nagar, Kirari, came to his house and informed him that her husband was lying in a pool of blood on the cot and had an injuries on his face.It is further the prosecution case that on this information, the said Varinder Kumar Verma collected the persons of the colony and accompanied Shakuntala and found that Kishan Lal was lying on a cot CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 2 of 20 in a pool of blood.Though Kishan Lal was breathing, he was not in a position to speak.The said D.D. was handed over to S.I. Raghunandan Singh for inquiry, who alongwith the staff, reached the spot and found that in the courtyard of House No.130, Gaurav Nagar, Kishan Lal aged about 30-35 years was lying dead on a cot and had injuries on the left side of his head and face which appeared to have been caused by some sharp edged weapon.The wife of the deceased, Ms Shakuntala was, at that point of time, not in a position to give a statement being in a state of shock and, accordingly, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and thereafter the dog squad and crime team were summoned and further investigation was taken up.AND + CRL.A. 3/1995 SMT.SHAKUNTALA ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellants : Mr Sumeet Verma (Amicus Curiae) For the Respondent : Mr Sunil Sharma CORAM:-HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKEWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.09.1994 in Sessions Case No.63/1989 arising out of the FIR No.239/1989 registered at Police CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 1 of 20 Station Sultanpuri.The accused had been charged under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellants and consequently convicted them under Sections 302/120-B IPC.By virtue of the order on sentence dated 30.09.1994, the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants herein to undergo imprisonment for life.The appellants are aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and order on sentence.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 1 of 20As indicated in the impugned judgment, the case for the prosecution is that on 23.08.1989, one Varinder Kumar Verma (PW-Apparently, during the course of the investigation, Shakuntala informed that her husband had been murdered by her previous husband (Raja Ram) alongwith his companion Master Chatri, Hira Lal and other persons and that thereafter those persons left the spot and she raised cries.It appears that the investigating agency went to the village of Raja Ram to verify this fact and on further investigation they were of the view that Raja Ram and his companions were not involved in the crime.On the other hand, Raja Ram had indicated that Shakuntala did not have a good character.According to the prosecution, the appellant Shyam Bir, who used to refer to the deceased Kishan Lal as his Mama (maternal uncle), used to visit his house secretly and had some connection with CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 3 of 20 Shakuntala.On completion of the investigation, the case for the prosecution was that Shakuntala and Shyam Bir developed illicit relations and they hatched a plan to get rid of Kishan Lal.For executing the plan, Shakuntala is said to have procured an axe from PW-10 (Ram Kishan) on 22.08.1989 itself.When Kishan Lal was asleep, at the instance of Shakuntala, Shyam Bir entered the house and murdered Kishan Lal with the said axe which had allegedly been taken from PW-10 (Ram Kishan).Thereafter, Shyam Bir is said to have fled the place alongwith the said axe.According to the prosecution, the said axe was recovered at the instance of Shyam Bir from a room in Sanjay Model School, Niti Vihar, Kirari, Delhi.Nothing was, however, recovered at the instance of Shakuntala.It may be pointed out at the outset that though a post mortem was conducted in respect of Kishan Lals dead body and a report was also prepared, the doctor who conducted the post mortem, has not been produced as a witness.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 2 of 20CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 3 of 20In this background, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that this was a case of circumstantial evidence, there being no eye witness to the incident.1) Recovery of the blood stained axe at the instance of Shyam Bir on 26.08.1989;2) The testimony of PW-10 (Ram Kishan) that the axe belonged to him and that Shakuntala had taken that axe on 22.08.1989, but had not returned the same to him;3) The testimony of PW-1 (Puran), who is alleged to be a neighbour, wherein he stated that Shyam Bir used to visit Shakuntala in the absence of Kishan Lal;4) PW-14 (Raja Ram), who was the first husband of Shakuntala, has also stated that Shakuntala was loose charactered and that she had eloped with the deceased Kishan Lal without his (Raja Rams) consent;5) The post mortem report has also been considered by the trial court to establish the cause of the death.Mr Sumeet Verma, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, contended that the circumstances which have been relied upon by the trial court have, first of all, not been established and, secondly, they do not form a complete chain so as to lead to the conclusion that it is only the appellants who are guilty for the murder of Kishan Lal.He submitted that the most important factor in this case is the question of recovery of the axe.As per the disclosure statement (Exhibit PW- CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 5 of 20 15/D) said to have been made by the appellant Shyam Bir, it appears that he stated that the axe was concealed in his room and that he can get the axe recovered after pointing out the room.It is noteworthy that the address given in Exhibit PW-15/D, which contains the alleged disclosure statement of Shyam Bir, is Sanjay Model School, Gaurav Nagar, Prem Nagar, Kirari, Delhi.However, the address given in the recovery memo (Exhibit PW-10/A) indicates the address of Shyam Bir as 128, Gaurav Nagar, Kirari with a permanent address at Village Chhonk, P.S. Hathras, District-Aligarh (U.P.).The said recovery memo also indicates that Shyam Bir pointed out the residential room in Sanjay Model School, Niti Vihar, Kirari and further pointed out an axe wrapped in a gunny bag after untying a string tied on the door of the room.There are two witnesses to this recovery memo and they are PW-10 (Ram Kishan) and PW-15 (Mahipal).Insofar as PW-10 (Ram Kishan) is concerned, he stated that on 26.08.1989, he alongwith the police and Shyam Bir went to the house of Shyam Bir.It was at about 7.00 p.m. and Shyam Bir produced the axe from his house wrapped in a gunny bag.The axe was identified by PW-10 (Ram Kishan) as the same axe which was given by him to Shakuntala.Furthermore, in his cross-examination, the said witness, namely, PW-10 (Ram Kishan) clearly stated that the house of Shyam Bir was in Gaurav Nagar and that Prem Nagar and Gaurav Nagar are different areas but are adjacent CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 6 of 20 to each other.He also indicated that he did not tell the police that the accused led the police party to his house No. 128, Gaurav Nagar.However, he was confronted with the statement in Exhibit D/A, which is his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, wherein it was so recorded.He has also stated that he did not know how far Niti Vihar Mohalla was from Gaurav Nagar.On the basis of these statements, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Gaurav Nagar and Niti Vihar are two separate areas and while the disclosure statement of Shyam Bir reveals that the axe was concealed in Shyam Birs room, the same was actually recovered not from his house at Gaurav Nagar, but from a residential room in Sanjay Model School, Niti Vihar, which is different from the place where Shyam Bir resided.The learned counsel further pointed out that the other recovery witness, namely, PW-15 (Mahipal) also stated in his examination-in- chief that on 26.08.1989, on the pointing out of accused Shyam Bir, one iron axe was recovered from the residential house of Shyam Bir at Niti Vihar.However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he never visited House No.128 and does not know the Municipal Number of the School.He also stated that he had not told the police that he went to House No.128, Gaurav Nagar.However, he was confronted with CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 7 of 20 Exhibit PW-15/D, which is his statement under Section 161, CrPC, wherein it was so recorded.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 7 of 20The learned counsel also drew our attention to the testimony of PW-18 (Inspector Rajinder Prasad) who is the scribe of the said recovery memo.He stated that on the pointing out of the accused Shyam Bir, near Sanjay Model School, Niti Vihar, Kirari, an axe was recovered from a room.On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the place of recovery of the alleged murder weapon, namely, the said axe, is not certain.While the appellant Shyam Bir is said to have indicated that the axe was concealed in his room, PW-18 has stated that the said axe was recovered from a room near Sanjay Model School.PW-10, however, has stated that the same was recovered from Shyam Birs house at Gaurav Nagar, while PW-15 (Mahipal) has stated that the axe was recovered from Shyam Birs house at Niti Vihar.The learned counsel submitted that these are very material contradictions because unless and until the recovery of the axe at the instance of Shyam Bir is firmly established, there are missing links as to form a complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the guilt of the appellants.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 8 of 20CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 8 of 20The learned counsel also submitted that the only portion of disclosure statement of Shyam Bir, which is admissible, is the knowledge of the place of recovery from where the axe could be recovered and not the factum of recovery of the axe.Since the place itself has not been established, there is nothing available with the prosecution which could connect the appellant Shyam Bir with the murder of Kishan Lal.Since Shyam Bir cannot be connected with the said offence, there is no question of any connection with the appellant Shakuntala either.The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce tangible evidence to enable the court to arrive at a conclusion that Shakuntala and Shyam Bir had any illicit relations.The only testimony is that of PW-1 (Puran) who is said to be a neighbour of the deceased Kishan Lal, who stated that Shyam Bir used to visit Shakuntala in the absence of Kishan Lal.However, the learned counsel pointed out that in the cross-examination of PW-1, the said witness has been found to be an untruthful one.He has stated that he was living at Anand Parbat but used to visit Gaurav Nagar.He further stated that his servant used to live at Gaurav Nagar.According to the learned counsel, this clearly indicates that he was not even a neighbour residing in the neighbourhood.He owned a house next to the house of Kishan Lal, but he was not present there at all times and only used to visit the said house and that too twice a week.Therefore, his testimony that CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 9 of 20 Shyam Bir used to visit Shakuntala in the absence of Kishan Lal cannot be taken as a truthful statement.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 9 of 20The further CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 10 of 20 circumstance which has been proved was that the axe was borrowed by Shakuntala from PW-10 (Ram Kishan).The trial court also found that on the basis of the testimonies of PW-10 (Ram Kishan), PW-15 (Mahipal) and PW-18 (Rajinder Prasad), the recovery of the axe stands established and proved.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 10 of 20Mr Sunil Sharma then referred to paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment to show that the trial court did consider the argument of contradictions about the place from where the axe was recovered and after considering the same, the trial court came to the conclusion that these were not material contradictions.Mr Sunil Sharma also pointed out that the axe, which had been recovered, had also been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, which confirmed that there were blood stains on the edge of the axe and that it was human blood of group O. The blood sample of the deceased was also taken and the serological report indicates that his blood group was also O. He also submitted that blood stains were also found in the bathroom of the house of Kishan Lal and no explanation was forthcoming from the accused with regard to that.Mr Sharma thereafter submitted that the motive also stood established inasmuch as there were illicit relations between Shakuntala and Shyam Bir.He also submitted that Shakuntala borrowed the axe from PW-10 (Ram Kishan) and that at about 12.15 a.m, Kishan Lal was killed by Shyam Bir in execution of the conspiracy hatched by both Shakuntala and Shyam Bir.Kishan Lal was killed by Shyam Bir using the same axe which had been recovered at the instance of Shyam Bir.Consequently, he submitted, the trial court had rightly convicted the appellants for having committed the offences under Sections 302/120-B IPC.We have examined the evidence in detail and considered the arguments advanced before us.This is so because in his cross-examination itself, he has stated that he used to reside elsewhere and used to visit Gaurav Nagar only twice a week.Therefore, it is difficult to understand as to how he could have observed Shyam Bir visiting Shakuntala in the absence of Kishan Lal during his momentary bi-weekly visits to 128, Gaurav Nagar, which is adjacent to Kishan Lals house, i.e., 130, Gaurav Nagar.Incidentally, even Shyam Bir was residing in the adjacent house, i.e., 128, Gaurav Nagar.On 22.08.1989 also, Shakuntala borrowed the axe from PW-10 (Ram Kishan).But this circumstance by itself is not sufficient for the court to conclude that the axe was borrowed with the intention or the motive of committing the murder of Kishan Lal.It must be remembered that the borrowing of the axe by Shakuntala from PW-10 (Ram Kishan) does not amount to clinching evidence inasmuch as PW- 10 (Ram Kishan) himself had stated that Shakuntala borrowed the axe on earlier occasions also.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 13 of 20PW-18 (Rajinder Prasad), who is the scribe of the said recovery memo, CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 14 of 20 indicated that the said axe was recovered from a room near Sanjay Model School, whereas PW-10 (Ram Kishan) stated that the axe was recovered from the house of Shyam Bir at 128, Gaurav Nagar, Delhi.On the other hand, Mahipal (PW-15) made a complete different statement wherein he stated that the said axe was recovered from the house of Shyam Bir, but from Niti Vihar.The only evidence, which has been brought forward by the prosecution, indicates that Shyam Bir had taken a room on rent and that he was residing at 128, Gaurav Nagar, Delhi.It has not been established and / or proved by the prosecution that Shyam Bir was residing either in a residential room in Sanjay Model School or near Sanjay Model School from where the axe is said to have been recovered.The evidence led by the prosecution, therefore, itself is extremely hazy with regard to the place of actual recovery of the said axe.This in itself casts serious doubts on the factum of recovery also.That being the position, the only link between the appellant Shyam Bir and the offence, being the recovery of the axe, is also not established.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 14 of 20There is another aspect of the case on which we have given our anxious consideration and that is the alleged recovery of blood from the bathroom of the house of the deceased.It has come in evidence that CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 15 of 20 Kishan Lal was put to death while he was sleeping on his cot in the courtyard of his house.It is obvious that there would be blood stains on and around the cot.However, since the blood stains are said to have been recovered from the bathroom, the prosecution version is that after Shyam Bir committed the murder of Kishan Lal using the said axe, the said axe was washed by Shakuntala and Shyam Bir in the bathroom and it is then that Shyam Bir took the axe and fled from the scene.PW-12 (Varinder Kumar Verma), who was also residing in House No.128, Gaurav Nagar, Kirari, Delhi, the very house in which Shyam Bir also resided, stated that on 22.08.1989, it was the birthday of his son.After he had gone to sleep at about midnight, he had heard some noise.Thereafter, he came outside and met Shakuntala there, who told him that someone had killed her husband.He further stated that many other persons were also present there.He saw Kishan Lal lying on the cot and he was bleeding from his face and head.His body was covered with a bed sheet upto the chest.From the above statements given by PW-12 (Varinder Kumar Verma), it is apparent that there was some noise or commotion, as a result of which he was awakened from his sleep and when he went out of his house, he saw Shakuntala, who told him that somebody had killed her husband.This is so because immediately upon hearing the noise, PW- 12 (Varinder Kumar Verma) came out of his house and met Shakuntala.There were other people also who had assembled there.The time interval, therefore, that was available for such a sequence of events, as alleged by the prosecution, was not sufficient, in our view, to support what the prosecution is alleging.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 15 of 20CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 16 of 20In such cases another doctor working in the hospital who is acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who prepared the same should have been examined.In the present case only a record keeper was examined and the said person was again examined for proving the back of the medical report.He has simply stated that he can identify the signatures and handwriting of the concerned doctors.No semblance of effort seem to have gone into tracing the doctors who had recorded the MLC and conducted the gynecological examination of the prosecutrix.Invariably before a doctor or for that matter any other person is employed he is enjoined to give permanent address to the employer.Same must have been the case here but the prosecution as usual has chosen a short cut of CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 18 of 20 adducing the record keeper to prove the documents like MLC, medical examinations by simply stating that doctors are not available.This affects the probative value of these documents.The defence had suggested the alternative theory of suicide.Therefore, the examination of the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination was all the more crucial for the purposes of establishing whether the death of Ashraf Jahan was homicidal or suicidal.The non-examination of the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination is also a circumstance which certainly goes against the prosecution and weakens their case."CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 18 of 20In any event, since the doctor, who conducted the post mortem report has not been produced as a witness, his opinion cannot be relied upon by the prosecution to the detriment of the appellants.There is, therefore, no evidence before us which would suggest that the said axe was indeed the weapon which was used for the commission of the crime.The only piece of evidence which has been relied upon by Mr Sunil Sharma was the factum that the CFSL report showed traces of human blood of group O which was also the blood group of the deceased.It is common knowledge that blood group O is not a rare group and, even if it were so, it cannot be ruled out that there are other persons having the same blood group.It can only be regarded as a circumstance and by itself cannot be considered to lead to the conclusion that the blood on the axe was that of the deceased.CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 19 of 20CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 19 of 20In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution are not sufficient and / or had not been sufficiently proved so as to lead to the guilt of the appellants.Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment and order on sentence.The appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged.The appeal stands allowed as indicated above.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J AJIT BHARIHOKE, J MAY 19, 2009 pst/dutt CRL.A. Nos. 246/94 & 3/95 Page 20 of 20
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,396,769 |
The related facts and circumstances which giving rise to thememorandum of criminal revision may be summarised very briefly as follows:-The service connection bearing No.58 tariff was provided to Lakshmiprawns at Karanguda village from Sempaipattinam power transformer.The serviceconnection No.58 tariff which was given in the name of one Periyasamy ofSempaipattinam, had been consumed by the first and second accused.That on27.05.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. P.W.1 Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil NaduElectricity Board, Peravoorani, had inspected the said service connectionbearing No.58 tariff.While so, the seal of the meter fixed in the above saidservice connection was found damaged, meter box glass was found broken and theten thousand digit was also found to be tampered.Besides this, five 10 H.P.Motors and twenty two 40 Watts tube lights were found to have been fitted withthe above said service connection.It was also detected that from 18.08.2001 to27.05.2002 96,673 units of power was stolen and the value of the power theft wasestimated at Rs.8,49,713/-.On completion of investigation, P.W.7 had laid a final report on 03.09.2002under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act as against the firstand second accused.After framing necessary charges the accused were put ontrial.In order to prove its case, the prosecuting agency had totally examinedseven witnesses.b) The police will continue to receive complaints from the EB officialsabout power theft investigate and file charge sheet in the Court as it was doneearlier.(Clause 12) The arrangement will continue even after formation ofSpecial Courts.This memorandum of criminal revision is directed against thejudgment dated 08.08.2008, and made in C.C.No.1986 of 2002, on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, acquitting the first and secondaccused as the offence under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian ElectricityAct have not been proved by the prosecuting agency beyond all reasonable doubts.Challenging the legality of the judgment, the complainant has approached thisCourt by way of this criminal revision.For easy reference, the appellant herein may hereinafter bereferred to as the complainant and the respondents herein may hereinafter bereferred to as the first and second accused.In this regard, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint under Ex.P1 before P.W.6Sub Inspector of Police attached to Sethupavasathiram police station.On receiptof the complainant, a case came to be registered in Sethupavasathiram PoliceStation Crime No.127 of 2002 under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) Indian ElectricityAct and subsequently, the investigation of this case was taken up by P.W.7S.Ganesamurthy, Inspector of Police attached to the above said Police Station.During the course of their examination, Exs.P1 to P12 andM.Os.1 to 4 were marked.When the incriminating circumstances arising out of thetestimonies were read over and explained under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the firstand second accused had denied the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.No oralevidence was adduced on their behalf excepting the documentary evidences underExs.On appreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary, thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, had acquitted the first and secondaccused from the charges under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the IndianElectricity Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Tamil NaduElectricity Board has preferred this criminal revision.The learned counsel appearing for the complainant while advancinghis argument has submitted that when the case was registered and theinvestigation was taken up by P.W.7, the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was notamended and therefore, there was no impediment to continue the investigation.Then, trial was commenced.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,679,030 |
In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. For grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 22.02.2020 by Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.76/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and subsequently increased Section 302 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that co-accused Vinod Jatav and Shankar Jatav have already been released on bail vide orders dated 9.7.2020 passed in M.Cr.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.(Vijay Jatav Vs.State of M.P. ) E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.CC as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge Rks.RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2020.08.04 17:54:46 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,679,682 |
The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andE- copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,682,058 |
Hilli, Dist South Dinajpur on the complaint of Shri WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 1 of 8 Sachindra Nath Mahato s/o BAidyanath Mahto, Village Lakma PO Jamalpur PS Hilli, Distt.South Dinajpur was registered.WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 1 of 8WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 3 of 8The counsel contended that from the testimony, it has not been established that the bullet was fired on Smt. Lili Mahato nor it could be established beyond reasonable doubt that there was any altercation between the petitioner and Smt. Lili and the bullet was fired to silence or terminate WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 4 of 8 the altercation.From the nature of injury on the deceased, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could not be inferred that the injury was caused with the intention to cause death as the deceased had died on account of excessive bleeding as she had not been provided timely medical help.WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 4 of 8* CM No. 16686/2011This is an application by the petitioner/applicant seeking stay of his order of conviction and sentence and confirmation of sentence and for suspension of his sentence and for releasing him on bail.The petitioner/applicant, accused Constable Mahesh Prasad Singh having no. 860650036 of 115 Bn was found guilty of charge u/s 46 of BSF Act punishable u/s 302 of IPC.Pursuant to incident FIR No. 13/2004 dated 16.2.2004 PS.The petitioner had served for more than 19 years as a constable.In February, 2004 he was posted at BOP, Mathurapur, West Bengal.The petitioner was charged under Section 46 of the BSF Act r/w Section 302 of IPC alleging that on 16th February, 2004 at OP Point Ex. BOP Mathurapur he fired a shot from his INSAS Rifle which resulted in the death of Smt. Lili Mahato.The petitioner was tried by General Security Force Court of BSF from 11th April, 2005 to 2nd May, 2005 and was found guilty of the charge and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and dismissal from service.The respondents held that it is not disputed that the death of Smt. Lili Mahato, W/o Sh.Sachin Mahato, R/o Village Lakma, PS Hilli, Distt.Dakshin Dinajpur was caused on 16th February, 2004 on account of bullet fired from the INSAS Rifle of the petitioner.The respondents, while convicting and sentencing the petitioner believed the testimony of Sitesh Mahato, PW-5 and Sarvopiya Mahato, PW-4 that hot arguments/altercation took place between the deceased WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 2 of 8 whereafter the petitioner had fired one round from his personal weapon to finish the altercation/arguments.The respondents also held that though no motive for commission of offence has been established but there is cogent evidence that the petitioner fired at Smt. Lili Mahato to finish her arguments which proved fatal to her and thus convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 2 of 8The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically contended that the petitioner had fired on a Bangladeshi intruder when he was fleeing after getting the packet and when he did not stop on being challenged, the petitioner had fired the shot.The petitioner had not fired on Smt. Lili, however, she had come in the line of fire and got injured and subsequently died.The learned counsel has pointed out that the testimony of PW-4 Sarvopiya Mahato and PW-5 Sitesh Mahato is not reliable as they are closed relatives of the deceased and they are not even the eye witnesses.WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 3 of 8 Learned counsel has also emphasized on the contradictions in the statements of Sarvopiya Mahato and Sitesh Mahato and has contended that their testimonies are unreliable and the conviction could not be based on them.Dalip Singh, Pw 11 on behalf of the prosecution, who had categorically deposed that constable Mahesh Prasad Singh had disclosed that two Bangladeshi nationals, i.e., one male and female had reached near Smt. Lili in the field where she was working and had exchanged some packet.The petitioner had reached the spot and had challenged them and had fired one round from his INSAS rifle however, Smt. Lili Mahato came in between the line and the bullet hit her on her left thigh and she succumbed to injuries.He contended that the testimony of the said witness was challenged by the respondents and the while convicting the petitioner it has not been taken into consideration.The testimony of said witness does not corroborate the version of the respondents rather demolished the testimonies of pw4 and pw-5 which have been relied on for convicting the petitioner.This has been very emphatically contended that the GSFC failed to consider the Exceptions 2 to 4 of Section 300 of IPC in the facts and circumstances and also failed to take into account that the place of occurrence was bushy with thick growth of bamboo and banana trees with obstructed clear view and facilitated concealment and in the circumstances, no foot prints or other evidence could be detected.According to the learned counsel no foot prints in the grassy and bushy area does not rule out completely the presences of intruder who had been challenged by the petitioner and when they did not stop, the petitioner had fired a single shot but unfortunately the deceased came in the line of fire and she was not rendered timely medical assistant leading to her death.Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has also contended that the petitioner is in the custody for more than 7 years as he is incarcerated since 20th February, 2004 and there are no such factors or circumstances, which will disentitle the petitioner for suspension of his sentence and for his release on bail.WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 5 of 8WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 5 of 8Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the nominal roll of the petitioner was called for.The nominal roll of the petitioner reveals that during the period of detention, nothing objectionable against the petitioner has been found.The petitioner had not availed any parole during the period of detention.The petitioner served as constable for more than 18 years and he has one son and two daughters.At the time of his conviction he had one old aged mother.Nothing has been shown which will disentitle the WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 6 of 8 petitioner for suspension of his sentence and to release him on bail in the facts and circumstances.WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 6 of 8In the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the order of conviction and sentencing the petitioner dated 02.05.2006, confirmed on 24.08.2005, is stayed during the pendency of the present writ petition.Copies of this order be given Dasti to the counsel for the parties.WP(C) No.7357/2011 Page 7 of 8ANIL KUMAR, J.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
931,274 |
JUDGMENT M.R.A. Ansari, J.468 and 471 Indian Penal Code .The prosecution case against the petitioners according to the challan was that they had committed theft of a fiat car belonging to Shri K. T. Mirchandani on the night between 26th and 27th April, 1971 when the car was parked outside the Iii class waiting room of the Railway Station New Delhi, and that after changing the registration number of the car and making false entries in the registration certificate, the petitioners had sold the car at Nagpur to one Suresh Khanna for Rs. 15,000.00 .
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,139,671 |
2. Admit.Dinesh Kumar (first informant) hails fromvillage Manjani, Tq.Atur, Dist.Selum (State of TamilNadu).He is a driver by profession.He was employedto drive truck, bearing registration No.TN-34-E-8071.One Punrasu Kannan (deceased) was the co-driver.Inthe last week of April, 2014, the first informant anddeceased Punrasu were carrying 324 bags of Sago, ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 6 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docworth Rs.10,00,000/-, from Selum to Bhilwada(Rajasthan).On 30.04.2014, they were passing throughMaharashtra.By 09.00 p.m. on 30.04.2014, the firstinformant and Punrasu took dinner at Solapur andstarted for onward journey.It was about 02.00 a.m.on 01.05.2014 they were travelling along Tuljapur -Osmanabad road.Near village Yedshi, one Scorpiovehicle overtook the truck and blocked its way.Fourpersons alighted from Scorpio vehicle.They enteredthe truck's cabin; two from driver's side and othersfrom cleaner's.Two of them were armed with woodenrods.The FIR contained their description.Two ofthem started assaulting the first informant and othertwo dealt with Punrasu.They tied their hands with aLungi.One of them took control of the truck andproceeded towards Kallam., they robbed two cell-phones of the firstinformant and Punrasu, besides Rs.15,000/-.Then,the four made the duo to get down from the truck and ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 7 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docboard Scorpio vehicle and proceeded towards Yermala.The first informant and Punrasu were severely beatenup and then dropped in a dry well behind Yedeshwaritemple.The first informant regained consciousness onthe next day by 12.00 noon.Punrasu was not around tobe seen.The first informant came up on the road andapproached Police Station, Yermala and lodged reportof the incident.Crime came to be registered for the offencespunishable under Sections 396, 397, 364, 412 and 201of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", for short).Onthe next day, the dead body of Punrasu was found neara pond behind Yedeshwari temple.On completion of investigation of the crimeregistered under Indian Penal Code, charge-sheet wasfiled.During further investigation, it was foundthat the offence was committed by an organised crimesyndicate headed by one Raja Pawar.Prior approval ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 8 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docfor registration of the offences under the M.C.O.C.Act was, therefore, granted by the competentauthority.The Deputy Superintendent of Police tookup the investigation.Some of the accused gaveconfessional statements.It was revealed that Punrasuwas murdered.Some of the stolen Sago bags were sold.Call Data Records (C.D.R.) indicate thatthey were in contact with each other and the gang-leader before and even after the offence in questionwas committed.Admittedly, there is nothing to indicatethe appellant's involvement in the main offence inquestion.The co-accused - Vinod Harbhare, therefore,took 60 bags of Sago to the house of the appellant.The appellant paid him Rs.25,000/- towards cost of 10bags of Sago.He allowed Vinod Harbhare to keep theremaining 50 bags in his house.As already observed herein above, theoffence of abetment can be committed by beingaccessory before, or at the most, during the offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 31 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt is reiterated that there is no material evenslightly to suggest the appellant to have been waryof the offence in question and he consciously boughtthe Sago bags.Shivaji Shinde)Learned APP waives notice on behalfof the respondents.With the consent of learnedCounsel for the parties, appeals are heard finally.These appeals are directed against thejudgments and orders passed by the Special Court ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 5 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docconstituted for trial of the offences under theMaharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999(M.C.O.C. Act), rejecting discharge applicationsmoved by the appellants herein.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::5 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSince common questions of law and factsarise, the appeals were heard together and are beingdecided by this common judgment.Brief facts, giving rise to these appeals,are as follows :-After proceeding for about10-12 kms.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::6 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::7 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docOn completion of investigation and after obtainingsanction for prosecution, charge-sheet for theoffences punishable under the M.C.O.C. Act, came tobe submitted.The Special Court took cognizance ofthe offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::8 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe appellants herein moved the applicationsfor discharge.The Special Court rejected theapplications by separate orders.Mr.Kore and Mr.Gaikwad, learned Counselappearing for the appellants, would submit (averredin the appeal memos) that as the FIR was filedagainst five unknown persons only, how come ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 9 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docinvolvement of eighteen persons in the offences inquestion.The appellants were arrested on suspicion.A co-accused, who was similarly situated with most ofthe appellants herein, has been discharged from theoffence under M.C.O.C. Act. His case has beentransferred to the regular Court.As such, none ofthe appellants could be said to have committed anorganised crime.Learned Counsel referred to therelevant provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act. Accordingto learned Counsel, the Special Court, in the factsand circumstances of the case, should have dischargedthe appellants.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::9 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSome of them have been identified by ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 10 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe first informant in T.I. Parade.The appellantshave given confessional statements.All of them werein association with the gang-leader and facilitatedcommission of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 11 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 12 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc either singly of collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime;Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIn the first instance, it will be profitable to examine the scheme of MCOCA by making a cursory glance to the Objects and Reasons and thereafter to make an intensive reading of the above referred two provisions.When we peruse the Objects and Reasons, it discloses that organized crime has been posing very serious threat to our society for quite some years and it was also noted that organized crime syndicates had a common cause with terrorist gangs................................. ....................................... It was further found that the existing legal framework, that is the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 13 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc system, were found to be inadequate to curb or control the menace of 'organized crime'.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::13 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc14 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe mere indulgence in a violent activity etc. either for pecuniary gain or other advantage or for promoting insurgency as an individual, either singly or jointly as a member of 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of a such syndicate would be sufficient for bringing the said activity within the four corners of the definition of::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 16 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc 'organized crime'.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::15 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::16 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc43 to 55 ..... . . . . .::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThe offence should alleged to have been committed either::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 18 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on its behalf.In so far as the offences are concerned, if the offence would attract a punishment of three years or more that would suffice for falling within the said definition.The charge-sheet should have been filed before a Competent Court with reference to such offence against the offenders.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::18 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAppeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::20 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::22 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::25 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docWe have, therefore, now to appreciate,whether the police papers, prima facie, make out a ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 26 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doccase of abetment of organised crime.We propose totake case of each of the appellants separately.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::26 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100 OF 2018 (Tanaji s/o.Narayan Sathe)The legal position regardingadmissibility of confessional statement would bestated lateron.The appellant was on the driver'sseat of Scorpio vehicle.It is he, who had blockedthe way of the truck driven by the first informant.We do not propose to reproduce the entireconfessional statement of the appellant, suffice itto say that the appellant has confessed hisinvolvement in the offence.He has been identified bythe first informant in his identification parade.There are C.D.Rs. to indicate the appellant to havebeen in continuous contact with the others involved ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 27 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docin the crime.The confessional statements of some ofthe co-accused further indicate involvement of thisappellant.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::27 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2018 (Sambhaji s/o.Pandurang Sathe)We have carefully perused theconfessional statement to find him to have been inthe company of the leader of the organised crimesyndicate and the co-accused during commission of thecrime.His confessional statement, however,undoubtedly, indicate him to have not made any overt-act.There is also nothing to suggest him to havedone anything to facilitate commission of theorganised crime.The confessional statement of someof the co-accused are on the lines of theconfessional statement of this appellant.Thisappellant has been identified by the first informant ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 28 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docin the test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::28 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docSo far as regards this appellant isconcerned, we have before us his own confessionalstatement and the confessional statement of one VinodHarbhare.He came on the scene post commission of theoffence.The main offence is of road robbery,wherein one of the victims had been murdered.Therobbery is of 324 bags of Sago worth Rs.10,00,000/-.The appellant runs a grocery shop.It is, prima facie, evident from hisconfessional statement that two days after therobbery, accused Vinod Harbhare contacted him oncell-phone and inquired, whether he (appellant)would like to purchase Sago.The appellant readily ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 29 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docagreed.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::29 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docOn the same lines is the confessionalstatement of Vinod Harbhare.It is in his statementthat on the request of co-accused - Popat Pawar, hecontacted the appellant herein to see, whether he(appellant) would like to buy Sago.There is nomaterial to indicate the appellant to have been inthe know that the Sago bags were property derived orobtained from commission of an organised crime, beingan offence punishable under Section 3(5) of M.C.O.C.Act.In our view, the Special Court erred inobserving that the material creates strong and gravesuspicion leading to presume the appellant to be a ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 30 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docmember of the organised crime syndicate and hasinvolved in its continuous activities.The SpecialCourt also observed the appellant to have abettedunlawful activities of organised crime syndicate.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::30 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docHe could only be said to havecommitted the offence of dishonestly receiving thestolen property, punishable under Section 411 of theI.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::31 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2019 (Ganesh @ Prashant s/o.He was awarethat the gang-leader and other co-accused have beeninvolved in the offences of road-robbery, housebreaking, etc. The co-accused Tanaji Sathe (appellantin Crime No.100 of 2018) was employed by thisappellant as a driver on his Scorpio vehicle.Thevehicle involved in the crime belongs to thisappellant.He was, however, not in the know that hisvehicle was being used in commission of the offence. ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 32 Cri.The facts,however, indicate him to have consciously remained inthe company of the co-accused during commission ofthe offence.He allowed his place (brick-kiln) to beused to keep the victims thereat for a while.True,the material relied on against this appellant may beshaky.We are, however, considering his claim fordischarge.We only hope that the Trial Court wouldconsider his claim, if any, for bail.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::32 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.146 OF 2019 (Balaji s/o.Bishram Pawar)The police papers undoubtedly indicate theappellant to have not been involved in commission of ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 33 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe main offence.He appears to have not made anyconfessional statement.What is relied on against himis the confessional statement of co-accused - Govind@ Rama Pawar.The only incriminating material againstthis appellant is - "मम आमररई कडड न घररकडड परयम जरत असतरनर वरटडतबरलरजम बबसररम पवरर हर भडटलर व तयरनड पण मलर झरलडलर पकरर ककणरलर सरसगड नकक असडमहणडन चरपट मररलयर व धमकक बदलम."::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::33 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThis appellant can only be said to haveconcealed proof of the organised crime syndicate ofthe accused in this case.He could, at the most, besaid to have committed an offence punishable underSection 3(3) of the M.C.O.C. Act. We hope that theSpecial Court would consider his case for bail, ifany, uninfluenced by our observations herein.In our view, the Special Court erred inobserving the appellant to have been a member oforganised crime syndicate and involved in theorganised crime.This appellant even cannot be saidto have abetted the organised crime as he came at the ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 34 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docscene post commission of the offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::34 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAPPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2019 (Karan s/o.Bapurao Dongre)This appellant too, made a confessionalstatement on 14.08.2014 before S.P., Beed.Also,There are confessional statements of some of theaccused suggesting this appellant's involvement.Those confessional statements indicate the appellantto have been associated with the gang-leader andthree others since beginning.His role appears to beof the facilitator of the organised crime.He hasbeen identified by the first informant in the T.I.parade.As such, the appellant could not make out acase for discharge altogether.APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.36 OF 2019 (Ajit s/o.Laximan Sathe)This appellant too, has made confessionalstatement on 14.08.2014 before S.P., Beed.He was in ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 35 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthe company of the gang-leader and others duringcommission of the main offence.He has beenidentified in the T.I. parade.True, the appellantappears to have not made any overt-act.No case for altogether discharge,thus, could be made out by him.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::35 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt has beenlodged by a Tamil Nadu based person, who did notunderstand Marathi.One may be amazed of the fact ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 36 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docthat when the FIR was against five unknown person,how-come involvement of nine more.This could only bemade out due to the confessional statements.UnderSection 18 of the M.C.O.C. Act, confessions made tothe police officer are to be taken intoconsideration.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::36 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::37 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::38 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docIt would,however, be a question of appreciation of theevidence during trial of the case.A contemporaneousrecord about satisfaction of recording officer after ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 39 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docwriting of confession that confession was voluntarilymade may cure the defect.We have, therefore, lookedinto the confessional statements at this stage.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::39 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docThis observation isrequired to be made because, in our opinion, accused ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 40 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::40 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docAppeal No.100-18 and ors.docto try persons accused of different offencescommitted in the course of same transaction.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::42 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.docFor the reasons given hereinabove, theAppeals partly succeed in terms of the followingorder :-O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeals No.100/2018, 101/2018, 170/2019, 37/2019, 146/2019, 35/2019 and 36/2019 are partly allowed.(ii) The appellants stand discharged of offences of organised crime and being members of the organised crime syndicate.(iii) The appellants namely - Tanaji Sathe, Sambhaji Sathe, Ganesh Shinde, Karan Dongre and Ajit Sathe shall be charged with the offence of abetment of organised crime.(iv) Appellant - Balaji Pawar is also discharged of the offence of abetment of the organised crime.He shall, however, be charged with an offence ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 ::: 43 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc punishable under Section 3(3) of M.C.O.C. Act and any other offence as may be made out against him from the police papers.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::43 Cri.Appeal No.100-18 and ors.doc(v) Appellant - Sham Sachane stands discharged of offences punishable under M.C.O.C. Act. He shall, however, be charged and tried for offence punishable under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and/ or any other offence that may be made out against him.(vi) Rest of the appellants may also be charged and tried for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code or any other law, as may be made out against them from the police papers.[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]kbp ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2019 06:09:15 :::
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,143,187 |
(a) PW1 Arpita along with her husband, parents-in-law, children, brother-in-law Suresh, his wife and children were jointly residing at Village Argaon Devmala in Lanja Taluka of Ratnagiri.Sister-in-law of PW1 Arpita is the victim of the crime in question.She (the prosecutrix/PW5) is unfortunately deaf and dumb, so also her husband.The appellant/accused is cousin brother-in-law of PW1 Arpita who is First Informant in the instant case.(b) It is case of the prosecution that both houses of PW1 Arpita, the prosecutrix/PW5 and that of the appellant/accused are abutting each other.The prosecutrix/PW5 along with either the appellant/accused or his wife used to go for grazing cattle together.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::On that day, in the morning hours, PW1 Arpita had gone for washing clothes.Similarly, the prosecutrix/PW5 left the house at about 8.30 a.m. for grazing cattle.The appellant/accused also took his cattle for grazing by the same time.It is averred by the prosecution that at the grassland of Village Argaon Devmala, when the prosecutrix/PW5 was grazing her cattle, the appellant/accused had committed rape on her.The prosecutrix/PW5 immediately returned to her house and disclosed the incident by gestures to her mother-in-law.PW1 Arpita also returned to her house after washing clothes.At about 1.00 p.m., PW7 Nilesh - son of the prosecutrix/PW5, returned from the school.Thereafter, mother-in-law of PW1 Arpita disclosed the incident to her as well as PW7 Nilesh.PW1 Arpita then questioned the prosecutrix/PW5 about the incident and she was informed about the incident by the prosecutrix/PW5 by gestures and communicated to her that the appellant/accused had avk 3/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc committed rape on her after assaulting her and dragging her.PW1 Arpita accompanied by the prosecutrix/PW5 along with PW7 Nilesh, then went to the house of the appellant/accused and questioned him.The appellant/ accused did not reply but sat by bowing his head down.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::(d) As husband of PW1 Arpita had gone to Dhulia, immediate action in the matter could not be taken by the prosecuting party.the judgment and order dated 31 st August 2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Special Case No.6 of 2011 between the parties, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 7 years apart avk 1/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc from imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment of 3 months.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::2 Briefly stated, facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused can be summarized thus :On return of her husband on 27th September 2010, PW1 Arpita disclosed the incident to him and then the First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged against the appellant/accused by PW1 Arpita which has resulted in registration of Crime No.56 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused at Police Station Lanja.During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer referred the prosecutrix/PW5 to the Civil Hospital, Ratnagiri, where she was medically examined by PW9 Dr.Nilofar Malpekar.The spot was inspected in presence of avk 4/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc PW3 Sadanand Khamkar and panchnama Exhibit 51 came to be drawn.Sketch of the spot of the incident was got drawn from PW4 Hanumant Surve, Circle Officer.Statement of witnesses came to be recorded.Necessary sample of blood and semen came to be collected from the appellant/accused.Seized muddemal was sent for chemical analysis through carrier Head Constable PW6 Chandrakant Chavan.On completion of investigation, the appellant/accused came to be charge-sheeted.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::(e) The Charge for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code came to be framed and explained to the appellant/accused.He pleaded not guilty avk 5/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence.The prosecutrix is examined as PW5 and her evidence is recorded with the help of interpreter Arpita who is also examined separately as interpreter.Carrier Head Constable is examined as PW6 and his name is Chandrakant Chavan.Investigating Officer Manohar Surve is examined as PW8 and Medical Officer Dr.The defence has admitted some documents pursuant to the notice under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.As such, avk 6/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc request letter addressed to K.P.Abhyankar Deaf and Dumb School, Ratnagiri, by the Investigating Officer is marked as Exhibit 18, whereas the reply of the Head Master of the same school addressed to the Investigating Officer came to be marked as Exhibit 19 and were read in evidence by the learned trial court.The defence of the appellant/accused is that of total denial.It was tried to demonstrate that on the day of the incident, the appellant/accused had been to Pune for attending funeral of his relative named Bandarkar.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::(f) After hearing the parties, the learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established commission of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant/ accused on the prosecutrix/PW5 and accordingly, he came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::4 The learned advocate for the appellant/accused submitted that the prosecution was required to avail services of totally disinterested person as an interpreter in order to record evidence of the prosecutrix/PW5, who is a deaf and dumb person.Instead of that, PW1 Arpita was chosen to act as an interpreter and PW1 Arpita being the First Informant, is highly interested in avk 8/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc securing conviction of the appellant/accused.The learned advocate further argued that even if evidence of the prosecutrix/PW5 is accepted as it is, then also, it is seen that the evidence falls short of making out a case for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.In submission of the learned advocate for the appellant/accused, evidence of PW9 Dr.Nilofar Malpekar to the effect that, she had witnessed bite marks on breast of the prosecutrix/PW5, is an improvement in the version of the prosecution because PW1 Arpita is silent on this aspect.The learned trial court committed error in coming to the conclusion that presence of bite marks on breast of the prosecutrix/PW5 are sufficient to conclude that the appellant/accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix/PW5. 5 The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order by pointing out that clothes of the prosecutrix were promptly seized and sealed and in sealed condition those were sent to PW6 Chandrakant Chavan for chemical analysis.Report of avk 9/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc the Chemical Analyser shows that knicker of the prosecutrix was stained with semen of the appellant/accused.The learned APP further argued that evidence of the prosecutrix is gaining corroboration from her conduct when she was taken to the house of the appellant/accused as well as from her narrations by gestures to her relatives including PW1 Arpita and PW7 Nilesh.6 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the Record and Proceedings.The appellant/accused is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by holding that on 25 th September 2010, he had committed rape on the prosecutrix/PW5 at Argaon Devmala, Taluka Lanja, District Ratnagiri.The prosecutrix/PW5 is an adult lady having a son and a daughter.The letter at Exhibit 19 issued by the said school in no uncertain terms mentioned that the prosecutrix/PW5 is unable to understand the specialised language of signs.This undisputed position emerging on record will have to be kept in mind while assessing evidence of the prosecutrix/PW5, who according to the prosecution case, is the victim of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant/accused.In the matter of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V/s.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society.We must analyse the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross-examination.And we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated eye in the light of probabilities with our 1 AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 753(1) avk 12/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focused on the Indian horizon.We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life.Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the western world.It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turnkey basis and to transplant it on the Indian Soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores responses of the Indian society, and its profile.The identities of the two worlds are different".::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::In paragraph 5 of this judgment, it is held thus :-::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::"5 It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix.The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence.The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions.If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary.It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent.Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim.Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim 2 2007 Cri.L.J. 4704 avk 14/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc especially on the forearms, wrist, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault.The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon.There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability.Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case."::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::8 Now let us examine what First Informant PW1 Arpita and the prosecutrix/PW5 has stated about the incident in question, as fate of the prosecution case is largely dependent on their testimony.PW1 Arpita - sister-in-law of the prosecutrix/ PW5 has deposed that on 25th September 2010, after washing clothes, she returned to her house at 9.45 a.m., whereas the prosecutrix/PW5 returned to the home after grazing cattle at about 8.45 a.m. This witness has not claimed that soon after her return, the prosecutrix/PW5 who came back earlier had narrated the incident to her by gestures.Her evidence makes it clear that avk 15/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc the appellant/accused and the prosecutrix/PW5 used to take cattle for grazing at Argaon Devmala.This witness has stated that at about 1.00 p.m. of that day, her nephew PW7 Nilesh came back from the school and then her mother-in-law disclosed the incident to PW7 Nilesh in her presence.This witness further claimed that the prosecutrix/PW5 disclosed the incident by removing her knicker and pointing the finger at the house of the appellant/accused while weeping.Then, this witness accompanied by the prosecutrix/PW5 went to the house of the appellant/accused, who sat down before them bowing his head down and at that time, the prosecutrix/PW5 became angry.As per version of PW1 Arpita on 27th September 2010, her husband returned from Dhulia, and therefore, on 28 th September 2010 the FIR Exhibit 12 came to be lodged at Police Station Lanja.PW1 Arpita has deposed that thereafter she handed over knicker, petticoat, blouse and saree of the prosecutrix/PW5 to the police.9 In order to demonstrate delay in lodging the FIR, PW1 Arpita was cross-examined at length for bringing on record that avk 16/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc she is having good relations with Police Patil Sadanand Khamkar and they had disclosed the incident to Bava Khamkar - ex- Sarpanch with whom husband of the prosecutrix/PW5 was working.Ultimately, PW1 Arpita was residing with the prosecutrix/PW5 since long and the affirmative answer about her knowledge to the sign language used by the prosecutrix/PW5 is elicited by the defence in the cross-examination of PW1 Arpita.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::When said PW1 Arpita was called as an interpreter, several questions were put to her by the defence counsel and she had satisfactorily answered those questions to a large extent, but for the question as to how she will explain the prosecutrix/PW5 about the rough surface.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::15 Now let us examine what the prosecutrix/PW5 has stated about the incident, as interpreted by her sister-in-law PW1 Arpita.The prosecutrix/PW5 conveyed that when she had been for grazing cattle, her breast was touched and she was made to lie down.Then the most material and avk 26/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc relevant question was asked to her about the incident in question.This was to the effect that what took place after she was made to lie.The answer to this question given by the prosecutrix/PW5 is to the effect that she pointed out to the appellant/accused and made gestures by shaking hand.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::"आरोपीने खुण करन हात हलवून हाव भाव केले"Cross-examination of the prosecutrix/PW5 reveals that the interpreter was unable to understand the prosecutrix/PW5 as to for how much time the incident lasted.The prosecutrix/PW5 communicated in cross-examination that on the day of the incident, her son had beaten her.Pointing out the accused and making gestures by shaking hands, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as an act of commission of rape by penetration of the prosecutrix/PW5 with his male organ by the appellant/accused.At any rate, considering this nature of evidence, which is falling short of a standard of a prudent person for making out the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, benefit of doubt will have to be given to the appellant/accused.These seized articles were sent to the Forensic laboratory through PW6 Chandrakant Chavan.The Chemical Analyser's Report at Exhibit 33 is in respect of chemical analysis of blood and semen of the appellant/accused.The same were found to be of "B" group.Chemical Analyser's Report at Exhibit 31 shows that knicker of the prosecutrix/PW5 was found to be stained with semen of "B" group.The prosecutrix/PW5 is a married woman living with her husband.To crown this all, cross-examination of PW1 Arpita reveals that the prosecutrix/PW5 was accustomed to take bath in the evening hours and on the day of the incident also, she had taken bath in the evening hours.PW1 Arpita has further deposed in her cross- examination that after taking bath in the evening of 25 th September 2010, the prosecutrix/PW5 had washed her clothes.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::PW1 Arpita was residing in a small house with her sister-in-law i.e. the prosecutrix/PW5, in Village Argaon Devmala in Lanja Taluka.19 Now what remains is the evidence of PW9 Dr.This witness is a Medical Officer working at the Civil Hospital, Ratnagiri, having no enmity with the appellant/ accused.She had made record of her medical examination in the form of contemporaneous documents.Evidence of PW9 Dr.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::20 Evidence of PW9 Dr.Nilofar Malpekar, to my mind, corroborates the version of the prosecutrix/PW5, which was interpreted by PW1 Arpita to the effect that breast of the prosecutrix/PW5 were touched by the appellant/accused.Infact, it is seen that the prosecutrix/PW5 intended to communicate that the appellant/accused had bitten her breast at the time of the incident in question and made her to lie.However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not going any further than this stage to show that then the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix.As such, even if evidence of PW9 Dr.Nilofar Malpekar is accepted as it is, then also no case of rape is made out against avk 31/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc the appellant/accused.The appellant/accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt due to discrepant evidence on this aspect.21 Now the question which falls for consideration is, what offence, if any, is committed by the appellant/accused.It is seen from the version of the prosecutrix/PW5 as well as her sister-in- law/PW1 Arpita and PW7 Nilesh coupled with evidence of PW9 Dr.Nilofar Malpekar that, the appellant/accused had bitten the breast of the prosecutrix/PW5 and made her lie by removing her clothes during the course of the incident.However, the evidence is falling short of the actual act of penetration.Thus, the evidence on record is reflecting intention of the appellant/accused to commit rape coupled with preparation to commit the actual offence of rape, and then his attempt in the said direction.However, it appears that, the said attempt did not culminate into actual act of rape.The incident in question, as seen from evidence of PW3 Sadanand Khamkar coupled with that of PW4 Hanumant Surve, Circle Officer, took place on kaccha road having traffic of cattle and people.The spot panchnama at Exhibit 21 as well as avk 32/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc sketch map at Exhibit 23 is disclosing this position.Then something must have happened during the attempt, foiling the attempt to commit rape, probably due to the situation prevailing at the spot which was a kaccha road having traffic of cattle and people.Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the appellant/accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 511 read with 376 of the Indian Penal Code.22 In the result, the appeal needs to be allowed partly by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, but has proved the offence punishable under Section 511 read with 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, the order :::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::i) The appeal is partly allowed.ii) The conviction as well as resultant sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, avk 33/34::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 ::: APPEAL-1029-2012-J.doc on 31st August 2012, in Sessions Case No.6 of 2011, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::iii)Instead, the appellant/accused is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 511 read with 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months.iv)The appellant/accused be set at liberty, if he has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him by this judgment and order.v) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:03:05 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,143,461 |
The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is as under :::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::After marriage, appellant was ill-treating his wife.Deceased delivered two daughters and one son.At the time of incident, her daughters were aged about 12 years and 19 years and son was aged about 7 years.Before the incident, there was criminal proceeding instituted on the report of deceased.Appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.There was compromise.Deceased started residing with the appellant.On the day of incident, there was religious program at the house of parents of appellant.Daughters of the appellant had been to the house of his father.Appellant had also gone for the said program.He returned back, beat his deceased wife, poured kerosene and set her on fire.Information was given to the father and relatives of deceased.They reached to the hospital.In the night, police informed Naib-Tahsildar Shrihari Kanhuji Thamke (PW-5) to record dying declaration.He went to the hospital at about 11.30 p.m., obtained certificate of fitness from Medical Officer Dr.Appellant has assailed the Judgment of conviction awarded by Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.37 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.Neighbours of appellant rushed to the spot and extinguished the fire.Deceased was admitted in the hospital.Mahadeo Maroti Zalke ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 ::: 4 apeal591.05.odt (PW-10) and recorded the statement of deceased (Exh.50).In the same night, at about 1.00 p.m., deceased died in the hospital.After receipt of dying declaration, crime was registered against the appellant and his relatives for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Investigating Officer Mohan Vithalrao Bakade (PW-9) investigated the crime, went to the spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama (Exh.52), recorded statements of witnesses, seized clothes etc. and sent seized property to the Chemical Analyser.After complete investigation, filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.As the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court; therefore, case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.Trial Court framed charge against the appellant and other accused i.e. his parents, brother and sister for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Prosecution has examined following witnesses : a. Pundlik Marotrao Badwaik (PW-1) (Exh.32).Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accused have denied material incriminating evidence against them.After hearing prosecution and defence, learned trial Court acquitted the parents (relatives of the appellant) of the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Learned trial Court mainly relied on the dying declaration (Exh.50) recorded by the Naib-Tahsildar Shrihari Thamke (Exh.47) and the oral dying declaration stated by her father and brother.Heard Mr.A.S.Manohar, learned Counsel for the appellant.He has pointed out Exh. No. 48 (dying declaration dt.21.2.2004) and Exh. No.49 (Requisition Letter to Medical Officer by Executive Magistrate, Yavatmal).Learned Counsel has submitted that the Medical Officer Dr.Mahadeo Zalke (PW-10) was not present at the time of recording dying declaration.It appears that he signed the Certificate casually without examining the patient.Exh.48 shows that Medical Officer Dr.Mahadeo Zalke was busy in Casualty Ward at about 11.30 p.m. and there is a specific endorsement in that respect (Exh.48).Learned Counsel has submitted that the dying declaration recorded by Naib-Tahsildar Shrihari Thamake (PW-5) is not reliable.Patient had sustained 96 % burns.Her condition was serious.Learned Counsel pointed out evidence of Dr.Manjusha Suryakant Chintalwar (PW-4) and submitted that, in her cross- examination, she has specifically stated that, in case of burns of 96 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 ::: 7 apeal591.05.odt %, congestion of vital organs starts.General condition of patient at the time of admission was poor.Learned Counsel pointed out cross- examination of Amar Pundlikrao Badwaik (PW-3).In his cross- examination, he has admitted that, because of burns, Vanita was moaning.In such a situation, she was not in a position to state anything to her father Pundlik Marotrao Badwaik (PW-1) and brother Amar Pundlikrao Badwaik (PW-3).::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Mr.A.S.Manohar, Learned Counsel has pointed out cross- examination of Investigating Officer Mohan Bakade (PW-9).He has admitted in his cross-examination that, during the investigation, it was revealed that deceased Vanita was alone at her house.His cross- examination further shows that neighbours extinguished the fire and admitted deceased in the hospital.Their statements were recorded, but not filed on record.Learned Counsel Mr.Manohar has vehementally argued that dying declaration (Exh.50) and oral dying declaration stated by Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3) are not free from doubt.The dying declaration do not inspire any confidence and therefore, conviction cannot be awarded on the basis of dying ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 ::: 8 apeal591.05.odt declaration.There is no corroboration in respect of dying declaration.Hence, the conviction awarded by the trial Court is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Heard Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.She has submitted that evidence of Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3) show that appellant was always beating and ill-treating his deceased wife Vanita.He is prosecuted on the report of deceased Vanita.She had filed Maintenance Petition.There was settlement.All this evidence shows that appellant always caused cruelty to deceased.Ms H.N.Jaipurkar learned A.P.P. has submitted that immediately after receipt of information, Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3) went to General Hospital, Yavatmal.Deceased disclosed them that appellant beat her, poured kerosene and set her on fire.Learned A.P.P. has pointed out evidence of Amar Badwaik (PW-5), Naib-Tahsildar Shrihari Thamke (PW-5) and submitted that, at about 11.30 p.m., Thamke went to hospital and requested Dr.Mahadeo Zalke (PW-10) to examine the patient and certify about her fitness.Mahadeo Zalke examined deceased ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 ::: 9 apeal591.05.odt Vanita and certified vide Exh.78 that she was fit to give statement.Thereafter, Shrihari Thamake (PW-5) recorded statement of deceased, in which she has stated specifically that, one day before the incident, appellant beat her.Since then he was in a fit of anger.She has stated that, on the day of incident, at about 3 O'clock in the afternoon, her husband Vilas poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire by lighting match stick.Since her marriage, she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband.Her husband used to consume liquor.When the incident took place, they both i.e. her husband and herself were at home.Whenever her husband was returning home after visiting his parents, brother and his wife, he used to beat her.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Learned A.P.P. Ms Jaipurkar has submitted that written dying declaration (Exh.50) is well corroborated by the dying declaration stated by Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3).Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.At last, submitted that the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Perused the evidence on record.There is no dispute that there is no eye witness of the incident.Case of prosecution is solely based on written dying declaration (Exh.50) and the oral dying declaration stated by victim's father Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and brother Amar Badwaik (PW-3).Whether the dying declaration stated by deceased is reliable, cogent and can form the basis for conviction is to be decided.Now it is well settled law that conviction can be awarded on the basis of dying declaration provided that dying declaration shall inspire confidence of the Court.Dying declaration (Exh.50) and oral dying declaration stated by Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3) is to be scrutinized so as to test about truthfulness of the dying declaration and its reliability.There is no dispute that deceased died due to burn injuries.She had sustained 96 % burn injuries.As per the evidence of Investigating Officer Mohan Bakade (PW-9), neighbours of appellant extinguished fire and admitted deceased in the hospital.As per the admission of Investigating Officer Mohan Bakade (PW-9), statements of neighbours were recorded, but not filed on record.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Condition of the patient is to be seen when she was admitted in the hospital.Manjusha Chintalwar (PW-4) has stated in her evidence that, on 22.4.2004, she conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Vanita.Vanita had sustained 96 % burns as per her opinion, cause of death was shock due to burns.Accordingly, she issued Post Mortem report (Exh.46).In the cross-examination, Medical Officer Manjusha has specifically stated as under :"It is correct that the general condition of the patient at the time of admission was poor.It is correct that general condition means physical condition as-well-as mental condition. "From the perusal of evidence of Dr.Manjusha Chintalwar (PW-4), she has specifically admitted in her cross-examination that, in case of 96% burns, congestion to vital organs starts.General condition of patient (deceased) at the time of admission was poor.Her physical and mental condition was poor.This admission also supports the admission given by Amar Badwaik (PW-3) (brother of deceased).In the cross-examination, Amar (PW-3) has stated that ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 ::: 12 apeal591.05.odt Vanita sustained burns all over her body.Her body was covered till her shoulder.Deceased Vanita was moaning because of burns.This admission clearly shows that deceased Vanita was not in a position to talk as she was having severe pain.In such a situation, oral dying declaration stated by Pundalik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3) are not reliable.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::In respect of dying declaration (Exh.50), Naib Tahsildar Shrihari Thamke (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that, at about 11.30 p.m., he went to burn ward.He requested Medical Officer present there to examine the patient.Medical Officer examined the patient and given certificate (Exh.49) that the patient was fit to give statement.Again Medical Officer certified on the said dying declaration.Doctor was present at the time of recording the statement.The dying declaration is to be scrutinized very carefully because dead person cannot be called for cross-examination.Dying declaration (Exh.50) appears to be doubtful because Dr.Mahadeo Zalke (PW-10) has given specific endorsement on Exh.48 i.e. on the request letter issued by Lady Police Head Constable as "busy in ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 ::: 13 apeal591.05.odt casualty".Therefore, whether the Medical Officer was present at the time of recording dying declaration is doubtful.Moreover, the evidence of Shrihari Thamke (PW-5) show that.after recording the dying declaration, Medical Officer certified on the said dying declaration.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::From the perusal of evidence of Dr.Mahadeo Zalke (PW-He only endorsed of fitness of patient for giving dying declaration.After recording dying declaration, he issued Certificate (Exh.79).He certified that "dying declaration is taken in my presence." This Certificate (Exh.79) does not show that the patient was well-oriented during the time of recording dying declaration.Record of hospital not produced before the Court.It is clear from the evidence on record that, immediately thereafter at about 1.00 a.m., deceased died.25. Evidence of Dr.Manjusha Chintalwar (PW-4) clearly shows that when deceased was admitted in the hospital, her physical and mental condition was poor.She died at about 1 a.m. in the same night.As per the admission of Amar Badwaik (PW-3), deceased was moaning because of severe burn injuries.Endorsement of Medical Officer Zalke on Exh.48 shows that he was busy in Casualty at 11.30 p.m. In such a situation, it is doubtful as to whether deceased was in a condition to give statement before the Naib-Tahsildar Shrihari Thamke (PW-5) and to state about the incident to her father Pundalik Badwaik (PW-::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::1) and brother Amar Badwaik (PW-3).Doubt is also created in respect of the incident stated in the dying declaration.Investigating Officer Mohan Bakade (PW-9) has specifically stated as under :"It is correct that during the statements of witnesses it was revealed that at the time of incident of burns, Vanita was alone at her house."He has further admitted as under :::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::15 apeal591.05.odt "It is correct that during enquiry it was revealed that after the incident of fire to Vanita, the neighbouring persons gathered, extinguished the fire and had then brought her at Burn Ward at Yavatmal.I have recorded the statements of all those persons who had brought Vanita to hospital at Yavatmal and also of driver of the vehicle who had brought Vanita to the hospital at Yavatmal.It is correct that the statements of all these persons recorded by me are not filed with the charge-sheet of this case. "From the cross-examination of Investigating Officer Mohan Bakade (PW-9), it is clear that, at the time of incident, Vanita was alone at her house.When neighbours noticed fire, they rushed to the house of Vanita, extinguished fire and took her to the hospital.Admission of Investigating Officer Mohan Bakade (PW-9) clearly shows that he had recorded statements of all those persons/neighbours including driver who had taken deceased Vanita to the General hospital, Yavatmal.Those statements are not filed on record.Inference can be drawn u/s.114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under :::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. "If those statements would have been filed on record, those statements would have supported the defence of appellant.Prosecution suppressed the material fact from the Court.Investigating Agency has not filed the statements of material witnesses who immediately rushed to the spot of incident and thereby suppressed the material evidence from the Court.Evidence of Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3) are not reliable because condition of patient was of such a nature that she was not in a position to talk properly.Amar Badwaik (PW-3) has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that deceased was moaning.Evidence of Dr.Manjusha Chintalwar (PW-4) clearly shows that when deceased was admitted in the hospital, her physical and mental condition was poor.Endorsement of Medical Officer Zalke ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 ::: 17 apeal591.05.odt on the requisition letter (Exh.48) clearly shows that he was busy in the Casualty room.Therefore, he did not accept the request to examine the patient.Evidence of Naib-Tahsildar Shrihari Thamke (PW-5) and Dr.Mahadeo Zalke (PW-10) are also not credit-worthy because the Certificate (Exh.79) issued by Dr.Mahadeo Zalke (PW-::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::10) after recording of dying declaration only shows that dying declaration is taken in his presence.This Certificate does not show that the patient was well-oriented and mentally fit at the time of recording of dying declaration (Exh.50).Exh.78 also does not specifically state that deceased Vanita was physically and mentally fit to give statement.Evidence of Dr.Manjusha Chintalwar (PW-4), admission of Amar Badwaik (PW-3), admission of Investigating Officer Mohan Bakade and evidence of Dr.Mahadeo Zalke (PW-10) create doubt about statement made by the deceased vide Exh.50 or oral statement/dying declaration stated to Pundlik Badwaik (PW-1) and Amar Badwaik (PW-3).Therefore, conviction cannot be awarded on such dying declaration which is not reliable.Hence, we pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::The impugned Judgment of conviction is hereby quashed and set aside.Appellant is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Seized property be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.Record and proceedings be sent back to trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:51 :::
|
['Section 498A 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.
|
93,151,268 |
To be specific, it has been shown that in March, 2008, the deceased had advanced a loan of Rs.80 lakhs to A-2 and that the said loan was accompanied by an arrangement concerning property No.B-6/57-58, Sector-11, Rohini, the sale deed in which respect was executed in the name of Priya Gupta (PW-16) to secure the interest of the deceased.Similarly, in July/August, 2008, upon A-2 introducing the proclaimed offender to the deceased, the latter had advanced loans to the former in two instalments both in sum of Rs.25 lakhs, on terms inclusive of payment of interest.The loans thus advanced were repaid by way of some instalments for some period.Eventually, the proclaimed offender is stated to have offered security by handing over to the deceased four cheques of the total value of Rs.35.5 lakhs.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 16 of 16CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 1 of 16On 20.12.2008, some time before 9.10 PM, Dhanpat Rai resident of BA-97, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-52 received gunshot injuries at a place opposite Income Tax Colony near Sabzi Mandi on outer ring road near the police station Maurya Enclave (hereinafter referred to as "the police station") and when taken to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini by the PCR staff, he was declared brought dead as per medico legal record (MLC) (Ex.PW-19/A) at 9.30 PM.On the basis of available information, Inspector Ram Sunder (PW-38) got the FIR no. 47/2008 (Ex. PW-26/A) registered.The investigation resulted in the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) being submitted in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.03.2009 whereby trial of two persons was sought in the Sessions Court for offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The said two persons put to trial in Session Case No.103/2011 included the appellant Hari Prakash @ Kala son of Maher Singh, shown as accused no. 1 (A-1) and Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma, shown as accused no. 2 (A-2).The said reports, read together, would indicate that, besides A-1 and A-2, the investigating police had also arrested a juvenile, who we shall hereinafter refer to as "T", on the allegations that he had assisted, aided and abetted Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) in committing the crime, at the instance of Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2).The investigation had also statedly revealed involvement of one CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 2 of 16 Satish Dabas in the crime.Satish Dabas, however, could not be arrested.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 2 of 16In addition, A-1 was also put to trial on the charge for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.The trial concluded with judgment dated 16.09.2014 holding that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt of A-1 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.The concluding portion of the judgment would not state clearly as to what was the result of the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act. But, it is clear from the discussion in the judgment that the trial Court was not satisfied as to the evidence led about the use of the firearm, which had allegedly been recovered from Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1), in the commission of the murder of Dhanpat Rai.The prosecution was, however, held to have failed in bringing its case against Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) and thus he was acquitted.By order dated 26.09.2014, A-1 was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year with benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.By his criminal appeal (no. 1581/2014), Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) has challenged the judgment and order on sentence awarded against him.It may be added here that another CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 3 of 16 criminal appeal (no. 671/15) had been preferred by Praveen Gupta son of the deceased, who has appeared as witness for prosecution (PW-1) in the trial, also seeking similar relief against Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2).The said criminal appeal, however, was disposed of by order dated 29.05.2015, as not pressed with liberty given to the said appellant to make his submissions at the time of hearing on the criminal appeal filed by the State.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 3 of 16The fact that Dhanpat Rai had died as a result of gunshot wounds received on 20.12.2008 at the aforementioned place has been proved through evidence which is beyond reproach.In fact, the appellant Hari Prakash @ Kala, as also respondent Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma, made it clear at the hearing that they do not contest the prosecution case to such effect.For completion of narration, however, it may be noted that the factum of the death of Dhanpat Rai in the aforementioned manner is brought out clearly through the documents including PCR form (Ex.PW-28/A), rukka (Ex.PW-38/A), the MLC (Ex. PW-19/A) and the inquest papers including death report (Ex.PW-38/C), application for autopsy (Ex.PW-38/B) and the post-mortem examination report (Ex.P- Adv.2 & 3), the last mentioned documents admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C.The post-mortem examination report reveals that the deceased Dhanpat Rai had received the following injuries:Punctured laceration 1.2 x 1 cm with abraded collar all around in total area 1.75 x 1.4 cm in vertical manner over chest just 1 cm left to midline & about 14 cm below supra-sternal notch & 122 cm above heel.No tattooing, blackening seen.Margins are inverted.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 4 of 16Punctured laceration 1 x 0.8 cm with contused - abraded collar around in total area 2 x 1.25 cm more on right side of wound, placed over right side chest about 4 cm right to midline & 9.5 cm below right nipple & 118 cm above right heel.Margins inverted.No tattooing, blackening seen.Irregular punctured laceration of size 1.4x0.8 cm over lateral aspect of right chest at mid axillary line about 13 cm below axilla.Upper part of wound in area 0.8 x 0.8 cm shows everted & split type margin while lower 0.6x0.5 cm area shows somewhat inverted margins with abraded collar 1 cm x 1 cm over both sides in toto including wound.No tattooing, blackening seen.Two lacerated perforated wounds about 1 cm apart each other over postero-medial aspect of right wrist, communicated to each other sub-cutaneously of sizes 1.25x1 cm & 1x 1cm.Later one has inverted margins & termed with averted margins.Abraded collar seen around later one.Underlying muscles and tendons crushed (exit and entry wounds of firearm respectively)"In the opinion of the autopsy doctor, all the above mentioned injuries were ante mortem in nature, had been caused by a firearm which are rifled, the range of firearm being beyond blast effect, the cause of death being shock and haemorrhage consequent upon injuries to heart, liver, lung and intestines.In the opinion of the autopsy doctor, the first three injuries were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature, individually and collectively.It is necessary to note in this very context, that during the post-mortem examination, the autopsy doctor had recovered two bullets lodged inside the body.These bullets would be relevant for appreciating the effect of ballistics report referred by us later.Given the nature of injuries suffered and almost instant death CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 5 of 16 that seems to have resulted therefrom, there can be no dispute about the fact that the death of Dhanpat Rai was a culpable homicide inasmuch as it can be safely inferred from the facts and circumstances that the assailant(s) intended to bring about his death.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 5 of 16The evidence on record reveals that when the Investigating Officer (PW-38) with the accompanying officials including Constable Ravinder Kumar (PW-2) had reached the spot, he learnt that the deceased/victim had already been taken to the hospital by the PCR officials.He found, at the spot, car bearing registration number DL- 8CH-7263, make Maruti Swift, in a stationary condition.It had telltale signs of it being the vehicle in use of the deceased at the time of fatal attack with firearm on his person, inasmuch as the right side window pane of the driver seat and the door at the said position had gunshots impact.The glass of the window panes of the vehicle was broken and glass pieces were found scattered around.At the scene of crime, the Investigating Officer found three spent cartridges, which were seized (vide memo Ex. PW-2/A).In addition, another spent lead was found beneath the vehicle and was also taken in possession (vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/B).It may be mentioned that these four spent cartridges were later sent to forensic science laboratory (FSL), the report whereof was submitted with the supplementary charge-sheet to which we shall refer in due course.The trial Court record shows that, on 21.12.2008, Praveen Gupta (PW-1) appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded.It is the said statement which brought out his suspicion about the involvement of Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) and Satish CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 6 of 16 Dabas, the proclaimed offender (PO) in the murder of Dhanpat Rai.The investigation initially does not seem to have made any progress.On 26.12.2008, Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) is stated to have been arrested by Inspector Sharat Chandra (PW-40), then posted in Inter- State crime branch office, Chanakyapuri.It is the case for the prosecution that PW-40 had a secret information that the person who had committed the murder of Dhanpat Rai on 20.12.2008 was expected to come on his black Pulsar motorcycle at about 5 PM with a firearm from Narela via G.T. Karnal Road on his way to Singhu Border.At the time of his arrest, A-1 was alleged to have been found having in his possession a pistol (Ex.P-18) with three live cartridges.The statements given by these CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 7 of 16 witnesses primarily brought out that A-2 and Satish Dabas (PO) had been engaged in a series of transactions with the deceased wherein the latter had passed on, by way of loans, certain amounts to the other two and had also been a partner in purchase of certain property.Further, the deceased had joined A-2 in purchasing property No.G-17/43, Sector-15, Rohini for total consideration of Rs.90 lakhs in which the former was to have the share of 75%, the remaining 25% being of A-2, though the finance for such purposes in favour of the latter, to the tune of Rs.22.50 lakhs, was also provided, again in the nature of loan, by the deceased.Additionally, in October, 2008, at the instance of the proclaimed offender, the deceased had executed certain documents respecting his property B-1/30, Yamuna Vihar, which was under unauthorised occupation, in favour of the former, upon his assurances that he would arrange to sell it off and eventually pay Rs.4 crores to the deceased.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 7 of 16CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 8 of 16The above-mentioned monetary transactions are sought to be proved through oral testimony by Priya Gupta (PW-16) and Krishna Kumar Dixit (PW-8).Some of the property transactions connected to the said loans taken from the deceased by A-2 or the proclaimed offender are sought to be substantiated through the evidence of Surender Taneja (PW-7), Manish Sardana (PW-12), Lalit Khanna (PW-14), Savitri (PW-41), Jayanti Sharma (PW-42), and Arun Batra (PW-43).Akash (PW-17), the other son of the deceased, has also lent his voice in corroboration.Though the averments that the deceased had advanced the loan of Rs.80 lakhs to A-2, or the claim that loan of Rs.50 lakh in two instalments was given to the proclaimed offender, are not supported by any documentary evidence, given the nature of the sale deeds of the immoveable properties, contemporaneously executed and the four cheques statedly handed over by the proclaimed offender to the deceased, as proved by the banker Sandeep Yadav (PW-15), as indeed the admissions made by A-2 in the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. respecting the loan liabilities, we proceed on the assumption that the loans were actually advanced in the manner stated by Praveen Gupta (PW-1) and further that there had been defaults in immediate, or timely, repayment thereof.The prosecution case has been that Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (2), and the proclaimed offender, had turned dishonest and were not interested in repayment of the loans of the huge amounts which had become outstanding, interest also having accrued thereupon and, in order not to be compelled to pay (as being pressed by the deceased), CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 9 of 16 they had conspired with each other to get him liquidated and, towards that end, had engaged the services of Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1), described as a contract killer, who had served some time in jail on similar charges.It is alleged that pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, A-2 had financed a motorcycle to be purchased by A-1 and had also given to him money to carry out the murder.A part of the money thus paid being passed on to the juvenile "T", for assistance as the motorcycle rider.It is alleged that in the course of hatching the criminal conspiracy, and its execution, all the said four persons had been in constant touch with each other, over their respective mobile phones and further that it was A-1, who had travelled on the motorcycle driven by the juvenile "T", on the night in question to the place of occurrence, a short distance away from the office in Sector-11, Rohini of PW-1 (also shared by the deceased).It is alleged that A-1 having intercepted the deceased, had used the firearm (Ex.P-18), firing several times at him causing the fatal injuries.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 9 of 16It is clear from the evidence on record that Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) himself did not have any motive of his own to kill Dhanpat Rai.The prosecution case was that he was a contract killer.No evidence concededly has been adduced to prove this assertion.Though reference has come in some documents, particularly in the disclosure attributed to the said accused, about his involvement in a case of murder prior to the case at hand.But then, the prosecution did not muster any evidence to support its case.No evidence has been led to show that A-1 had a history of involvement in cases of murder or that he would carry out executions for money.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 10 of 16There is no direct evidence available showing involvement of any of the aforementioned four persons in any specific act concerning the commission of murder of Dhanpat Rai.The circumstances on which the prosecution built its case against Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) primarily included the recovery of the firearm on which it hoped to connect him to the firing at Dhanpat Rai which had proved fatal.But then, the FSL report (Ex.P-X), based on the examination of the said weapon alongside the empty cartridges found at the scene of crime and the two bullets recovered from the dead body during the autopsy, has given negative result.To be specific, the three cartridge cases EC-1 to EC-3, all of 7.5 mm bore, recovered from the scene of crime could not be connected to the pistol allegedly recovered from A-1, the finding being they were not "identical" and, thus, could not be found as having been fired from the pistol in question (marked Ex.F-1 by FSL).The two bullets recovered from the dead body (marked EB-1 and EB-2 by FSL), one recovered from the spot and the other recovered from the dead body did not evince sufficient marks for an effective comparison or opinion.Thus, the ballistics expert concluded that the same had not been discharged from the said pistol.Even if we were to assume, for the sake of consideration of the prosecution case at hand, that the said weapon was actually carried by A-1 in his possession on 26.12.2008, the said fact, in the face of the negative report given by FSL respecting its use, cannot take the prosecution story any further.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 11 of 16On the other hand, Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1), at the time of his arrest in the case under Arms Act, was found carrying with him mobile phone instrument with SIM card of no.9213650050, as confirmed by the personal search memo (Ex.PW-32/C).The second said number, however, is shown, by the evidence of PW-21, to be registered in the name of one Shivani Narula.The allegations based, inter alia, on the call detail records (CDRs) have been that on 05.12.2008 Satish Dabas (PO) had been in contact with A-2 nine times while the CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 12 of 16 deceased himself had called A-2, twelve times in the evening.That is the date when, per the evidence of prosecution (PW-1), Satish Dabas (PO) had tried to pull a fast one with the deceased by purporting to hand over to him money in the sum of Rs.20 lakhs kept in a bag which was later found to be containing only a pillow.It was also the case for the prosecution that the CDRs show that on 10.12.2008, the deceased Satish Dabas (PO), Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) and Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) were moving around in the area of Sector-11, Rohini where the office of Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) is located.It is the case of the prosecution that it was on the said day (10.12.2008), Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) and Satish Dabas (PO) had arranged for A-1 to be shown the face of the deceased, so that he could be targeted.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 12 of 16Apparently, in the face of the provision contained in Section 25 of Evidence Act, we cannot take into account the disclosures attributed to the accused persons particularly when same are not shown to have led to discovery of any fact in their wake.The CDRs of the aforementioned mobile phones, except of Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1), have been proved by the prosecution through the statements of Tarun Khurana (PW-20), Sanjeev Lakra (PW-21) and M N Vijayan (PW-34).Though, according to the public prosecutor for the State the CDRs and the relevant documents pertaining to the mobile phone of A-1 had also been submitted with the charge-sheet, the relevant witness was not CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 13 of 16 called upon to prove the same strictly, presumably on account of they having been overlooked.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 13 of 16To proceed further, we assume the CDRs inclusive those of the phone of Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1), confirm the allegations made about the contact between the aforementioned persons on the dates and time in question.We also presume that the calls made, particularly on 10.12.2008, would show the presence of the aforementioned persons in the area where the office of PW-1 is located.But then, this circumstance, by itself, cannot give to the prosecution any strength inasmuch as the evidence also clearly shows that, except for Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1), all the other above mentioned individuals including the deceased, Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) and Satish Dabas (PO) and for that matter Praveen Gupta (PW-1), were well known to each other and had been in constant touch or even in social interaction with each other.We cannot ignore that the evidence clearly shows that even mobile phone of Praveen Gupta (PW-1) was in regular touch with Satish Dabas (PO), this brought out during the testimony of not only Praveen Gupta (PW-1) but also of the Investigating Officer Inspector Ram Sunder (PW-38).Therefore, unless something further were to be shown, such telephonic contacts by themselves cannot necessarily mean that a criminal conspiracy was being hatched qua Dhanpat Rai by the others.The learned trial court has held that the prosecution had proved that Satish Dabas (PO) had a motive to liquidate Dhanpat Rai.We need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the said observation CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 14 of 16 since Satish Dabas (PO) is yet to stand trial.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 14 of 16The learned standing counsel for the State has fairly conceded that even the case against the juvenile "T" has failed at inquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board.The presence of Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) around the office of Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) on 10.12.2008 or near the place of murder on 20.12.2008 could be for any reason, not necessarily pursuant to a criminal conspiracy.The recovery of Rs.15,000/- from A-1, and the purchase of the motorcycle, are circumstances which are too innocuous to be treated as incriminating, also for the reason that it cannot clinch the issue since there is nothing to show that money had gone to A-1 from the hands of the alleged conspirators to whom motive is attributed.The State sought the conviction of Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) also on the above noted evidence and his alleged conduct of having closely followed the progress of investigation into the murder of Dhanpat Rai.We assume that A-2 had been taking interest in the process of the investigation.But, it cannot be ignored that he was closely acquainted with the deceased and, thus, his interest may not necessarily be that of a guilty mind.For the foregoing reasons, in our judgment, the prosecution has CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 15 of 16 not proved its case against either Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1) or Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2).In the result, we are unable to uphold the conviction of A-1 as recorded by the impugned judgment.CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 15 of 16Thus, we allow the appeal of Hari Prakash @ Kala (A-1).We set aside the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the trial court against him.For the same reasons, the State appeal against acquittal of Pawan Bajaj @ Pamma (A-2) is dismissed.(R.K.GAUBA) JUDGE (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE OCTOBER 07, 2015 vld CRL.A. Nos. 1581/2014 & 673/2015 Page 16 of 16
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,629,815 |
At about 9.00 clock on 19th July, 1997, he is alleged to have gone to Shri Prabhash Sharma at his residence in the Karan Memorial Public School, Zakhira (near Ram Kanta) to take his wages for two months.When Mohd Rustam reached the spot, Shri Prabhash Sharma, his brother Manoj and a truck driver Jaibir were present there.Mohd Rustam asked his employer (maalik) Prabhash Sharma for the wages for two months at which Prabhash Sharma asked him to sit and that he would be given the money.He was compelled to drink liquor despite refusal and thereafter all three (Prabhash Sharma, Manoj & Jaibir) started beating him.Then Manoj is alleged to have picked up a two litre plastic can containing acid and, while Prabhash Sharma as well as Jaibir are alleged to have held Mohd Rustam, Manoj poured the acid over him.As a result Mohd Rustam started having burning sensation on his body, so much so that he became unconscious and fell down.He regained consciousness in the morning and found that he was lying naked near his jhuggi in an injured condition.A.No.5/2002 2 His brother Mohd Humayun thereafter took him to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.The prosecution examined Mohd Humayun as PW 1 (brother of the injured Mohd. Rustam) who stated that he was residing at WZ 194, Madipur, Delhi in the premises of his employer which he had taken on rent.He has stated that on 20th July, 1997 while he was in his export factory in village Madipur, Delhi, he had received a telephonic message that his brother Mohd Rustam was lying in an injured condition at Amar Park, Zakhira and someone had caused hurt to him by pouring acid on his person.He had gone to the spot where he saw his brother lying unconscious in an injured condition.A crowd of 10-15 people were gathered around him.Mohd Humayun removed his brother to the RML Hospital in a three wheeler vehicle and got him admitted there.After about half an hour Crl.A.No.5/2002 3 of the injured having been admitted to the hospital, the police of the police station Moti Nagar reached there.Crl.A.No.5/2002 3At the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital the injured was examined by Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh-PW 6 at 9.15 a.m. and his Medical Legal Case (`MLC for short) prepared, which has been proved on record as Exh.PW 6/A.The police intervention commenced upon telephonic information at 9.30 a.m. given by the Duty Constable Rajinder Singh at the RML Hospital to Ct.Nirmala at the police station Moti Nagar upon which DD No.4A [Exhibit PW 8/A has been recorded by her.DD No. 4A records that information was received that Mohd Humayun had got his brother Mohd Rustam admitted in the hospital with injuries from pouring of acid on him; and that Ct.Rajinder Singh had requested that the police officer be sent to the hospital.DD 4A records that the information was recorded on the roznamacha and copy was handed over to Head Constable Ramphal Singh (PW 8) at about 9.30 a.m. by the duty officer.He thereafter proceeded to RML Hospital accompanied by Ct.PW 5 has stated that he left the hospital for the police station with the Tehrir at about 11.30 a.m. and reached the police station at about 12.10 a.m. Crl.A.No.5/2002 4Crl.A.No.5/2002 4At the police station, it appears that based on Exh.PW 8/B, DD No.7A was recorded by police station Moti Nagar at 12.10 p.m. on 28th July, 1997 and FIR No.387/1997 was registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The witness states that he remained in the police station for about 15 minutes; that thereafter at about 12.30 p.m., he joined PW 8 at the alleged place of occurrence at Karan Memorial Public School and handed over the rukka and the copy of the FIR No.387/97 to HC Ramphal who was already at the spot.Vinod Kumar went to the police station, PW 8-HC Ram Phal Singh states that he recorded the statement of Mohd Humayun at the RML Hospital, joined him (Mohd Humayun) in his investigation and went with him to the Karan Memorial School.PW 8 has stated that he prepared the site plan (Exh.PW 8/E) of the spot at the instance of Mohd Humayun.PW 5 Ct.Vinod Kumar, however, does not mention that Mohd Humayun was present at the Karan Memorial School.PW5 has corroborated HC Ramphal so far as the location and the existence of the various schools and firms at and near the site in question is concerned.PW 5 and 8 have stated that thereafter a secret informer met them on 20th July, 1997 on the main road in front of the Crl.A.No.5/2002 5 Karan Memorial School and informed them that one of the three persons who had thrown acid on Mohd Rustam was taking tea at the tea shop near the Ram Dharam Kanta.PW 5 has further stated that Prabhash Sharma was apprehended on being pointed out by the informer.Prabhash Sharma gave a disclosure statement (Exhibit PW 5/B) and on his pointing out, a memo (Exhibit 5/C) was prepared.The tea shop was proximate to the place of occurrence.These persons were interrogated and disclosure statements (Exhibit PW 5/K and G) were recorded; they were arrested and personal searches effected.Crl.A.No.5/2002 6PW 8-HC Ramphal Singh has deposed that after his arrest on 24th July, 1997, Manoj Kumar had made a disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-5/J) pointed out to the roof of Janta Dharam Kanta and got recovered a plastic can of 2 ltr capacity which had a handle with a print of Sundrop/Sunflower and a picture of a child.He states that the same was giving smell of acid, that the can was sealed with the seal of RPS and taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit PW 5/K.His death was reported vide DD 9A at 10.15 a.m. to the police station.The case was then converted into a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The investigation was thereafter handed over to PW-10 Insp.The post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by PW 7-Dr.K.L. Sharma, the then head of the Crl.A.No.5/2002 7 Department of Forensic Medicine, Civil Hospital, Delhi who has proved his report as Exhibit PW-7/A which has recorded the burns which were noticed on the dead body by him and a bruise of cm on the outer part of the left ankle.This Court excluded the same from consideration for failure of the investigating officer to get the dying declaration attested by the doctor who was alleged to be present in the hospital or any one else present".Crl.A.No.5/2002 16(Emphasis supplied) Crl.So far as the history of the injuries is concerned, the doctor has noted "alleged h/o acid burn yesterday at about 4.00 p.m. when his employer poured acid on him.H/o being beaten on the lt foot with a cane".The MLC records that Mohd Rustam had burns involving the trunk, back and patchy areas of the left arm and fore arm as well as small area of the right fore arm and medial side of both thighs.The doctor has also noted a swelling on the left feet associated with tenderness.The patient was advised an injection TT IV and x-ray of left foot.The certificate appearing on the left side of the MLC has not been scribed by her nor is it signed by her.The prosecution has failed to give even the particulars of the author of the endorsement on the left side of MLC Exhibit PW6/A and has not produced any such person before the court.PW-8 HC Ramphal Singh stated that in the hospital, he obtained the MLC of Mohd Rustam; that the concerned doctor declared him fit for making statement; that he went to the bed of the injured in the hospital; and at the dictation of Mohd Rustam, he recorded his statement (Exh.PW 8/B).He has Crl.PW 8 has stated that they had reached the hospital at about 10.00/10.30 am.The most important links in the chain of events are completely missing.PW 1-Mohd Humayun had stated that jhuggies in Amar Park were occupied by labourers who drink at night.He categorically stated that his brother used to heavily drink everyday.PW 8/B attributed to the deceased, the only evidence on record is that of Exh.PW 1 Mohd Humayun who had stated that Mohd Rustam was found by him in an injured lying in naked condition by the roadside of Amar Park, Zakhira which was near the fly over of New Rohtak Road near the gate of BD Credit Private Limited Motors & General Finance, Zakhira.He has further stated that Mohd Rustam was residing in a jhuggi near the place where he was discovered and that there were 250 jhuggies at that place.The location of the jhuggi was at a distance of ten steps from the road; that the BD Credit Private Limited Motors & General Finance was at a distance of 500 to 600 yards from Karan Memorial Public Crl.PW 8 has further stated that he had inspected the place in front of the jhuggi referred to by Mohd Rustam but did not inspect the jhuggi number WZ 85, D-273, Amar Park, Zakhira where the injured Mohd Rustam used to reside.He also stated that there was a shop near the spot where Mohd Rustam had found himself which spot was one and a half kilometre from Karan Memorial Public School.PW 8 stated that in the morning of the 20th of July, 1997 the injured (deceased Mohd Rustam) had found himself lying injured in front of his jhuggi near the tea shop.Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the state CORAM:HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. SHALI GITA MITTAL, JThe appellants have assailed the judgment dated 5 th December, 2001 finding them guilty of commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the order of sentence dated 6 th December, 2001 whereby they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life as well as fine.Crl.A.No.5/2002 1Vinod Kumar (PW5).While PW 5-Ct.The other accused persons could not be located.Shri Prabhash Sharma was enlarged on bail in the police station.Crl.A.No.5/2002 5Another piece of evidence brought on record is a second statement attributed to the deceased (Exhibit PW 8/G as having been made to HC Ramphal Singh at about 3 p.m. on 20th July 1997 itself.We find that in the trial court record, a photocopy of the page of the case diary wherein HC Ramhal Singh has written this second statement attributed to Mohd Rustam has been exhibited as Exhibit PW 8/G.PW 8 HC Ramphal Singh states that he undertook further investigation in the case only on 24th July, 1997 for which purpose he left the police station at about 4 p.m. accompanied by PW 5 Ct.Vinod Kumar when efforts to apprehend the other accused were made.On 24th of July, 1997, these police officers found the accused Prabhash Sharma at a tea shop alongwith two other persons whose identity was disclosed as Manoj Crl.A.No.5/2002 6 Kumar and Jaibir.Crl.A.No.5/2002 7The burns were ante- mortem in nature and were caused by corrosive chemical.The post-mortem findings were consistent of pouring the sulphuric acid over the deceased in supine position by other party as was evident by corroded distribution of burn injuries over his body, injury over ankle joint was caused by hard blunt object."The forensic examination was undertaken in September, 1997 on which a report Exhibit PW10/F was obtained from the laboratory.On this material, by an order dated 20th April, 1998, Prabhash Sharma, Manoj Kumar and Jaibir were charged "that on 19th July, 1997 at 9 p.m. in Karan Memorial Public School, Jakhira, near Ram Kanta within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar you all, in furtherance of your common intention to cause death, poured acid on the person of Mohd Rustam as a consequence of which he died on 28th July, 1997 and thereby committed offence of murder punishable U/s 302/34 IPC and within cognizance of this court".Crl.A.No.5/2002 8Crl.A.No.5/2002 8The prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of its case.On the evidence led during the trial, the trial judge passed the impugned judgment dated 5th December, 2001 holding that the prosecution had successfully proved charged against Prabhash Sharma and Manoj Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted them for the same.It was further held that the prosecution had failed to establish involvement of accused Jaibir beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt and that he was entitled to benefit of doubt.Accused Jaibir was accordingly acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC and directed to be released, if in custody.Prabhash Sharma and Manoj Kumar were heard on the point of sentence and by the order dated 6 th December, 2001, they were sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each.It was directed that in default of payment of fine, they would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.The judgment dated 5th December, 2001 and the order on sentence dated 6 th December, 2001 have been assailed by way of the present appeal.Crl.A.No.5/2002 9Crl.A.No.5/2002 9We have heard Mr. Padam Singh and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsels for the appellants as well as Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the state at length.The above narration would show that the case rested on circumstantial evidence.Apart from the multiple dying declarations attributed to the deceased, the prosecution has attempted to establish guilt of the appellants by alleging recovery of can based on disclosure statement.The statements and the recovery required to be considered in seriatum.However learned counsels for the appellants have vehemently challenged not only the statements attributed to the deceased but also the place of recovery of the deceased; making of a disclosure statement; recovery of the can.The appellants have also challenged that they were ever arrested in the manner or in the place on the date when alleged by the prosecution.Prolonged submissions have been made to point out several missing links in the chain of circumstances which the Crl.A.No.5/2002 10 prosecution was required to establish in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants.Crl.A.No.5/2002 10The question thus which has to be answered in the present case thus is whether the statements attributed to the deceased were made by the deceased in a fit state of mind and can be held to be true and voluntary, admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and can be relied upon to base a conviction of the appellants?Crl.A.No.5/2002 13Crl.A.No.5/2002 17In the background of the legal principles would be appropriate to consider each of the aforesaid statements attributed to the deceased Mohd. Rustam in seriatum.MLC-Exhibit PW 6/AWe may begin by examining the MLC made by Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh who deposed before the court as PW6, being the first statement attributed to the deceased Mohd Rustam in the order of chronology.Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh-PW 6 who has recorded the Medical Legal Case, has noted that Mohd Rustam was "conscious, oriented and ambulant".His pulse was 90 per minute.Crl.A.No.5/2002 18Crl.A.No.5/2002 18On the MLC (Exhibit PW6/A), Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh noted the address of Mohd Rustam as W-85 D 273, Amar Park, Zakhira, New Delhi and mentioned that his brother Mohd Humayun had the same address.The MLC notes the presence of Duty Constable Rajinder Singh in the hospital at the time of recording of MLC.In this case, the doctor had neither made any endorsement nor had issued any certificate that the deceased was fit to make a statement.In the present case, Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh has not made any endorsement nor endorsed any certificate on the MLC that the deceased was fit to make a statement.Crl.A.No.5/2002 20Crl.A.No.5/2002 20In (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 114 Sunder Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal, the court found that the dying declaration of the deceased was credible, properly recorded, corroborated her oral evidence and correctly depicted events.The appellant was named in the FIR which was lodged immediately after the occurrence and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution version.In this case, PW-1 had survived the same incident and had named the appellant as one of the assailants.In the facts of the case, the court was of the view that despite failure to obtain the certification by the doctor, the declaration by the deceased passed all tests of voluntariness, fit condition of mind of the maker; truthfulness of declaration and that the same was uninfluenced by any other factors.We may now examine the information endorsed by Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh on the MLC.PW 6 Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh has recorded the Medical Legal Case (Exh.However, the MLC Exh. PW 6/A records that Mohd Humayuns address was the same as that of the deceased Mohd Rustam.In 2004 (3) RCR (Cri) 569 State of Karnataka vs. Sri Balu Ram Kalligaddi, it was opined that even if the doctor certifies that victim was in a fit state of mind, total faith cannot be put on the certificate of the doctor.The court can make inquiry from supporting medical record to find out the mental state of mind.Crl.A.No.5/2002 23It is perhaps conscious of these aspects of the matter that even the prosecution before the learned trial judge did not contend that the MLC Exhibit PW6/A contained a statement made by the deceased which could have been treated as a dying declaration.As noted by the learned trial judge in para 22 of his judgment, there was no reliance by the prosecution at all upon the MLC (Exhibit PW6/A) as containing a dying declaration.We are unable to hold that Exh. PW 6/A is a statement admissible in evidence as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.Exhibit PW 8/BWe may now examine the statement attributed to Mohd Rustam as recorded by PW 8-HC.Ramphal Singh in the forenoon of 20th of July, 1997 exhibited on record as Exhibit PW8/B. In as much as extensive reliance is placed on Exhibit PW 8/B, the same deserves to be considered in extenso and reads as follows :-"Main pata uprokt par rehta hoon tatha Truck No. RG 14 3518 par conductary karta hoon.Yeh truck Prabhash Roadlines, Zakhira, R-Park ke maleek Praabhash Sharma ka hai.Main kal dinaank 19.07.1997 ko samay kareeb 9 baje raat apni do mahine ki tankhwa lene apne truck maalik Prabhash Sharma ke paas Karan Memorial Public School, Zakhira (najd Ram Kaanta) gaya tha jahaan mera maalik Prabhash Sharma rehta hai.Jab main wahaan par pahuncha, toh mere maalik Prabhash Crl.A.No.5/2002 24 Sharma va uska bhai Manoj va ek truck driver Jaiveer wahan maujood the.Maine apne maalik Prabhash Sharma se apni do mahine ki tankhwa ke painse maange toh usne mere se kaha ki baithh abhi deta hoon.Iske baad mere ko mana karte karte sharaab pilayi va iske baad inn teeno (Prabhash Sharma, Manoj, Jaiveer) ne mere ko maarna peetna shuru kar diya va wahin par rakhi plastic ki can jisme koi taral padarth tha ko Manoj ne uthaya va Prabhat Sharma va Jaiveer ne mere ko pakad liya va Manoj ne uss can mein bhara taral padarth mere upar udhel diya jisse mere shareer me bahut tej jalan hone lagi va main behosh ho karr gir gaya.Iske baad mujhe jab mujhe subah hosh aaya toh main apni jhuggi ke paas ghayal avastha me pada tha.Iske baad mera bhai Mohd Humayun mere ko lekar RML Hospital laya.In the instant case, the learned trial judge in para 22 of the judgment dated 5th December, 2001 has noticed that there is no direct evidence at all led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons and that the dying declaration Exhibit PW8/B is the only evidence being relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person.Based on this submission, the learned trial judge framed the question which was required to be answered as "whether such statement was made by the deceased Md Rustam to HC Crl.A.No.5/2002 25 Ramphal Singh and if the answer to that question is an affirmative, then what is the effect of that dying declaration?"Crl.A.No.5/2002 25Crl.A.No.5/2002 26PW 8s explanation for not getting the statement of Mohd Rustam attested by any person is that generally the police only write the statements.PW 8 states that signatures of Mohd Rustam were obtained on the statement; and that he did not ask the educational qualifications of the injured from him.PW- 8 denies that he was illiterate.Crl.A.No.5/2002 32Crl.A.No.5/2002 32After recording the statement, PW 8 - HC Ramphal states that he attested the same; made his endorsement (Exh.PW 8/C) thereon and sent the rukka to the police station Moti Nagar for registration of the case.PW 5-Ct.Vinod Kumar who had accompanied PW-8 HC Ram Phal to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, corroborates him so far as leaving the police station for hospital on the basis of DD 4A at 9.30 am on 20th July, 1997 is concerned.PW 5, however, states that after collecting the MLC, they had gone to the burns ward.PW 5 states that one doctor and one compounder was present in the room where Mohd Rustam was kept and that he also does not know their names.In contradiction to PW 8, Constable Vinod Kumar asserts that glucose was being administered to the patient and that he did not talk to the doctor or compounder.So far as recording of the statement is concerned, PW-5 Ct.Vinod Kumar deposed that in the ward, HC Ram Phal had stated that he wanted to record the statement of the patient in the burns ward; that the doctor said that he could record the statement and that the doctor was very much there when the statement of Mohd Rustam was recorded by Head Constable Ram Phal.Crl.A.No.5/2002 33Crl.A.No.5/2002 33PW 5 also denied the suggestion that no statement was made by Mohd Rustam or that it was recorded by constable Ram Phal on his own.He asserted that the statement was read over to Mohd Rustam and that he had put his signatures on the said statement.The witness, however, stated that he did not know whether Mohd Rustam was illiterate or not.PW 5 Ct.Vinod Kumar also stated that none of the family members entered the room while the statement was recorded.This witness corroborated PW 8 in that the Mohd Humayun was present in the verandah outside the room.There are other curious aspects to Exhibit PW8/B. If the deceased knew that acid had been poured on him, where was the occasion to refer to a liquid substance ("taral padarth") in Exhibit PW 8/B.The above statement uses words as "uprokt"; "maujood"; repeatedly uses "va" (which translates into and); "taral padarth"; "ghayal awastha"; "uprokt vyaktiyon"; "kanooni karyawahi", amongst others.The language in which Exhibit PW 8/B has been recorded also casts a doubt as to whether this statement is at the dictation of the deceased.So far as the fitness to make the statement is concerned, the learned trial Judge has relied upon the endorsement in the MLC Exhibit PW 6/A to conclude that there was nothing on Crl.The fact that the deceased survived for eight days has also influenced the learned trial Judge to hold that his condition was not so serious.Crl.A.No.5/2002 34Thus the deceased was in so much pain that he had been rendered unconscious for about ten hours.If such was the nature of the agony which the injured Mohd Rustam was suffering, the same could not have been mitigated by 9.30 a.m. when the doctor Crl.A.No.5/2002 35 examined him or between 9.30 am and 11.30 am when HC Ramphal and Ct.Vinod Kumar made inquiries and recorded the statement (Exh. PW 8/B) attributed to the deceased.Crl.A.No.5/2002 35The standard of fitness of the deceased to give statements which were admissible in evidence as dying declarations which the prosecution had to meet is certainly rendered high in the given facts.Yet another aspect of the matter needs consideration.The prosecution has carefully shrouded the treatment given to the injured Mohd Rustam in complete secrecy.His treatment chart has not been placed before this court.In the endorsement by PW 8-HC Ramphal Singh (Exhibit PW 8/C), he has written that upon reaching the RML Hospital, he had obtained MLC No.8/E/33/97 with regard to Mohd Rustam on which Dr. Sahib had stated "acid/chemical burns Crl.A.No.5/2002 36 with blunt injuries" and "fit for statement" whereupon a statement of Mohd Rustam was recorded.Crl.A.No.5/2002 36A perusal of the MLC (Exhibit PW6/A) shows that on the right side of the document, the nature of injuries etc has been recorded in the hand writing of PW 6 Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh whereas on the left side of this document, the words "fit for statement" Sd/- 20/7/1997" are endorsed.These words (the alleged fitness for statement) are admittedly not in the hand writing of Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh or signed by her.As noticed above, PW-8 HC Ramphal Singh has claimed to have made the inquiry in the emergency which has been replied by a "he" and therefore, the inquiry, if at all, was clearly made from a male doctor and not from Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh (who recorded the MLC).Crl.A.No.5/2002 37Crl.A.No.5/2002 37Neither the name nor the identity of any other doctor in the emergency ward has been revealed on record.No such doctor has been examined to establish either the fact that PW 8 actually made any enquiry or fitness of the injured to make any statement.PW 5-Ct.Vinod Kumar states that he does not know the name of the doctor in the emergency from whom the MLC was collected.He makes no reference to any enquiry by PW 8 from any doctor in the emergency about the fitness of Mohd Rustam to make a statement.The reading of the deposition of PW 5 shows that no inquiry with regard to the fitness of the patient to give a statement was made from any doctor by PW 8-HC Ramphal before recording the statement of the deceased.Both PW 5 & 8 have stated that one doctor and one nurse were working on the deceased Mohd Rustam in the Burns Ward when they reached there.Both are unable to give even their names.No such doctor or nurse has been produced in the witness box.PW 5 Ct.Vinod Kumar had stated that glucose was being administered to Mohd Rustam while PW 8-HC Ramphal Singh has categorically denied that anything was administered to him.Crl.A.No.5/2002 38Crl.A.No.5/2002 38The above narration would show that PW-5 completely contradicts PW-8 about certification of the fitness of the patient to make the statement.They contradict each other even about the place where the fitness was ascertained.Neither of them is able to give even the identity of the doctor from whom the fitness was determined.The document Exh.There is no evidence therefore of the fitness of the deceased to make a statement when PW-5 & 8 visited him in the hospital.Exhibit PW-8/B does not satisfy the prescribed tests noticed above and cannot be relied upon as a dying declaration worthy of credence to base a conviction thereon.Exhibit PW8/GThe second statement attributed to the deceased made to HC Ramphal Singh (Exhibit PW8/G) pressed by learned APP before us as another dying declaration reads as follows:-"Main apne sabka bayano ki tareek karta hu.Jab apne mera bayan liya main ghabraya hua tha.Mera bhai Mohd Humayun mujhe zakhmi halat me lekar aspataal aaya tha.Maine apne bhai ko wo jagah, Karan Memorial Public School, Chara Mandi, Zakhira, najd.Ram Kanta, jahan par mere upar can me rakha acid/chemical teeno ne milkar daala tha, wo jagah mene apne bhai ko aspataal aane se pehle dikha di thi.Us can ka rang peela tha aur ek bachche ki tasveer bani thi.In teeno aadmiyon, Prabhash Sharma, Manoj Kumar, Jaibir ne ek rai hokar mujhe jaan se marne ki niyat se mere upar Crl.The above, when translated, reads as follows:-"I acknowledge (tareek) my statement.When you had taken my statement, I was in a worried state.My brother Mohd Humayun brought me in an injured condition to hospital.I had shown my brother the place Karan Memorial Public School, Chara Mandi, Zakhira, Nazd Near Ram Kanta where all three had poured acid/chemical kept in a can over me.Before coming to the hospital, I had shown my brother that place.That can was of yellow colour and there was a picture of one child on it.PW-8/G was scribed.The learned trial judge has ruled in the above terms.The observations of the learned trial judge are based on the fact Crl.A.No.5/2002 46 that FIR No. 387/1997 was registered after Exhibit PW8/B was written down.The trial court was required to be satisfied that the statements satisfied the tests applicable to dying declaration which render it admissible in evidence on which it was safe to base the conviction of the accused.Crl.A.No.5/2002 56Even then, the police unreasonably made no effort at all to secure a magistrate for recording the statement of the deceased.The investigating officer thus had enough time had he tried even on 27th July, 1997 to ensure that the statement of the deceased was got recorded from the Magistrate.Rajinder Singh, the Duty Officer who would be amongst the first persons to whom the deceased would have related the occurrence and details of his assailants.A.No.5/2002 59 with regard to the fitness of the deceased person.There is reasonable doubt that the same records information disclosed by the deceased.Crl.A.No.5/2002 59We find that there is material contradiction with regard to the time of the occurrence; the identity of the assailants; the manner in which the deceased was attacked between the statements attributed to him.As noticed above, so far as the statements recorded by HC Ramphal Singh are concerned, neither Exhibit PW 8/B nor Exhibit PW 8/G reflect that the fitness of the deceased person was ascertained before these have been recorded.Exhibit PW 8/B was recorded apparently between 11.30 am and 12 noon i.e. more than fourteen hours after the occurrence, while Exhibit PW8/G was recorded at about 3.00 p.m. which is more than seventeen hours after the occurrence.There is no evidence at all before this court that despite such burn injuries and the resultant pain, which rendered the deceased unconscious between either 4.00 p.m. or 9/9.30 p.m. on 19th July, 1997 to 7 a.m. on 20th July, 1997, he was in a proper state of mind and capable of making any of the statement attributed to him.In the instant case, the brother of the deceased has stated that he was illiterate.The statement attributed to the deceased Exhibit PW8/B are allegedly claimed to have been signed by him while Exhibit PW8/G is neither signed nor bears an identified thumb impression.In the given facts, the prosecutions claim that the same was in the nature of a statement under Section 161 of the CrPC therefore does not inspire confidence.It is important to note that in Exhibit PW 8/B, the deceased has stated that he was forcibly compelled to imbibe liquor.PW 6 Dr. Vasanthi Ramesh does not refer to any observation that would indicate or suggest that Mohd Rustam had consumed alcohol.Learned counsel for the appellant has urged at great length that if Mohd Rustam had told Mohd Humayun or the doctor that his employers had poured acid on him, DD 4A would have been recorded very differently.Crl.A.No.5/2002 61It is noteworthy that Mohd Rustam had several opportunities to disclose the occurrence.It is the case of the prosecution that Mohd Humayun, the brother of the deceased had received telephonic information that his brother was lying at the spot in an injured state.Therefore, the deceased had opportunity to disclose the manner in which he was injured and the particulars of the assailants to the persons who had met him at the spot.Mohd Rustam had an opportunity to disclose the details of the occurrence to his brother Mohd Humayun.The deceased also had contact with the TSR driver who transported the brothers to the hospital and thereafter, at the RML Hospital, they would have met Duty Constable Ct. Daya Nand.The deceased then had opportunity to disclose the incident to the doctor who met them in the casualty and again to the hospital personnel including doctors, nurses and compounders in the emergency ward where he was treated for almost nine days.The deceased or his brother made no such disclosures.In case the deceased had disclosed how he secured the injuries to Mohd Humayun while in transit to the hospital or at any time, the same would have been disclosed to PW9 Ct.Rajinder Singh who would have reported the same to the police station.As per Exhibit PW8/B, Mohd Rustam had categorically stated that Prabhash Sharma had told him to sit down, whereafter alcohol was forced on him; he was beaten and acid was thrown over him whereafter because of the burning sensation he had turned unconscious and fallen down.Therefore, according to the deceased, when the acid was poured over him, he was not in a supine position.There is also no evidence that the appellants had suffered any burn injuries which, as per PW-10 Dr. K.L. Shrama, was inevitable because as per Exhibit PW8/B the acid was poured while the deceased was sitting, that is not in supine position.An examination of Exhibit PW 8/B as well as Exhibit PW8/G against the testimony of the forensic expert PW 7 Dr. K.L. Sharma as well as the post-mortem report and opinion Exhibit PW 7/A given by him thus shows that the deceased could not have received the injuries in the manner alleged to have been stated by him as recorded in Exhibit PW 8/B.Upon examination of Exhibit PW6/A juxtaposed against the other statements attributed to the deceased.There appears to be substance also in the contention on behalf of the appellants that the incident as alleged by the prosecution in the MLC (Exhibit PW6/A), Exhibit PW8/B or Exhibit PW8/G could Crl.PW 8 HC Ramphal Singh also stated that there was always a large number of persons/public including truck drivers on places around the Najafgarh road, Rama Road, Chambery all 24 hours and that a large number of public persons were present in those place during the morning.So far as the discovery of the injured is concerned, apart from the statement in Exh.A.No.5/2002 76 School (the sites of the offence).The police witness refers to thousands of jhuggies.Crl.A.No.5/2002 76Apart from a bald oral statement by PW 8-HC Rampal Singh, he has made no efforts to ascertain the alleged location of the occurrence.He has made no efforts to make inquiries from this spot.Crl.A.No.5/2002 77Crl.A.No.5/2002 77The deceased is stated to have discovered by his bother PW 1 Mohd Humayun in nude condition.There is no recovery of the clothes of the deceased from the spot.There is no explanation at all by the prosecution as to the fate of the clothes of the deceased which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence.It, therefore, remains a mystery as to what happened to the clothes worn by the injured person and how he was transported from the place of occurrence to the site of his recovery.HC Ram Phal PW 8 has stated that the Bharti Public School was also adjacent to the Karan Memorial Public School and that at the time of his visit in the forenoon of the 20 th of July, 1997, both the schools were closed.PW 8 does not appear to have found anything unusual in the same and has stated that he felt no need to make inquiry from any person as to how and why these schools had closed before 12.00 noon when he visited the spot.The witness further deposed that apart from these two schools, Janta Dharam Kanta, Ram Dharam Kanta, Zakhira Chara Mandi, Janta Transport Company were in the same vicinity.It is in the evidence of PW 5 & 8 that Janta Dharam Kanta and Ram Dharam Kanta are just opposite to the Bharti Public School, Janta Transport Company & Chaudhary Road Crl.A.No.5/2002 78 Lines and Karan Memorial Public School.Recovery of canPW 8 has stated that Manoj Kumar had made another disclosure statement on the 24th of July, 1997 and had got a plastic can of 2 litre capacity with a handle recovered from the roof of Janta Dharam Kanta The can was having a Sundrop/Sunflower print and a picture of child printed on it.According to PW 8, the recovered can, smelling of acid, was sealed and taken into possession.Learned counsel has urged that there was no recovery at all based on any disclosure statement made by the accused persons.Learned counsel for the appellants have strongly challenged the alleged recovery not only on the ground that the exhibit produced before the court did not relate to its Crl.A.No.5/2002 79 description either in the recovery memo or in the testimony of the witnesses but also on the ground that the same was not supported by any public witnesses.Crl.A.No.5/2002 79The owners of Janta Transport Company, Janta Dharam Kanta, Ram Dharam Kanta as well as their employees were present in their respective premises; that there were thousands of jhuggies behind Karan Memorial Public School; that the owners and servants in the Dharam Kanta & Janta Transport Company, did not disclose their names when he had tried to find out.PW 5-Ct.Vinod Kumar has stated that no pubic person from the Janta Dharam Kanta, nearby Dharam Kantas or passersby were asked to join the recovery proceedings.One of the circumstances to fault the recovery by the appellants is premised on the statement by PW 8 HC Ramphal Singh that he did not fill up the CFSL form.It has also been pointed out that there are unexplained contradictions in the Crl.A.No.5/2002 80 deposition of the witnesses with regard to the deposit of the alleged recoveries in the malkhana as well as the samples which were sent for forensic examination.Crl.A.No.5/2002 80In this regard, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the extract of the malkhana register Exhibit PW 3/A recording the deposit of the can in the malkhana wherein a reference to the case number as well as the statutory provisions under which it was registered is made.PW 8 HC Ramphal Singh categorically states that none else had climbed the roof.The witness has also categorically stated that the recovery was effected in the presence of PW 5 Ct.Vinod Kumar and that no member of the public had been joined in the recovery.Crl.A.No.5/2002 81It is essential to advert to the deposition of PW 5 Ct.Vinod Kumar on this recovery, as there is material contradiction between the deposition of PW8 HC Ramphal Singh and PW5 Ct.Vinod Kumar on important aspects of the recovery.PW-5 explains that the two police men had reached the Janta Dharam Kanta at about 5/5.30 p.m. PW 5 further categorically states that HC Ramphal also climbed to the roof of the Janta Dharam Kanta alongwith Manoj Kumar and recovered the plastic can from the roof.He states that the height of the roof was not too much; that he could see the roof standing below and that accused Manoj picked up the plastic can on the roof and handed it over to HC Ramphal.PW 5-Ct.Vinod Kumar categorically states that it was PW 8-HC Ramphal Singh who brought the can down from the roof.Interestingly, the testimonies of these two police officers, the only two witnesses to the recovery, cannot be reconciled at all or stand together.Crl.A.No.5/2002 82Crl.A.No.5/2002 82In his cross examination, PW 8 HC Ramphal Singh has categorically stated that there was no cap on the mouth of the plastic can.He further clarifies that the "mouth of the plastic can was found opened as there was no cap" and that the cap was in "perfect condition and was not broken".In the cross examination of PW 8, it is pointed out that the mouth portion of the can (Exhibit P-1) produced in court was in a broken condition and it also had an inner lid.PW 8 has volunteered that "there was no such inner lid in the mouth of the plastic can when he had recovered and sealed the same".He has also stated that the can which was got recovered as per the disclosure statement of Manoj Kumar was without "lid" and that the can when got recovered was not broken.He has unequivocally stated that there was no inner lid in the mouth of the plastic can which was recovered on the disclosure statement of Manoj Kumar.In this regard, reference can be made to the statement attributed to the accused Manoj Kumar as the disclosure Crl.A.No.5/2002 83 statement claimed to have been recorded by PW 8 HC Ramphal Singh in the presence of PW 5, which has been exhibited on record as Exhibit PW 5/K. It is noteworthy that the Exhibit 5/K carefully records that on the can, "pakadne ke liye handle hai" (reads as there is a handle affixed on the can for holding it, when translated)".The witnesses to the recovery have also stated so.A perusal of Exhibit PW 5/K shows that in the description of the can, the accused is alleged to have has described the can stating that "jiske muh par dhakkan nahi hai" (which translates as a can which had no covering on its mouth).Crl.A.No.5/2002 83The learned trial judge has also missed the noting in the CFSL report dated 28th December, 1998 (Exhibit 10/F) wherein the article examined has been described as the exhibit which was received for examination by it as "one empty plastic can with a plastic cap".Even though the learned trial judge has attempted to draw a distinction between "inner lid" and a "cap like lid" on the mouth of the can, however PW 8-HC Ramphal Singh has categorically stated that on the mouth of the can (Exh P-1) produced before the court, there was a plastic inner lid and has volunteered in court that there was no such inner lid in the mouth of the plastic can when recovered and sealed.The Crl.A.No.5/2002 84 recovery memo Exhibit PW 5/K categorically records that there was no "dhakkan" on the mouth of the yellow plastic can which was recovered.Crl.A.No.5/2002 84At every place, when the witnesses make reference to the can, it is categorically stated that the can was of two litre capacity.They have carefully noted and stated that there was a handle on the can to hold it.The witnesses have carefully mentioned not only the colour of the can but also the picture on it.Therefore, there can be no doubt that if the reference in their statement was to an inner lid in contradistinction to a cap, it would have been noted.It is in the deposition of PW 5-Ct.Vinod Kumar and PW 8 HC Ramphal Singh that there were several public persons and passers-by at and near the Janta Dharam Kanta.PW 8 had stated that he had seen the owner and employees of Janta Dharam Kanta sitting inside the office and that he did not ask any of them to put their signatures on the said seizure memo.HC Ramphal Singh and Ct.Vinod Kumar thus calls upon the court to believe that the owners of the premises would not be concerned as to why the accused Manoj Kumar, with or without HC Ramphal Singh, was climbing on to the roof of their premises or that no member of the public would have become curious in such an eventuality.They would expect the court to Crl.A.No.5/2002 85 accept the narration of events as if such an event was a daily occurrence in the crowded locality.It has also come in evidence that house from where the recovery was made was open and not in the exclusive possession of Pritam Singh.There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.Even this recovery becomes doubtful.The police had earlier raided the house.It has not been explained why no search was conducted earlier.The keys of the lock of the room from which the goods were allegedly recovered had been kept nearby under a brick.Neither the sketch of the said house nor that of the room was prepared nor the keys and lock were seized.Again there was no independent witness to the recovery.The recovery from the house of Lal Singh, which is one of the circumstance relied upon Crl.A.No.5/2002 86 for convicting Lal Singh itself become doubtful.From the manner of the recovery of the goods from the house of both the accused and also the manner of the recovery of the gold jwellery, we cannot rule out the possibility of the planting of the recovered articles."Crl.A.No.5/2002 86No action was taken by him.Coming to the malkhana register, it is not possible to discern as to whether Section 302 of the IPC has been added later in the register inasmuch as the original of the register is not before the court.It is not possible to make out variation, if any, in the writings out from the photocopy exhibited on record.SHO P.P. Singh has deposited a sealed parcel with the seal of KLS containing a blood sample as well as the sample seal (Exhibit PW 3/B).PW 3 HC Ajab Singh is categorical that on 11 th September, 1997, he had sent both the parcels which were deposited with him on 24th and 29th July, 1997 to the CFSL, Chandigarh vide RC No.78/21 through Ct.Virsa Singh which fact has been recorded against the aforesaid entries.The recovery of the narcotic substance was also found clearly established.Crl.A.No.5/2002 88In this case, there is disputes of the date as well as the laboratory to which the sample was sent.As against this categorical statement of PW 3-HC Ajab Singh, PW 4-Ct.Virsa Singh has stepped into the witness box and stated that he has collected two parcels from MHCM on 25th September, 1997 with form CFSL vide RC No.71/21 and has deposited the same in FSL, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on that very day.He has also stated that he had handed over the receipt of the FSL to the MHCM.PW 5-Ct.Virsa Singh even gives the time of about 10.15 a.m. when he departed for the FSL, Malviya Nagar from the malkhana.The prosecution has proved a report dated 28th December, 1998 of the CFSL, Chandigarh as Exhibit PW 10/F. The CFSL report refers to only one sealed parcel which was sealed with seals of RPS containing Exhibit 1 which was the plastic can.There is no reference to any other parcel or sample at all.There is not even a whit of an explanation with regard to the variation even in the numbers of samples sent for forensic examination or the report.Both PW 3 and PW 4 referred to two parcels whereas there is complete silence in the testimonies with regard to the second sample.Crl.A.No.5/2002 89There are material contradictions in the depositions of the two police officials, the only witnesses to the recovery.There is doubt with regard to the date and time of the recovered item being deposited in the malkhana as well as the laboratory to which it was sent for investigation.Learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the pronouncement reported at 2000 CriLJ 2083 Des Raj @ Dass vs. The State in support of the contention that non- Crl.A.No.5/2002 90 filling of the CFSL form was a circumstance that went against the prosecution.Crl.A.No.5/2002 90The learned trial judge has relied on the FSL report which has found kerosene on the can which was sent to it for testing.Given the controversy with regard to the identity of the can and the delay in sending the same for the forensic examination, the trial judge has attached unwarranted weight to the report of the laboratory.The recovery of the can based on an alleged disclosure is certainly doubtful.The prosecution has failed to prove either the disclosure or the recovery beyond reasonable doubt.Crl.A.No.5/2002 91 Arrests of the appellantsCrl.A.No.5/2002 91Inasmuch as the accused persons were enlarged on police bail and later by the court, the failure to place arrest memos on record by itself may be of no real value.However, when examined against the entire sequence of events and the evidence placed on record, the time of arrest may be of importance.Inasmuch as there is no evidence at all with regard to the incident other than statements attributed to the deceased and the accused persons.Even more unusual is the information attributed to a secret informer who is stated to have told PW 5 Constable Vinod Kumar and 8 HC Ramphal Singh on 20th July, 1997 at the Ram Dharam Kanta that one of the culprits, namely Prabhash, involved in the incident which had occurred the previous day was present at a tea shop near that place.Prabhash Sharma is stated to have been arrested and made a disclosure statement.No further steps appeared to have been taken till 24th of July, 1997 for three days after the occurrence.No timing of the sequence of events on 24th July, 1997 is available anywhere on record.No arrest memo has been produced before this court.But it is doubtful that any person Crl.A.No.5/2002 92 involved in such a heinous occurrence and offence, who are alleged to have run away from the spot after the incident, would loiter around at the scene of occurrence, more so when the police had earlier visited the spot and they would be aware that the accused persons were being searched for.Crl.A.No.5/2002 92While HC Ramphal Singh (PW 8) states that he prepared the site plan on the pointing out of PW-5 Mohd Humayun.Constable Vinod Kumar who reached the site makes no mention of the presence of Mohd Humayun on the site.A perusal of Exh.There is a clear shadow of doubt as to whether the site plan Exhibit PW8/E was prepared by the PW 8-HC Ramphal Singh on the pointing out of Mohd Humayun.The learned trial judge has erred in holding that the offence was committed inside the premises or at odd hours.The judge has also fallen into error in observing that the case did not involve any eye witnesses.The evidence before this court reflects the failure of the investigating officer to join any persons in the investigation.Even the site plan Exhibit PW 8/E reflects that the incident occurred in the open area outside the rooms.The incident as per Exhibit PW 6/A occurred at 4 p.m. while Exhibit PW 9/B suggests that it was at 9 p.m on 19th July, 1997 which was in the summer months.It is a hard reality in summer heat, as has been proved in evidence, there are more people outside than inside jhuggies, apart from the hustle and bustle of transporters, operators, drivers, conductors, labours etc. Both the area where the incident occurred as well as the place where the deceased found himself were densely populated and in the open area.Crl.A.No.5/2002 97Crl.A.No.5/2002 103Crl.A.No.5/2002 103In (1973) 2 SCC 793 Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra (Check), the Supreme Court had stated that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment dated 5 th December, 2001 and the order on sentence dated 6th December, 2001 are not sustainable in law.The same are hereby set aside and both the appellants are acquitted.Since the sentence of appellants No.1 and 2 was suspended vide orders dated 1st March, 2002 and 3rd February, 2003 respectively, the said orders stand vacated.The surety bonds of both the appellants stand cancelled and sureties discharged.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
76,299,113 |
of the case in short are that the applicant was brother- in-law of the deceased, who took her sister-in-law from village Sarra (Police Station Pipariya, District Hoshangabad) to Bhopal by a four wheeler so that she may be treated.However, the deceased died during the transit and therefore, the applicant brought the dead body of the deceased back.The dead body was cremated in presence of her father Munna @ Ganesh Rajput, brother Sunil and other relatives.After 5-6 days of such cremation, the parents and relatives of the deceased made allegation against so many persons that they were in habit to torture the deceased and to assault her, thereafter a case was registered.The charge sheet was filed and case was committed to the Court of Sessions.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that father and relatives of the deceased made allegation against Gulab Singh, Chhotelal, Hemlata and Anju Bai that they were in habit to harass the deceased.However, vide order dated 13.2.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.13510/2012, the Single Bench of this Court has quashed the entire matter registered against Gulab Singh, Chhotelal, Hemlata and Anju Bai.In the statements of parents and relatives of the deceased, there was no allegation against the applicant Sandeep that he tortured the deceased prior to her death.In absence of any allegation, it cannot be said that the applicant had committed any overt act, which may fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of the IPC.If the evidence collected by the prosecution is considered as it is, then, in absence of any rebuttal, the applicant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 306 of the IPC.In absence of any allegation, no charge of offence under Section 306 of the IPC can be framed against the applicant.Similarly, it is admitted that the applicant took the deceased to Bhopal in a four wheeler, when she was alive and thereafter, when it was noticed that she had died, the applicant took back the dead body of the deceased to the village and funeral was done by husband of the deceased.It is not alleged against the applicant that he took the dead body of the deceased to a lonely place and cremated.Under such circumstances, if the entire evidence collected by the prosecution is considered then, in absence of any rebuttal, the applicant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 201 of the IPC and therefore, prima facie, no charge of offence under Section 201 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.It appears that order dated 18.3.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya is perverse and therefore, the same cannot be sustained.Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Sandeep is hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 18.3.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya against the applicant is hereby set aside.The applicant is discharged from the charges of offence under Sections 306 and 201 of the IPC.The trial Court is directed to drop the proceeding against the applicant Sandeep.Copy of the order be sent to the Court below for information and compliance.C.C. as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
76,312,750 |
THIS is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.148/2015 registered at Police Station Pandhrinath, Indore for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 365, 292-A, 294, 306, 324/34 and 120-B of IPC.The present applicant is detained in this case since 12.07.2015; whereas the trial will take considerable -: 2 :- time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be released on bail.-: 2 :-The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the Trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.Certified copy as per rules.-: 3 :-[ Jarat Kumar Jain ] JUDGE (AKS)
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
76,314,463 |
On 13/12/1991 at 22:25 hours, she is statedto have lodged FIR at Wardha City Police Station.In her FIR, she statedthat the deceased was a driver.On 13/12/1991, in the evening, she and thedeceased were at their house.At about 8.00 p.m., A1-Anil, A2-Ashok and A5-Shankar came to their house.They gave her money and asked her to bringliquor.At that time, the deceased was sleeping.She sent her son to theneighbour’s house to bring liquor.Thedeceased told them that he was not well.Even then, they forced him to getup.(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.The two appellants (A1-Anil and A2-Ashok respectively) along withfour others (A3-Baba, A4-Kishor, A5-Shankar and A6-Mayabai) were chargedfor offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of theIndian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).Alternatively, they were alsocharged for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.During the pendency of the trial, A3-Baba was murdered and, therefore, thecase abated as against him.The prosecution case rests on the evidence of PW-3 Meena, wife ofVijay Lambat (“the deceased”).When he brought liquor, they consumedit.Thereafter, they asked the deceased to accompany them for paan.They brought him out in the courtyard.In the courtyard, A1-Anil and A2-Ashok dealt knife blows on his abdomen.Her mother-in-law A6-Mayabai washolding the deceased.On account of knife blows, the deceased fell on thespot.When she rushed to help the deceased, she was pushed aside byholding her hair.She then rushed to the Wardha City Police Station andlodged the FIR.The deceased was shifted to the General Hospital, Wardhawhere he was declared dead.On completion of the investigation, theaccused came to be charged as aforesaid.In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.The accused stated that they were innocent.They claimed to be tried.Onbehalf of the accused, it was suggested that A1-Anil and A2-Ashok used tovisit the house of A6-Mayabai, the mother of the deceased, which wasresented by the deceased and his wife PW3-Meena.It was suggested that A3-Baba may have murdered the deceased.Upon perusal of evidence learnedSessions Judge acquitted A1-Anil, A2-Ashok, A4-Kishor, A5-Shankar and A6-Mayabai of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 143 and 302 readwith Section 149 of the IPC.He also acquitted A4-Kishor, A5-Shankar and A6-Mayabai of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC.He found the appellants, A1-Anil and A2-Ashok guilty of theoffence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC andsentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for onemonth each.The appeal carried by A1-Anil and A2-Ashok was dismissed bythe High Court and, hence, this appeal is filed by them.We have already reproduced the contents of the FIR lodged by PW-3Meena.It is now necessary to see her evidence.In her evidence in the court, in theexamination-in-chief, PW-3 Meena stated that on the date of the incident,the deceased was in the house as he was not well; A1-Anil, A2-Ashok and A5-Shankar came to her house; they asked the deceased to accompany them forpaan; they asked for money for liquor and when she told them that she didnot have money, they pressurized her; she then sent one boy to bring liquorfrom the neighbour; accordingly, the boy brought liquor; A1-Anil, A2-Ashokand A5-Shankar had liquor; they asked the deceased to have liquor but hestated that he was not well; at that time, other accused also came and allof them took the deceased to the courtyard; A1-Anil, A2-Ashok and A4-Kishorstarted assaulting the deceased; A1-Anil had knife, A2-Ashok had gupti andA5-Shankar had knife; A6-Mayabai came and caught hold of the deceased;after assaulting the deceased, all the accused went away.She then went tothe police station and lodged the FIR.Cross-examination of PW3-Meenabrings out a completely new story but before we go to cross-examination, itis necessary to notice discrepancies in her FIR and examination-in-chief.Whereas, in the FIR PW3-Meena stated that A1-Anil, A2-Ashok and A5-Shankargave her money and asked her to bring liquor and she sent her son to herneighbour’s house to bring liquor, in her evidence she stated that theyasked for money for liquor and when she told them that she did not havemoney, they pressurised her and therefore, she sent a boy to bring liquorfrom her neighbour.She does not refer to her son.Even if thisdiscrepancy is overlooked as a minor discrepancy, her evidence cannot passthe test of credibility because major improvements are made by her in hercross-examination to which we shall now turn.In her cross-examination PW3-Meena stated that A1-Anil and A2-Ashokand A3-Baba were sitting in her house for five minutes for having liquor.PW3-Meena then changed her statement and stated that A3-Baba was notsitting there for having liquor but as soon as A1-Anil stood up A3-Babacame to the door.She further stated that A1-Anil, A2-Ashok and A3-Babaonly dragged the deceased and A3-Baba assaulted the deceased in thecourtyard along with others.Thus, here she excluded A1-Anil and A2-Ashokand stated that A3-Baba and others attacked the deceased.At other place he has observed to the contrary.This mistake isnot noted by the High Court.If PW-3 Meena had merely referred to A3-Babain the cross-examination, her non-mentioning his name in the FIR and in theexamination-in-chief would not have assumed much significance.But, shehas refused to give any role to A1-Anil and A2-Ashok in the cross-examination in the actual assault on the deceased.She stated that A1-Anilhad a gupti.In theexamination-in-chief she has referred to these three persons and A4-Kishor.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
76,314,888 |
Thereafter, the first accused sent an e-mail stating that they dropped the project at Maraimalainagar and expressing their readiness to allot residential flats at Appur Village, Oragadam.It was agreed by the defacto complainant and on 30.12.2015, they executed two sale deeds in respect of undivided share of land and also executed two construction agreements in favour of the wife of the defacto complainant.As 2/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Thereafter, the petitioner and others failed to start project and agreed to repay the amount by instalments.(viii) Amit Kapoor Vs.(x) Hazari Lal Gupta Vs.Per contra, Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent submitted that there are specific allegations in the complaint to attract offences under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC against the accused persons.The petitioner is arrayed as A1, and he is the person who mailed to the defacto complainant in respect of their project.Further, initially the accused persons had started project at Maraimalainagar, in which the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.32,54,675/- to purchase two residential flats.On receipt of the same, the defacto complainant's wife was allotted two flats bearing Nos.A17-101 and 17-102 at Maraimalainagar project.The petitioner being the Chief Executive Officer of M/s.Sheltrex Developers Private Limited sent an email to the defacto complainant stating that they dropped the 6/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2901 of 2020 Maraimalainagar project and expressing their readiness to allot residential flats in their project at Appur Village, Oragadam.Therefore, the defacto complainant consented for the same and again allotted two flats in Appur Village project at Oragadam.Accordingly, they have to complete the project within a period of 18 months and also executed sale deeds in respect of undivided share.Thereafter, they did not continue the project and assured to return the amount paid by the defacto complainant by instalments.Accordingly, they paid only Rs.2,00,000/- by instalments and thereafter failed to return the amount.Therefore, they all with common intention only to cheat the defacto complainant entered into an agreement and thereafter completely dropped the project as such committed offences under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC and the case has to be investigated in depth and it cannot be quashed on its threshold.The second respondent paid a 7/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2901 of 2020 sum of Rs.32,54,675/- towards consideration for allotment of two residential flats in the project of M/s.Sheltrex Developers Private Limited and received allotment orders.Thereafter, the first accused sent an e-mail stating that they dropped the project at Maraimalainagar and expressing their readiness to allot residential flats at Appur Village, Oragadam.It was agreed by the defacto complainant and on 30.12.2015, they executed two sale deeds in respect of undivided share of land and also executed two construction agreements in favour of the wife of the defacto complainant.As per the terms of the construction agreement, they have to complete the construction within a period of 18 months.However, the petitioner and others failed to start project, pursuant to which they agreed to repay the amount by instalments.Accordingly, Rs.2,00,000/- have been repaid by four instalments and thereafter they stopped making payments.He further submitted that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract offences under Section 420 IPC, and therefore he vehemently opposed to quash the FIR.8/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Even then, they did not start the project and assured to return the money and also paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, that too by four instalments out of total amount of Rs.32,54,675/-.Therefore, their intention is very clear even at the time of inception of agreement as such offence under Section 420 IPC is made out as against the petitioner and other accused persons.10/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2901 of 2020 24.06.2020This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.30 of 2019 registered against the petitioner and two others for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of the first respondent Police.Accordingly, Rs.2,00,000/- have been repaid by four instalments and thereafter stopped making payments.Therefore, the defacto complainant caused legal notice and lodged the complaint.Sheltrex Developers Private Limited, in which Interim Resolution Professional was appointed.Further, admittedly two sale deeds have been registered in favour of the defacto complainant insofar as undivided share and also executed construction agreement.O.P.No.2901 of 2020Heard Mr.It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Cr.No.30 of 2019 against the petitioner and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of IPC alleging that the second respondent paid a sum of Rs.32,54,675/- towards consideration for allotment of two residential flats in the project of M/s.Sheltrex Developers Private Limited and received allotment orders.Thereafter, the project at Maraimalainagar was stopped and as requested by the second respondent for the allotment of residential flats at Appur Village, Oragadam, the defacto complainant agreed and two sale deeds were executed in respect of undivided share of land and also executed two construction agreements in favour of the wife of the defacto complainant.As per the terms of the construction agreement, they have to complete the construction within a 9/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2901 of 2020 period of 18 months.Thereafter, the petitioner and others failed to start project and agreed to repay the amount by instalments.Accordingly, Rs.2,00,000/- have been repaid by four instalments and thereafter stopped making payments.Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the entire transaction was civil in nature and no offence is made out as against the petitioner, on perusal of the complaint, there is a specific allegation as against the petitioner and two others to attract offences under Section 420 IPC, since initially they received amount for the project at Maraimalai Nagar, but thereafter they stopped the said project and adjusted the amount received from the defacto complainant towards other project at Appur Village at Oragadam.Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that all the allegations are civil in nature and as such the defacto complainant ought to have filed a suit for recovery instead of filing complaint for the offences under Section 420 IPC.In support of his contention, he cited so many judgments.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau.The 14/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.30 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24.06.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No lokThe Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.15/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2901 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lok Crl.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
763,154 |
Dalhousie Institute is a registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1960 having its registered office and club house at 42, Jhowtala Road within Police Station Karaya, Calcutta.The institute is established to promote literary and scientific improvements of its members by means of lecutures, library reading room and such other resources as may from time to time, devised and various other activities.Under the rules and by laws of the Institute, the Annual General Meeting is held each year not later than 15th July as may be fixed by the Council of the Institute.The Council fixed 27th Oct. 1981 for holding the Annual General Meeting.Only permanent members and life, members are entitled to be present at the Annual General Meeting of the Institute and vote.The Dalhousie Institute, represented by its Honorary Secretary, Mr. Robin Roychowdhury, filed an application under Section 144, Cr.P.C. in the First Court of Executive Magistrate at Alipore praying for drawing up of a proceeding under Section 144(2), Cr.P.C. against one Roy George Monthosh and Charles Montosh on the allegations which may, in substance, be stated as follows.The said Mr. George Montosh and Charles Montosh are associate members of the Institute and are not entitled to be present in the Annual General Meeting and to vote.For some time past, they along with their family members and associates have been indulging in illegal acts and creating various sorts of unlawful distubrances so that the management would not be able to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Institute, on the scheduled date.They have been threatening the management with dire consequences in case the management holds the Annual General Meeting on the Scheduled date.By a letter dated 24th Oct. 1991, the Institute reported the matter to the local police station.By such wrongful acts they are likely to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury or danger to human life, health or safety or disturbance of the public tranquillity or a riot or an affray.The situation has become so grave and tense that speedy remedy is desirable.On such allegations, the institute prayed before the Executive Magistrate for a direction under Section 144(2), Cr.P.C. upon the said two opposite parties to abstain from indulging in acts of violence, illegal acts and unlawful disturbances at the time of holding of the Annual General Meeting of the Institute on the scheduled date and also from restraining permanent life members from attending Annual General Meeting and also for a direction upon the O.C. of the local police station to render police assistance by posting police pickets and also to see on obstruction is caused in holding of the Annual General Meeting on the Scheduled date at the scheduled place.This application under Section 144 was registered as M.P. Case No. 2384 of 1991 and the learned Executive Magistrate by order dated 25-10-1991, on being satisfied as to the likelihood of breach of peace directed the O.C. Karaya Police Station to see that no breach of the peace takes place and also to see that the opposite parties and their men and associates may not illegally cause any disturbances at the time of holding of the Annual General Meeting of the Institute at the scheduled premises and also to post police pickets at the cost of the institute for maintaining peace at the locality.One of the two opposite parties of M.P. Case No. 2384 of 1991 lodged a complaint on 3rd Sept. 1992 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore against Mr. Robin Roychoudhury who filed the application under Section 144 as Honorary Secretary of the Dalhousie Institute and also against two others on the following allegations.The complainant and his wife were members of the Dalhousie Institute.The accused were office bearers of the Institute.; For the past few years, the complainant had been highlighting and protesting against the corrupt practices and mismanagement of the club by the accused and their associates.The accused and the-their cronies hatched a plot to expel this complainant and his wife from the said club in order to hide their misdeeds.Accordingly, the accused No. 1 (Robin Roy Chowdhury), aided, abetted and instigated by the other two accused persons and their associates, filed the petition under Section 144, Cr.P.C. being M.P. Case No. 2384 of 1991 on false and malicious allegations to the effect that on or about 25-10-1991, the complainant and his wife have been creating various sorts of unlawful disturbances and indulging in various acts of violance amounting to cognizable offences and the complainant and his wife were going to disturb the holding of the Annual General Meeting of the club on 27-10-1991, knowing fully well that at the material point of time, this complainant and his wife were out of the country, visiting Thailand and Australia between 10-10-1991 and 4-11 -1991, a fact which is also borne out from their passport entries.On the basis of such false, malicious and motivated allegations, the accused obtained an ex parte order under Section 144(2), Cr.P.C. on 25-10-1991 against this complainant and his wife amongst others and on the following day, expelled the complainant and his wife from the club illegally.On 9-12-1991, the petition under Section 144, Cr.P.C. came up for hearing before the learned Magistrate who dropped the matter after observing that the situation was peaceful.The accused persons are thus guilty of offences punishable under Sections 211 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.The above complaint was registered as Case No. 1001 of 1992 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance upon that complaint on 3-9-1992 and after examination of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and upon consideration of some documents filed by the complainant including the passport and visa, was satisfied that a prima facie case under Sections 211/109, IPC was made out against each of the three accused persons and accordingly by order No. 2 dated 4-9-1992 issued process against the accused.Being aggrieved by the ld.Magistrate submitted orders whereby he took cognizance and issued process, the accused petitioners have preferred the present revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of the complaint case.Executive Magistrate or by someone to whom he was subordinate.Mr. Basu alternatively urged two other points.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
76,318,206 |
(Passed on this 24 th day of November, 2015) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Crimianal Procedure [ for short "the Code"] has been filed against order dated 10/03/2014 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case are that the respondent No. 3 has lodged a report at Police Station Sanyogitaganj, Indore, then a Crime No. 818/2012 for the offence 818/2012 under Sections 341,294 and 506 -:2 :- of IPC was registered against the petitioner.After investigation on 06/11/2012 police has filed a closure report before CJM, Indore.Then petitioner preferred a revision before Vth ASJ.Learned ASJ has dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the CJM, Indore.Being aggrieved with this orer petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code on various grounds.Apart from this there is no reliable evidence against the petitioner for taking cognizance.ASI, Mahadeo Singh Bhadauriya who is, an independent witness stated that after investigation he found that the respondent No.3 has lodged a false report due to enimity.-:3 :-[4] On the other hand learned Govt. Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 supports the impugned order and submitted that while recording the statements of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 CJM has not committed any error of law and it was not obligatory for the CJM to accept the closure report.The infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner or the matter of evidence,this Court can not appreciate the evidence while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code.Thus, there is no merit in the petition and petition deserves to be dismissed.
|
['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
76,336,962 |
The learned Advocate of the petitioners further submits that the said petitioners were implicated in the present case out of grudge arising out of the land dispute.Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the 2 petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) each with one local surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia-J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
76,344,285 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 61 of 2019, under Sections 366 376 IPC, P.S. Mahavan, District Mathura, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.She has initially declined her medical examination.Her statements under sections 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she has stated that after some quarreled with her mother she annoyed and left her house.She remained in the company with the applicant for about 10 good days without any resistance and her age is about 22 years.The medical report do not support the prosecution case.Her conduct shows that she is in consensual relationship with the applicant.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 11.05.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and 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- Rahul, 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 case crime no. 61 of 2019, under Sections 366 376 IPC, P.S. Mahavan, District Mathurra, with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
342,538 |
The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 925 of 1965 obtained the rule against the order of the same Magistrate summoning him on a supplementary charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer for an alleged offence under Sections 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code for an inquiry into the offence jointly with the other accused persons named in the original charge-sheet.On a complaint filed by one Bindu Bhusan Bhattacharjee, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner in case No. 893 of 1965 and one Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee.In the charge-sheet, the petitioner in the other case and one Sk.All these three petitions were rejected by the learned Magistrate,On May 20, 1965, the police submitted an amended challan against those very persons with a prayer for summoning them on the aforesaid two charges.The learned Magistrate accepted the amended challan and made an order virtually scrapping the evidence already recorded by him and directing a de novo inquiry against all the four accused persons including the two petitioners before me.The record be sent down as ex-peditiously as possible.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
342,572 |
The wife-complainant in her complaint dated 30.7.1992 had alleged that her marriage with Mohan Lal, petitioner No. 1 had taken place on 17.7.1991 and for next 15 to 20 days she lived in the matrimonial home in the normal way, when her brother had brought her to Delhi as she had to take 12th class examination.Her husband had also visited her parents house in Delhi at that time and as desired by him by efforts made by members of her family he got employment in a factory at Gurgaon when he had stayed at her parents house; but in the meantime, her brother-in-law (Jeth) took her to the matrimonial home.JUDGMENT J.B. Goel, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code) seeks to quash the proceedings and also the order dated 23.6.1995 passed by the learned M.M., Delhi and order dated 27.8.96 passed by the learned A.S.J. in revision on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.Briefly facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Smt.Poonam Sharma had lodged a complaint dated 30.7.1992 with the Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi (for short CAW).On the said complaint being forwarded by the latter FIR No.480/92 under Section 406,IPC was registered at P.S. Vikas Puri, New Delhi.After completing investigation, charge-sheet under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted against all the petitioners for offences under Section 498-A and 406, IPC.The learned M.M. took cognizance and summoned the petitioners-accused.Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 respectively are the husband, the mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), father-in-law, sister-in-law (Jethani) and the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the complainant.After hearing the parties learned M.M. vide order dated 23.6.1995 held that the charges under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC were made out against the petitioners.In revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C. against that order the learned A.S.J. partly allowed the revision petition vide his order dated 27.8.1996, holding that offence under Section 406, IPC was not made out but offence under Section 498-A/34, IPC only was made out against all the petitioners.One of the objection taken before the learned A.S.J. was that the Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the offences alleged.This objection has been overruled by the learned A.S.J. The petitioner-husband had also filed petition for divorce before the Court of District Judge, Dharamshala.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions.Firstly, that Courts at Delhi has got no territorial jurisdiction on the allegations made in the complaint as the alleged acts of cruelty had taken place at Village Jawali, Distt.Kangra, Himachal Pradesh where the Marriage had taken place and parties had lived together after the marriage.Secondly, the allegations made in the complaint are false, mala fide and misconceived and no notice there of should have taken in the facts and circumstances.In any case the matter and the controversy involved has now been adjudicated and decided by the Civil Court who has passed a decree of divorce and the findings of that Court are binding on the Criminal Court.These contentions have been disputed by the learned Counsel for the State.Her husband after sometime left the job and he joined her in his village.it is alleged that thereafter sometime left the job and he joined her in his village.It is alleged that thereafter the husband and other in-law (petitioners herein) have been harrasing and treated her with cruelty both physically and mentally; her brother had visited her at her matrimonial home and he was also insulted and due to cruelty caused to her she came with her brother and since then has been living with her mother at Delhi.On the basis of this complaint FIR No. 480/92 was registered under Section 406, IPC and in due course report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted on which the learned M.M. took cognizance and held that offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC are made out.But the learned A.S.J. in revision has held that charge under Sections 498-A/34, IPC also is made out against all the petitioners but not under Section 406, IPC.The State has not filed any revision or other proceedings against that order.The learned M.M. in his order dated 23.6.1995 has not dealt with this respect.The trial Court record shall be sent back forthwith.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,426,017 |
2.The criminal liability complained of by the second respondent is arising out of three High Seas Sale agreements entered into between M/s.Kalika Cement Limited, which is now known as Aanchal Cement Ltd, having originally the petitioners 1 to 3 as its Directors and presently petitioners 1 and 2 as its Directors and the second respondent company by name Gimpex Ltd, which is recognised as Trading House by the Government of India, carrying on business activities on minerals including mining, minerals processing for value added products, exports, imports and third country merchanting trade.The three High Seas Sale Agreements entered into between the parties are for purchase of Ordinary Portland Cement Clinker (OPCC) for total invoice value of Rs.29,54,86,859/- to be discharged and cleared through customs partly at Paradeep port and partly at Haldia port.In pursuance of the agreements, OPCC was received at Indian Ports in two shipments between 22.4.2012 and 10.5.2012 and were cleared by the petitioners company, which sold the same to third party and realised the sale proceeds.3.The allegations raised in the complaint, arising out of which is the present Crl.are regarding non payment of the amount due to the second respondent defacto complainant paid by them towards customs duty and wharfage charges to the tune of Rs.6,96,74,666/- and also the amount representing the outstanding of total invoice value of the goods to purchased by the petitioners to the tune of Rs.13,07,75,009/-.The complaint proceeds as if as per the terms of High Seas Sales Agreements, the buyer is bound to pay the customs duty and other Government levies of whatsoever nature, which is in the present case, wharfare charges.Whereas, the defacto complainant was made to pay the customs duty and warfare charges as above mentioned by the petitioners, who are the Directors of the buyer's company, by making false promise that they would repay the amount immediately.Thereafter, the buyer company did not pay the customs duty and other charges as well as the amount of invoice value of the goods and the failure to do so amounts to breach of trust and cheating.It is the further case of the defacto complainant that inspite of repeated demands made by the defacto complainant company, the petitioners failed to make any payment and the second petitioner/A2 also threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences, if any demand is made for repayment of the amount.4.With the above allegations, the complaint came to be filed on 10.9.2012 before the Commissioner of Police and the same was thereafter forwarded to the Central Crime Branch and was received and registered as FIR in Cr.In pursuance of the same, the second petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and was also taken on police custody.In the mean while, other two petitioners 1 and 3 obtained anticipatory bail.Much before the same, the second respondent Gimpex Company made repeated demands to the petitioners company orally and in writing, insisting payment of the amount due to Gimpex Company and there were some payments made by the petitioners' company to the respondent company Gimpex Limited by way of cash and cheques.This Criminal Original Petition is filed by A1 to A3 for quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.21 of 2013 pending against the petitioners on the file of the first respondent police, arising out of the complaint given by the second respondent defacto complainant.The petitioners company also filed TS.No.1615/2012 before the City civil court, Calcutta against the second respondent/complainant Gimpex Limited for declaring the defendant's demand and claim of Rs.15 crores as illegal and void and not binding on the petitioners' company and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from misusing 18 banking instruments for Rs.50,00,000/- each drawn on SBI, N.S.Road, Kolkatta of the plaintiff/petitioners' company.The respondent company has also come forward with separate arbitration proceedings for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the remaining goods lying in the port trust address and for prohibitory order against the Garnishees/third party buyers restraining and prohibiting each of them from paying any amount to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioners' company and for directing the petitioners' company to furnish security and for appointment of arbitrator etc.5.Pending above proceedings, the second petitioner moved this court for an order of bail and was taken on police custody for five days and there was also deed of compromise effected between the petitioners' company represented by the first petitioner and Gimpex Limited for settling the amount arrived at due to the respondent company.Thereafter, the second petitioner was granted bail and other petitioners got anticipatory bails.Pending investigation of the complaint, the petitioners have come forward with the present petition for the relief as stated supra.6.The petitioners have sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them mainly by denying the nature of their liability and by denying the nature of the dispute involved in the present case.According to the petitioners, the goods were supplied by the respondent in terms of joint venture agreement, thereby to share profit and loss in the ratio of 50:50 and there was no profit gained, but what was incurred is loss and the petitioners company already paid major part of the amount due to the respondent company and it is the respondent, who is liable to share the loss, whereas, the second respondent failed to come forward with the joint discussion for settlement of the accounts between the parties, but the second respondent company falsely demanded huge sum from the petitioners' company, inspite of receiving banking instruments for due repayment of the amount due to the respondent.Thereafter the petitioners' company apprehending ulterior motive behind the conduct of the respondent company, was compelled to file the suit and the respondent company also resorted to arbitration proceedings and sought for the reliefs arising out of the civil liability.As such, the dispute is civil in nature and the liability, if any, is also only of civil in nature, arising out of commercial transaction and no criminal liability arises so as to entertain the complaint.7.Whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent/IO has in his counter stated the manner in which the complaint was received and compromise arrived at between the parties and the representation made before the court concerned, which granted the order of bail in favour of the second petitioner, on the basis of such representation regarding compromise arrived at between the parties.8.This quash petition is seriously resisted by the second respondent, who raised serious counter allegations to the effect that but for the inducement of the petitioners, the respondent company would not have parted with huge sum above Rs.6 crores for payment of customs duty and wharfage charges and the same was paid only by believing the false promise that the same would be repaid immediately.However, the petitioners, contrary to their assurance, failed to repay the amount, inspite of repeated demands made by the petitioners company and also resorted to civil proceedings for denying their liability and by preventing the respondent company from enforcing their liability by encashing the banking instruments given to them.It is also their case that the petitioners committed an act of criminal breach of trust by reason of their failure to repay the entire amount of total invoice value of the goods and other charges and the petitioners also threatened the representative of the respondent company with dire consequences, in event of his making any demand for discharging their liability.Thus according to the second respondent, such conduct on the part of the petitioners would amount to cheating, criminal intimidation and breach of trust and the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient enough to make out the prima facie case to charge the petitioners.It is also their case that the arbitration proceedings are initiated by the respondent company only for recovery of the amount due from the petitioners, whereas the cause of action for filing the criminal complaint is false promise made by the petitioners to the respondent company to part with huge sum of above 6 crores towards customs duty and wharfage charges.18.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.rk 06.02.2015Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/NoTo
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,266,745 |
contained allegations as to offences punishable under Sections 496 and 498 of the IPC against his wife Shashi Gupta.Main grievance of the petitioners centres around rejection of their application said to have been moved, under Order 41 Rule 27 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, for bringing additional documents on record.However, considering the scope of interference under the revisional jurisdiction, rejection of prayer for taking additional documents does not call for any interference.Copy of this order be forwarded to Sessions Judge, Sidhi for information and necessary action on the administrative side.(R.C. MISHRA) JUDGE
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,426,715 |
The gist of the case is as follows:-(i) P.W.1 / victim and the appellant had love affairs with each other for more than 6 years.The defacto complainant was working in a provision shop and the appellant was employed as a mazon.Both belonged to the same place and they knew each other.Sunday was a holiday for the defacto complainant.Hence, each Sunday, at about 6.00 a.m., both defacto complainant and the appellant used to go to a secluded place in the forest area, near their residence and spent some time.2/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014(ii) In this relationship, the appellant had made advancement towards physical relationship.Initially, the defacto complainant objected to the same and latter, appellant promised to marry her, she acceded to the same and they were having regular physical relationship on several occasions.Due to which, she became pregnant and was taken to a hospital, there the pregnancy was aborted and thereafter, the physical relationship continued.(iii) On 04.11.2012, the appellant informed the defacto complainant that he has to marry his uncle's daughter Ranjitha and picked up a fight and asked the defacto complainant not to hereafter meet him thereafter or approach him in any manner.The defacto complainant latter came home in the evening hours, unable to bear the deceivement caused by the appellant, took Oleander Seed (Aralikottai), made it paste and consumed the same.(iv) When P.W.2 / mother of the defacto complainant, came back from her work, she found P.W.1 / defacto complainant vomiting, enquired the reason, thereafter, immediately called 108 Ambulance; P.W.1 got admitted in the Government Medical College Hospital, Theni; from the Hospital, information was sent to respondent Police; 3/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014 P.W.8 / Sub-Inspector of Police, came to the hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1, registered the case in Crime No.347 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 376, 313 and 417 IPC., on 06.11.2012; Thereafter, the case was forwarded to P.W.9 / Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined and no document were produced.When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.The trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.Challenging the legality of the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.4/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though P.W.1 had stated that she had consumed Oleander Seed on 04.11.2012 thereafter vomited was admitted in the Government Hospital on the same day, P.W.8 / Sub-Inspector of Police reached the hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1 only on 06.11.2012, at about 6.00 p.m., and no reason has been given for the delay.Further, there is no witness or any medical records to show that P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital on 04.11.2012 itself.Further, P.W.1 had given an exaggerated complaint stating that she had forced miscarriage and the appellant being the reason.P.W.6 the Doctor, who examined P.W.1, categorically stated that there is nothing to show that P.W.1 had forced miscarriage.P.W.1 was certain that she had lodged a complaint only because the appellant refused to marry her.The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1 admitted that she studied upto class VIII in the local School.She is aged about 18 years and had attained majority.She was categorical that she knows what she was doing and she had consensually continuing the relationship with the appellant.Further, she is very categorical that till 04.11.2012, nobody knew the relationship between herself 5/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014 and the appellant.P.W.3, who is the relative and neighbour of P.W.1, had stated that she had seen on several occasions both P.W.1 and appellant together, in the remote forest area, and on one occasion, she warned P.W.1 in continuing the relationship with the appellant.Thus, on categorical assertion of PW1 that till 04.11.2012 nobody know the relationship between PW1 and the appellant, P.W.3, a relative and interested witness, is a got up witness.Hence, P.W.1 is the only witness to state about her relationship with the appellant.P.Ws.4 and 5, who are witnesses to the observation mahazar and rough sketch / Ex.P2 & Ex.The certain case of P.W.1 that the occurrence had taken place in the remote forest area and hence, the observation mahazar / Ex.From Ex.P.W.7, the witness for arrest and recovery, had not supported the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile.6/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 20149. P.W.6 is the Doctor, attached to the Government Medical College Hospital, Theni.She has stated that on 16.11.2012, she had examined the appellant and issued Ex.P5 the potency certificate.On 17.11.2012, she had examined P.W.1 and given Ex.P4/ medical examination certificate.P.W.6 stated that P.W.1 was aged between 16 to 18 years, without any supporting materials, further stated that hymen was not intact and there is no injury found on P.W.1 both internal and external, suggesting that there was no forced physical relationship.10. P.W.8 admitted that he has not produced any material to show that he was on duty on 06.11.2012 and no reason has been given for the delay in receiving the complaint.Further, the Doctor in the hospital have not attested that the statement recorded in the hospital.It is seen that no records from the hospital for the treatment taken as inpatient, by P.W.1, from 04.11.2012 to 06.11.2012, has been produced in this case.P.W.9, the Investigating Officer had gone to the scene of occurrence, according to him, the house of P.W.1 is not in the forest area, prepared observation 7/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014 mahazar.In the observation mahazar it is recorded that there is no incriminating articles seized from the scene of occurrence.In the rough sketch, there is no date and signature found.The learned counsel further submitted that Ex.P3 was prepared to register the case against P.W.1, for attempting to suicide and that is the reason the place of occurrence has been shown as P.W.1's residence and this observation mahazar does not pertains to this case.P.W.9 admitted that no case has been registered against P.W.1, for attempting to suicide.In this case, P.W. 1 admitted that she is a major, she had not revealed the relationship to any one till 04.11.2012, she had gone voluntarily with the appellant to the remote area in the forest and the relationship continued for years without any resistance.Thus, P.W.1 having suffered love failure somehow wanted to implicate the appellant, had given a false complaint.In view of the clear motive being established with corroborative evidence, the appellant ought not to have been convicted and he is entitled for acquittal.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted 8/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014 that P.W.1 is the victim, who had stated about the relationship between herself and the appellant and the appellant continued the same for quite sometime, on the pretext of marrying her, latter refused to marry her.She consumed Oleander Seed; P.W.2 is the mother, who had stated about her daughter's plight; P.W.3, the neighbour had seen the appellant and P.W.1 in the remote forest area and warned P.W.1 about the same; P.Ws.4 and 5 are the witnesses to the observation mahazar and rough sketch; P.W.6 is the Doctor, who examined P.W.1 and the accused; P.W.7 is the witness for arrest and recovery; P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of police; who recorded the statement of PW1 and registered FIR P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer, who, on completion of investigation filed the final report.The learned Government Advocate further submitted that P.W.1, the victim, attempted to end her life due to deceivement caused by the appellant.P.W.1 was 18 years of age, as on 04.11.2012, P.W.6 is the Doctor, who had confirmed that hymen was ruptured and vagina freely admits two fingers, PW1 is not virgin, leading to inference that P.W.1 was subjected to physical relationship; P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who, on receipt of information from the Government Medical College Hospital, visited 9/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Thus, the prosecution, by examining P.Ws. 1 to 9 and marking Exs.P1 to P8 had proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.The trial Court, on analysis of evidence of the witnesses and materials, convicted the appellant and the well reasoned Judgment of the trial Court need not be interfered with.This Court heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.Prosecution had not attempted to collect any school certificate to prove her age, neither referred to Ossification Test to find out the age of the victim.Though in Ex.P4, the Doctor had opined that P.W.1's age could be between 16 and 18 years, there is no material to substantiate the same, no test has been conducted by the Doctor to prove the same.It is to be seen that 10/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014 prior to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, which came into force on 03.02.2013, the definition for rape under Section 375 was that the victim should be under the age of 16 years.In this case, the age of the victim is 18 years and with the available materials, it cannot be stated that she was less than 16 years, when the physical assault has been committed on her.P.W.1 is the person, who had given an exaggerated version as regards to the forced miscarriage committed on her.P.W.6 / Doctor, who examined P.W.1 he stated that she is unable to come to a conclusion, as regards the forced miscarriage and that is the reason Ex.P8 / Alteration Report had been filed by the prosecution.In view of the same, the evidence of P.W.1 has to be viewed with care and caution.From the evidence of P.W.1 it is seen that P.W.1 had 11/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.As regards the appellant's conviction under Section 417 IPC., P.W.1 in her evidence had stated that she continued her relationship with the appellant only believing the appellant's words that they would get married.Further, the love affairs between them had been going on for the past several years, only on the strength of getting married.On the materials available on record, this Court finds that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 12/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014 417 IPC.The trial Court sentenced him to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and the same is hereby confirmed.In view of the development taken place thereafter that the P.W.1 / victim having been married to another person and blessed with a child and is living separately and the appellant is also married to another person blessed with a child and living separately, since the appellant had already undergone about 37 days of sentence, this Court feels that the sentence of 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the trial Court is modified to the one already undergone, on condition that the appellant, apart from the fine of Rs.500/-, is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), before the trial Court, within a period of three weeks from the date of Judgement, failing which, the appellant / accused shall undergo six months Simple Imprisonment.P.W.1 shall file a petition before the trial Court and the compensation amount shall be handed over to her by the trial Court.13/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2014In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,267,979 |
Mr. Rahul Mehra stated that the petitioner had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- under Section 13(2) of PC Act and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 418/467/471 IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act. He submitted that the sentence of ten years is to be read with PC Act as the offences constitute part of the same transaction and they cannot be separated for the purpose of extending the benefit of special W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 5 of 17 remission under the guidelines notified by the Government of India.He reiterated that the Court cannot assume that the sentence of ten years is without the force of PC Act in the present case.Therefore, according to him, the ground taken by the petitioner that he had already undergone his sentence under the PC Act and should be considered for special remission did not hold good.W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 5 of 17He pointed out that the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner pertained to provisions of IPC, whereas in the present case the sentence had been awarded under a combination of provisions of two separate statutes.He emphasized that in P. Veera Bhaarathi (supra), there was a clarification from the State in terms of the letter of the Director General of Prisons, which had supported the case of the petitioner.sum of Rs.1,000/- each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each(ii) ...........rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- each u/s 120-B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each."(emphasis supplied)The total period undergone in custody, as on 30th November, 2019, by the petitioner is as follows:-W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 7 of 17The Union of India vide Notification dated 18th July, 2018 had approved special remission to prisoners on the occasion of 150th Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi.The Union cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has today given its approval to grant Special Remission to Prisoners as part of commemoration of 150th Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi.As part of commemoration of 150th Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the following categories of prisoners will be considered for special remission and released in three phases.In Phase-I, the prisoners will be released on 2nd October, 2018 (Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi), in Phase-II prisoners will be released on 10th Aprtil, 2019 (Anniversary of Champaran Satyagrah) and in Phase-III, prisoners will be released on 2nd October, 2019 (Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi):-MANMOHAN, J:Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and a direction to set aside the order dated 3rd April, 2019 passed by the respondent-State whereby his case for W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 1 of 17 early release was rejected.The petitioner further seeks a direction that he is entitled to an early release on the ground that he qualifies under clauseW.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 1 of 17(c) and (d) of Special Remission Notification dated 18th July, 2018 issued by Government of India.Since the respondent-State had not considered petitioner's application dated 6th December, 2018 for special remission, the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition being W.P. (Crl) 550/2019, which was disposed of by the learned predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th February, 2019 with a direction to the respondent-State to determine the representation of the petitioner for special remission as expeditiously as possible and positively within a period of four weeks.Thereafter, petitioner's application for special remission was rejected vide order dated 03rd April, 2019 by respondent-State under the signature of Deputy Secretary (Home).The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-Perusal of Ld.W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 2 of 17Further, the offences constitute part of the same transaction and cannot be bifurcated for the purpose of extending the benefit of special remission under guidelines notified by Govt. of India.Therefore, the ground taken by the convict that he has already undergone a period of 7 years under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and should be considered for special remission does not hold good.Further, no such prisoner has been considered by the committee for grant of remission under this scheme if he falls under any of the categories mentioned in para 4 of the guidelines circulated by Govt. of India.Considering the aforesaid aspect, the case was earlier not placed before the committee by the Prison Department for consideration as it does not fall within the ambit of the guidelines.Prison Department has also again reiterated that the case of convict may not be eligible for Special Remission in view of abovesaid Para 4 of the guidelines whereby Special Remission cannot be granted in cases of prisoners convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Whereas, after taking into account all the facts and guidelines of MHA, GoI and the recommendation of Prison Department, the Committee decided not to recommend the case of convict Om Prakash Chautala s/o Late Sh.Devi Lal for grant of special remission at this stage.Whereas, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi has accepted the recommendation of Sate Level Committee.Accordingly, the petition of convict Om Prakash Chautala s/o Lt. Sh.Devi Lal for considering his case to grant Special Remission on the occasion of 150th Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi as notified by the Government of India is hereby rejected.SECRETARY (HOME) GOVT.OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Ph.NO.-011-23392071"W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 3 of 17The present writ petition challenges the aforesaid order.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERMr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is aged about eighty-three years and is suffering from disability.He further stated that the sentence awarded by the Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") was seven years rigorous imprisonment - which he had already undergone.He submitted that though the petitioner had also been awarded a sentence of ten years under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 418/467/471 IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act, yet as the maximum sentence prescribed under PC Act, at the relevant time, was seven years, the incarceration under Section 120B IPC read with PC Act in petitioner's case cannot exceed seven years.He contended that the respondent-State vide its order dated 03rd April, 2019 had erroneously rejected the petitioner's representation for pre-mature release thereby accepting the recommendations of State Legal Committee dated 19th March, 2019 that as the petitioner had been convicted under the PC Act he cannot be granted special remission in view of the paragraph no. 4 of the Notification dated 18th July, 2018, which states "special remission will not be given to.....convicts involved in serious and heinous crimes......and convicted under.....Prevention of Corruption Act etc."He submitted that post completion of seven years, the paragraph no. 4 to the Notification dated 18th July, 2018 was not applicable to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner deserved to be released by granting W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 4 of 17 special remission because the convict/petitioner was no longer involved in any offence under PC Act (having completed seven years of incarceration) and the petitioner was presently undergoing incarceration under Section 467 IPC.In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Veera Bhaarathi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 33615 and the Supreme Court judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 4 of 17Learned standing counsel for the respondent-State stated that during the total period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner till 30th July, 2019, the petitioner had availed two interim bails, seven paroles and eight furloughs.Learned Standing counsel for the respondent-State contended that the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case.He further pointed out that in the present case, the State level Committee had decided against recommending the petitioner's case for special remission and the same had been accepted by the Lt. Governor as well.W.P.(Crl.) 1221/2019 Page 6 of 17IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO PARTY CAN SUFFER DUE TO AN ACT OF THE COURT.The petitioner herein had been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court vide order dated 22nd January, 2013 which was upheld by this Court vide order dated 5th March, 2015 in Rekha Sharma Vs.Consequently, the sentence awarded to the petitioner has attained finality and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-The petitioner assails the impugned order from a different angle also.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner for early release.With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,271,912 |
- No person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to posts in category (i) of Rule 3(1) unless -(d) he has good character and is of sound health and free from any bodily defect which renders him unfit for such appointment.Accordingly, his name was rejected.He approached the Tribunal.Whether the High Court while allowing such a petition in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a further direction to the authority to appoint the person concerned on the post from the date his batchmates were appointed and to grant him back dated seniority and all other benefits or whether the High Court should simply remit the matter back to the authority for taking a decision in this regard ?Whether the high standards of adjudging the good character of a candidate for appointment as a Judicial Officer, which has been adopted and followed by the State under the Rules of 1994 till the W.P. No.5865/2016 4 decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) were and are right and proper or whether in view of the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra), the same should be considered to be relaxed to the extent that in all cases the character of a person should be treated to be good where he has been acquitted for minor offences on the basis of a compromise?Whether the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) lays down the correct law ?Any other question that may arise for adjudication or decision in the dispute involved in the present petition and which the Larger Bench thinks appropriate to decide?The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that the petitioner applied for appointment as Civil Judge, Class-II (Entry Level).The selection process of the said recruitment commenced vide advertisement dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure P-1).The petitioner successfully completed all the three stages of the examination i.e. preliminary examination, main examination and interview and his name was recommended for appointment as Civil Judge, Class-II.However, while recommending the name of the petitioner on 3 rd September 2015, the following was communicated to the State Government by this Court:-"(2) Shri Ashutosh Pawar (Roll No.1621), s/o Shri Gaurav Pawar, R/o 9, Adarsh Indira Nagar, Main Road, Indore (MP) - 452002, Selected at Sr.No.-1 in ST category, has informed that on the basis of crimes registered against him at Police Station Malhargunj, Indore-(i) Cr.Case 1742/08 under S. 452, 294, 324/34, 323/34, 506-B IPC was commenced, which was disposed on the basis of compromise and he was acquitted vide order dt. 13/04/2012 (copy of Order enclosed with Attestation Form), Passed by Shri Ashutosh Shukla, JMFC, Indore;(ii) Cr.The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.- The decision of the High Court as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for admission to the examination shall be final.List of the candidates recommended by the High Court.- (1) The High Court shall forward to the Government a list arranged in order of merit of the candidates selected for recruitment by the High Court.The list shall be published for general information.Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents.In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, the respondent was acquitted based on the compromise.The direction made by the High Court was in the nature of mandamus.The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as (1994) 4 SCC 448 (State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali) was examining a question: as to whether there could be a direction to appoint a candidate, who sought appointment on compassionate ground.The question Nos. 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.QUESTION No.6:(6) Any other question that may arise for adjudication or decision in the dispute involved in the present petition and which the Larger Bench thinks appropriate to decide?
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,276,971 |
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:These five appeals are directed against the judgment dated 2nd April, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi (ASJ) in Sessions Case No.52/1998 arising out of FIR No.229/1997 registered at Police Station (PS) Mehrauli convicting Rafiq Ahmed @ Chottu (Accused No.1 - A-1) (Appellant in Crl.A.529/2002); Bijender (A-2) (Appellant in Crl.A.404/2002); Mohd. Shahid (A-3) (Appellant in Crl.A.370/2002); Mohd. Hanif @ Monti (A-4) (Appellant in Crl.(i) For the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/- each; and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months.(ii) For the offence under Section 307/34 IPC, to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs.500/- each; and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months.(iii) For the offence under Section 506/34 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of two years.All sentences were directed to run concurrently.The Appellants along with Shakil (proclaimed offender) were charged with committing the murder of Dinesh (deceased) on 28 th April, 1997 at around 1.30 pm near the Kalra Flour Mill, Gali Sabzi Mandi, Mehrauli.The third charge was that in furtherance of their common intention, the Appellants along with PO Shakil criminally intimidated PW-2 and Ashok Kumar (PW-6) with injuries and with intention to cause alarm of dire consequences to these persons thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 506/34 IPC.The criminal justice process was set in motion with PW-2 reaching PS Mehrauli and meeting Sub Inspector (SI) R.P. Sharma (PW-17) at the front gate of the PS and informing him that his friend (deceased) had been stabbed with knives.This fact was mentioned in the rukka (Ex.PW2/A).On receiving the above information, PW-17 along with Constable Vijender (PW-23) left for the spot along with PW-2, who was himself in an injured condition.On reaching the spot, they found the deceased in an unconscious condition with knife injuries.He along with PW-2 was taken by PW-23 in a three-wheeler scooter rickshaw (TSR) to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).Meanwhile, PW-17 stayed back at the spot.As far as the MLC of PW-2 was concerned, it showed that he was brought to AIIMS by PW-23 at 2:14 pm.He was examined by Dr. N. Mohan, whose handwriting was later identified at the trial by Dr. S Roy (PW-24).It was noted in the MLC: "allegedly stabbed by some person one hour ago".There were two cut injuries noted in the MLC.He first described how the black jeans worn by the deceased were showing one cut of 2.2 cm just below the right knee.The printed shirt was having one arm folded, another straight with a button missing and showing fresh cuts and tears.One cut was 2.9 cm obliquely placed over the right middle from chest above the base of the shirt.On the left front side of the shirt there were two fresh cut marks just over the pocket and another in the middle of the pocket.Another L-shaped cut was present over the long arm and another below the collar bone.The clothing Crl.As far as the external injuries were concerned, PW-8 noticed as many as 16 wounds - four of which were contused wounds and abrasions and twelve were incised wounds.The death was due to haemorrhage consequent upon the multiple stab injuries caused by multiple sharp edged weapons.Some were caused by a double-edge weapon and others by blunt objects.The time since death was about one day prior to the conduct of the post-mortem examination.The stomach of the deceased was found empty at the time of post-mortem and this was confirmed in the cross-examination.Later the seized weapons (Ex. P7 and P8) were shown to PW-8 and he confirmed that the incised stab wounds described in the post-mortem report were possible to have been caused by these weapons.Inspector Sarabjit Singh (PW-28) was the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case.He stated that on 28th April, 1998 itself after receiving the original rukka, he came to the spot along with SI Chinta Singh (PW19).There, PW- 17 along with PW-2, PW-6 and Head Constable (HC) Ram Parkash (PW-29) met him.On the pointing out of PW-2, PW-28 prepared the site plan (Ex.PW28/A).He collected the blood and the bloodstained earth and control earth samples from the spot.A chappal (slipper) was also lying on the spot which was seized and sealed by him.The clothes of PW-2 were also seized and sealed by him.On 30th April, 1997, PW-28 received information that Chottu @ Rafiq (A-1) was present at his house near Pare Wali Masjid within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli.One public witness Amit Kaul (PW-16) joined PW-28 and his team.On the pointing out of the informer, A-1, who was standing at the gate of his house, was apprehended.Upon interrogation, A-1 made a disclosure statement and offered to get the knife and his bloodstained pant recovered from the house of his chacha (uncle) in Village Chandanhola.He then led the police party there and from the outer room beneath the gadda took out a green polythene bag in which bloodstained jeans and a bloodstained dagger were found.The dagger was sealed in a cloth parcel.The jeans pant was also sealed in a separate parcel.A-1 was arrested and his personal search was undertaken.16. A-1 then led the police party to Village Asola, to the house of Bijender (A-2) who was found present there at the time.He too was interrogated and disclosed that the knife used by him was kept in the inner room of his house.He then got the said knife recovered which was then seized and sealed.He was apprehended and his personal search was conducted.According to PW-5, he and the deceased were going to Safdarjung Hospital to meet a relative of PW-5, who had been admitted there.They intended to ask for the ward number in the hospital from PW-5s house.PW-5 then went to a nearby room of Harish @ Bawa to seek help.PW-2 and PW-3 who were present there accompanied PW-5 to the spot and tried to intervene.However, A-1 and the others inflicted injuries on PW-2 as well.They attacked the deceased and PW-2 with knives they were carrying.He stated that although he had identified A-3 when he had gone to Tihar Jail for the TIP "he was not involved in commission of crime on the date of the incident." Again in the cross-examination by counsel for A-3, PW-2 stated that he had seen A-3 for the first time in the PS and he was "not one of the assailants".However, when it came to A-5, he admitted that Crl.A.507/2002); and Hashim Siddiqui (A-5) (Appellant in Crl.A.716/2002) for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 2 of 31The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 5th April, 2002 whereby each of the Appellants was sentenced by the trial Court as under:By the impugned judgment, three of the accused, i.e., A-6, A-7 and A-8, were acquitted of the said offence.The further charge was that all the Appellants along with a proclaimed offender (PO) Shakil in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous injuries to Puneet (PW-2) with a sharp object and thereby Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 3 of 31 committing an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 3 of 31There were two MLCs prepared at AIIMS - one concerning the deceased (Ex.PW24/A) and the other concerning PW-2 (Ex.PW24/B).The MLC of the deceased showed that he was brought there by PW-23 and brother Suresh Mehta (PW-1) at 2:12 pm.It was recorded there that he was brought Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 4 of 31 dead.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 4 of 31The first was a 4.5 cm injury in the palm, which was a linear cut started just below the wrist line.The second was a horizontal clear cut over the dorsal aspect of the left index finger above the MP Joint.The nature of injuries were noted as grievous.Meanwhile at 2.02 pm, another information recorded as DD No.14A (Ex.PW8/D) was received at PS Mehrauli regarding the stabbing with a knife near Shiv Mandir, Main Market, Mehrauli.This too was marked to PW-17 by the Duty Officer (DO).A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 5 of 31 showed tears and cuts corresponding to the injuries all over the body.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 5 of 31After the post-mortem was completed, he collected the clothes of the deceased and other articles and deposited them in the Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 6 of 31 malkhana.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 6 of 31Arrests and seizuresA-3 also made a disclosure statement and offered to get the knife used by him recovered from the paharis of Andheria More.The police party went there and undertook a search but the knife could not be recovered.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 7 of 31On 1st May, 1997, the three accused were produced in the concerned Court and remanded to judicial custody.A test identification parade (TIP) was fixed for 9th May, 1997, but A-2 refused to participate in it.On 31st May, 1997, PW-28 received secret information that Mohd. Hanif @ Monty (A-4) would come near the Modi Hospital, Hauz Rani.On the pointing out of PW-2 present as a public witness with the police party, A-4 was arrested and his personal search conducted.He made a disclosure statement and offered to get the knife and the clothes used by him at the time of the incident recovered from a place in Bulandshahar.However, despite search in several places, including Bulandshahar neither the knife nor the clothes could be recovered.On 3rd June, 1997, PW-28 received information that Hashim Siddiqui (A-5) would be present at the Mehrauli Bus Terminal.Again on the pointing out of PW-2, he was arrested.He too made a disclosure statement and offered to get the knife used by him and the clothes worn by him recovered from Bulandshahar.Despite search, those articles could not be recovered.A- 5 is stated to have refused to join the TIP.At the end of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and by an order dated 4th January, 1999, charges were framed against the five accused persons, as indicated hereinabove.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 8 of 31On behalf of the prosecution, 29 witnesses were examined.In the initial statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC), each of the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them.Each of them claimed to have been falsely implicated.After the opinion of the doctor (PW-8) as regards the use to the weapons recovered was received, further statement was recorded of each of the accused.No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.By the judgment dated 2nd April, 2002, the trial Court reached the following conclusions:It only meant that their testimonies required to be examined cautiously and minutely.There was nothing to infer that prior to 11 th June, 1997, he never met the police or informed them about the incident.If the IO did not record his statement earlier than 11th June, 1997, PW-5 could not be blamed for the delay.It would also not be a ground for rejecting his eye witness testimony.Further, only because PW-5 could not give details of the ailment from Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 9 of 31 which his relative was suffering, and which relative had been admitted for that purpose at Safdarjung Hospital where PW-5 and the deceased were going to visit him, would not discredit his testimony altogether.If there was inconsistency between the ocular and the medical evidence, the former would be preferred if otherwise found to be trustworthy and truthful.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 9 of 31Merely because PW-5 did not try to save the deceased at the time of incident and did not accompany him to the hospital, cannot lead to the conclusion that he was not an eye witness.v. PW-5 saying in his evidence that A-3 was not one of the assailants showed his truthfulness.The presence of PW-5 got strengthened from the fact that in his cross-examination on behalf of A-1 and A-4, it was suggested to him that when he had gone to the terrace of Kalra Flour Mill, he did not see anything.Further, PW-5 had no prior enmity with any of the accused persons.He knew A-1 and A-4 before the incident and, therefore, he was able to describe what they did to the deceased.PW-5 did not know either A-2 or A-5, but was able to identify them in the Court as persons who had inflicted injuries on the deceased with the knives.His evidence remained unshaken and, therefore, his oral testimony was sufficient to bring home the guilt of the A-A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 10 of 31The evidence of PW-5 was corroborated by the post mortem report and his presence being mentioned in the FIR itself.Moreover, A-2 and A-5 had refused to participate in the TIP.According to Inspector Sarabjit Singh (PW-28), both A-2 and A-5 had been kept in muffled faces and therefore there was nothing to show that they had been shown to PW-5 before the TIP.Likewise, the cross-examination of PW-2 also did not yield much for the accused.It could not be shown that the accused had been shown to PW-2 in the PS before the TIP.Even though PW-2 exonerated A-3, his evidence could not be rejected on that ground.PW-2 named A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 as the persons who had inflicted injuries on the deceased and himself.He also deposed that on 28th April, 1997, he could not tell the police that there were six assailants as he was perplexed.He was an injured witness and therefore his presence at the time of occurrence could not be doubted.As regards the presence of PW-1, the brother of the deceased, neither PW-2 nor PW-18 or PW-23 had claimed that PW1 was present at the spot.A comparison of the statement made to the police by PW-1 under Section 161 Cr PC showed that he had not therein disclosed about having taken the deceased to the hospital even before the arrival of the police.According to PW-5, the house of the deceased was five minutes walking distance from the place of the incident, so, it is possible that PW-1 might well have reached AIIMS around the same time as the deceased and Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 11 of 31 PW-2, met the doctor and got his name mentioned in the MLC, as a relative of the deceased.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 11 of 31x. The failure to take the bloodstained clothes of constable Vijender (PW23) did not weaken the case of the prosecution.The IO was not cross examined on this aspect.The discrepancy about PW-17 claiming that he and PW-23 had placed the deceased in a three-wheeler whereas PWs 2 and 3 claimed that they had done so did not amount to a contradiction because PW-17 did not say that the others were not present at that time.The failure of PW-2 to disclose the names of the assailants to the doctor who had examined him could not result in his evidence being discarded in its entirety.Since the FIR had actually been lodged on the statement of the injured eye witness PW-2 and which contained the name of the accused, the failure to disclose the name to the doctor at the time of medical examination would not be fatal to the prosecution.As regards the alleged ante-timing of the FIR, HC Ranbir Singh (PW-10) who recorded it was not cross examined on this aspect.PW-17 leaving the PS for the spot without informing the SHO was not unusual considering that his first duty was to help the deceased.The fact that even with his injuries, PW-2 had gone to the PS immediately and then was taken to the hospital where he was medically examined at 2.15 pm and the prompt lodging of the FIR thereafter added guarantee to the veracity of his testimony.The collective examination of the testimonies of PWs 2, 3 and 5 showed that six persons were really involved in the incident.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 12 of 31Since PW-2 had correctly identified A3 in the TIP, his statement about the involvement of A-3 could be relied upon.If indeed A-3 was not involved, then PW-3 could not have identified him in the TIP.PW-3 corroborated PWs 2 and 5 where he too had stated that there were six assailants.The non-examination of public witnesses present at the time of the incident was also not fatal to the prosecution.xiv. A-3 and A-4 had taken the plea of alibi but these pleas were held to be false and this proved another link in the chain of circumstances.The discrepancy in the site plan about the exact spot of the crime was again not material enough since the bloodstained earth lifted by the police contained human blood of group A as per the FSL report and the blood group of the deceased was of A group.However, because of the long lapse of time, the blood could not be detected on some of the exhibits.The non-examination of the driver of the TSR was not significant as it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every person.The evidence regarding the arrest and recovery of two weapons at the instance of A-1 and A-2 was spoken to by an independent witness PW-16, who, however, turned hostile.The police witnesses have, however, spoken consistently in this regard.The evidence of police witnesses could be, therefore, safely relied upon for proving the recoveries.The trial Court concluded that the prosecution was able to prove the Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 13 of 31 charges against A-1 to A-5 and proceeded to convict them for the offences with which they were charged.It sentenced them accordingly.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 13 of 31This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mohd. Hanif @ Monti (A-4); Mr. Mukesh Kalia, learned counsel appearing for Bijender (A-2); Ms Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel appearing for Rafiq Ahmed @ Chottu (A-1); Mr. Sumer Kumar Sethi, learned counsel appearing for Mohd. Shahid (A-3); and Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for Hashim Siddiqui (A-5).Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP, made submissions for the State.Law relating to eye witness testimonyA.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 14 of 31Further, minor discrepancies would not usually affect the credibility of an eye witness testimony for a variety of reasons.Straight from the spot, PW-2 immediately went to PS Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 17 of 31 Mehrauli, met Inspector R.P. Sharma (PW-17), who along with Constable Vijender (PW-23) rushed to the spot and found the deceased in an injured condition.PW-23 then took the deceased and PW-2 to AIIMS.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 17 of 3131. PW-2, apart from being an eye witness, also spoke about the motive for the occurrence.According to him, about 3-4 months prior to 28th April, 1997, the deceased and PW-2 had a quarrel with A-1 and A-4 at a school cricket ground in front of Qutab and had beaten them up.According to PW-2, on 26th April, 1997, two days prior to the incident, A-1 and A-4 had quarrelled with the deceased and PW-2 whilst they were at the Mehrauli bus stand.As already noted, both the deceased and PW-2 were taken to AIIMS at around 2:12 pm.The deceased was declared brought dead.PW-2 was severely injured, as his injuries were marked grievous.PW-17 recorded the statement of PW-2 at AIIMS itself at around 4.15 pm after the doctor there declared him fit for statement.Thereafter, the FIR was registered on the basis of the said statement at around 5.30 pm.The criticism of the evidence of PW-2 is that he was not present at the spot and was a planted witness.It is contended that PW-2 could have easily inflicted those injuries on himself because they were cut wounds on the left wrist and left palm.It is submitted that according to PW-17, he had moved an application (Ex.It is submitted that when the handwriting on this Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 18 of 31 application is compared with the handwriting of the statement itself (Ex.PW2/A), they are different and therefore this raised a grave suspicion whether at PW-2 was present at all.Since there was only one statement of PW-2, it belied his presence at the spot.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 18 of 31The above criticism overlooks the fact that there is a mention in the rukka at the bottom that PW-2 had reached PS Mehrauli, met PW-17 at the front gate and told him about the stabbing of one of his friends nearby.There was no time to make a DD entry for this and this led to PW-17 along with PW-23 immediately rushing for the spot.This appears to be entirely probable.What PW-17 did was to send PW-23 along with the deceased and PW-2 to AIIMS in a TSR while he himself stayed back at the spot.Shortly thereafter at 2.02 pm, DD No.14A was noted at PS Mehrauli (Ex.PW8/D) regarding the stabbing by knife at the Shiv Mandir Main Market, Mehrauli.At 2:12 p.m., the deceased was declared brought dead.Soon thereafter at 2:14 p.m., PW-2 was shown as brought to AIIMS.He too was examined by the same doctor, Dr. N. Mohan [whose handwriting has been identified by Dr. S. Roy (PW-24)].The Court is not persuaded to disbelieve the MLCs.There was no need for a doctor at AIIMS to falsify the record in order to falsely implicate the Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 19 of 31 accused.With PW-2 having been brought in an injured condition and his MLC noting the injury to be serious, the Court rejects the plea that PW-2 deliberately inflicted the injuries upon himself.It is also not possible to accept the plea that the DD No.14A regarding stabbing by the knife and the noting in the bottom of the rukka about PW-2 having reached the PS to complain about the stabbing incident were fabricated.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 19 of 31FIR No.229/1997 was registered at 4:45 p.m. This meant that the statement of PW-2 was recorded prior thereto.It was entirely probable that PW-2 was declared fit for giving that statement after about 2 hours after he was brought to the AIIMS.The evidence of PW-17 is very clear that PW-2s statement was indeed recorded at the hospital.It is only after his statement was recorded, that the rukka was prepared and sent for registration of the FIR.He mentioned how PW-3 was present there and how when PW-2 tried to interfere and save the deceased, A-1 attacked him as well.Much was made about the so-called discrepancies in the deposition of PW-2 when compared with those of PW-3. PW-2 is supposed to have stated that PW-3 was in the hospital whereas PW-3 denied it.PW-2 is supposed to have stated that at 6 pm he was taken from the hospital to the PS and PW-3 Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 20 of 31 was not with them whereas PW-28 stated that PW-2 and PW-3 both came to the PS from the hospital.The Court does not consider these discrepancies to be material enough since PW-2 has confirmed the presence of PW-3 at the spot and PW-3 also does not deny it.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 20 of 31There is an issue regarding PW-1 having been present at the spot and having removed the deceased with the help of Bobby and Ajay.Why PW-1 deposed to that effect is not known particularly since he makes no mention of this in his previous statement to the police.Also, Bobby and Ajay were not examined.The question really arises as to whether PW-1 who, for some reason was not declared hostile by the APP, was speaking the truth about the presence of PW-2 at the hospital.As far as PW-2 is concerned, his evidence is corroborated by the records of AIIMS and also the records of PS Mehrauli.He is an injured witness, as proved by the medical evidence.He made a statement within two hours of the incident naming two of the accused and speaking about their being accompanied by the two others.There was also a submission made about PW-2 stating that he along with the two police officials returned to the spot in the same TSR they took the deceased in to AIIMS.The Court is aware that the TSR driver has not been examined or the bloodstains on the TSR have not been proved.It is true that PW-2 was cross examined by the APP, but this was only to elicit more details from him.The main portion of his deposition itself lends assurance to his presence at the scene of crime.In court also, he correctly pointed out to A-1, A-4, A-2 and A-5 as the persons who were attacking the deceased with knives.The post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Murathi (PW-8) who noticed multiple incised stab wounds and contusions and abrasions.Clearly, this could not have been the handiwork of only one person.It had to be the handiwork of several persons, each of whom was armed with a sharp-edged weapon.There is further corroboration by the forensic evidence as well.The bloodstained clothes of PW-2 were seized and sealed and were sent for the FSL examination and they confirmed the presence of human blood and in particular the blood group of the deceased.This was yet another Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 22 of 31 confirmation of the presence of PW-2 at the scene of crime.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 22 of 31It was submitted that it was unnatural for PW-2 to be rushing first to the PS instead of trying to save the deceased.With the numerous stab wounds suffered by the deceased, PW-2 must have taken him to be dead and in fact he was brought dead at the hospital.It is not as if he immediately rushed to the PS, when he saw the deceased being attacked.In fact, he intervened to save the deceased.It must also be remembered that PW-5 first sought to seek help by going to the room near the place of occurrence.This was natural for a person who is a close friend of the deceased.When PW-2 saw the assailants armed with knives and that they were outnumbered, the natural reaction was to seek help.It is only when he failed to save the deceased and got himself injured that he ran to the PS.Although it was a busy public thoroughfare, it is not surprising that the members of the public did not come forward to help them.It is, therefore, natural for him to seek the help of the police even in the first instance.He was subjected to searching and extensive cross- examination on behalf of each of the accused.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 23 of 31 he had not known his name earlier and came to know about his name in the PS, but at that time A-5 was not present.The core part of the testimony PW- 2 lends assurance to the Court that he is speaking the truth.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 23 of 31Therefore, while in the rough site plan, the presence of PW-2 was not shown, it is certainly shown in the scaled site plan.The Kalra Flour Mill is shown in the rough site plan and not in the scaled site plan.The Court is, therefore, not able to conclude that PW-2 was a planted witness.The criticism against his deposition by the learned counsel for A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 deserves to be rejected.Now turning to the other two eye witnesses, PWs 3 and 5, it is seen that they have not entirely supported the prosecution.PW-3 was certainly present at the scene of crime.His examination-in-chief does indicate that he himself witnessed the quarrel going on between the deceased and A-1 and two or three other persons.He also clearly speaks about A-1 having inflicted injuries on the deceased.He also points to A-2 having inflicted injuries on PW-3 himself.He has been able to indentify A-1 only in the Court.He concealed himself behind a shop in Mehrauli Market.Therefore, he did not accompany the deceased and PW-2 at the first instance.As far as PW-5 is concerned, although his statement is shown to have been recorded only on 11th June, 1997, it is clear from his deposition that he was going along with the deceased to Safdarjung Hospital and he was very Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 24 of 31 much present at the scene of crime.It is clear that he ran to the terrace of the Kalra Flour Mill in order to save himself.He clearly identified A-1 and A-4 giving knives blows to the deceased along with two others and also PWs 2 and 3 being attacked when they went to rescue the deceased.This portion of the deposition of PW-5 fully supports the prosecution.The mere fact that his statement under Section 161 Cr PC may have been shown to be recorded on 11th June, 1997 does not per se dilute his testimony during his examination- in-chief.Much was made by counsel for the Appellants about the alleged delay in the registration of the FIR by treating it as having been registered at 8.30 pm and not earlier.The original of the FIR has been seen by the Court.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 27 of 31Although he was not named in the rukka itself, PW-2 is shown as having said that A-1 and A-4 Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 28 of 31 were accompanied by two other persons.These two, which included A-2, were correctly identified by PW-2 even in the Court.PWs 3 and 5 also corroborated PW-2 as far as the role of A-2 is concerned since both of them identified him in the Court.By not participating in the TIP, A-2 risked being identified correctly in the Court by the two other eye witnesses as well.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 28 of 31No doubt, the independent witness to the recovery of knife i.e. Amit Kaul (PW-16) turned hostile, but nothing much has been elicited from the testimony of police witnesses to discredit their testimony with regard to the recoveries made.It is pointed out that the knife recovered from A-2, when sent to the FSL, did not show the presence of blood.A-3 deserves acquittalWhere the trial Court perhaps went wrong was in maintaining the conviction of Shahid (A-3) who has clearly been exonerated by PW-2 and to Crl.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 29 of 31 some extent by PW-5 as well.While the Court is satisfied that the conviction of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 could safely be based on the testimony of PW-2, on the same yardstick A-3 could not have possibly been convicted by the trial Court.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 29 of 31The recovery of the bloodstained clothes and dagger at the instance of A-1 and A-2 on 30th April, 1997 has sought to be proved by the police witnesses.Although A-3 was identified by PW-2 at the TIP, in his deposition in the Court, PW-2 clearly stated that A-3 was not involved.(i) This Court upholds the conviction and the sentence awarded to A-1 (Rafiq Ahmed @ Chottu), A-2 (Bijender), A-4 (Mohd. Hanif @ Monti) and A-5 (Hashim Siddiqui) for the offences with which they were charged in terms of the impugned judgment and the corresponding order on sentence of the trial Court.(ii) As far as A-3 (Mohd. Shahid) is concerned, the Court sets aside his conviction and the consequent order on sentence and acquits him of the offences with which he was charged.A.370/2002 & connected appeals Page 30 of 31As a result, Crl.Appeal Nos. 404/2002, 507/2002, 529/2002 and 716/2002 are hereby dismissed.The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the Appellants in the said appeals i.e. A-1 (Rafiq Ahmed @ Chottu), A-2 (Bijender), A-4 (Mohd. Hanif @ Monti ) and A-5 (Hashim Siddiqui ) are hereby cancelled.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,280,859 |
The substratum of prosecution case, as noticed in the impugned judgment, is as under:-A.891/2016 Page 1 of 7Verily, on 09.06.2012, 5/6 persons were deputed to report to Munshi Ram in order to do some work in the park of Sadiq Nagar.However, the labours arrived late at about 01.00 P.M., or so and it was decided that the scheduled work shall be started tomorrow morning.Mushi Ram handed over the keys of the store room / rest room to that group so that they may stay there overnight and start their work early in the morning presumably due to the heat being at its peak in the month of June.When Munshi Ram arrived at the nursey on the next morning i.e. 10.06.2012, he found that the iron gate was locked.He was having a duplicate key, with the help of which he opened the gate and found one of those persons who were deputed to work and permitted to stay overnight, in the pool of blood.Police arrived at the scene from the police station Defence Colony in terms of the information received and reduced the same into writing vide D.D. No. 11-A.Prosecution had relied upon evidence of 30 witnesses and material evidence adverted to, is of Monu Verma (PW-13) and Munshi Ram (PW-15).Apart from it, there is evidence of Investigating Officer - SI Rattan Singh (PW-22).(ORAL)Appellant was tried for committing murder of Kundan Verma, s/o Laxmi Prasad Bhagat, on the night intervening 9th/ 10th June, 2012, in a room of CPWD Horticulture Nursery, at Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi and upon conclusion of trial in FIR No.67/2012, registered at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi, he stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment of 30th March, 2016 and vide order of 11th April, 2016, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.The medical evidence comprises of depositions of Dr. Ravinder Shukla (PW-23) who had prepared the MLC (Ex.PW-23/A) of deceased and Dr. Sanjay Kumar-II (PW-5), who had conducted post- mortem of the deceased.As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was antemortem craniocerebral injury and its complications produced by blunt force, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Weapon of offence i.e. small gas cylinder (Ex.P1) was recovered from the spot.The stand taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial court is as under:-A.891/2016 Page 2 of 7"I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case.I was called to the PS to make some enquiry but thereafter, I was falsely implicated in this case and then produced before the court.Infact, the police has implicated me falsely in order to solve their case."Appellant had chosen not to lead evidence in his defence.At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant has endeavoured to assail the evidence of Monu Verma (PW-13) and Munshi Ram (PW-15) but in the alternative, has submitted that the incident in question was a result of a petty quarrel which took place at the spot and injury sustained by Kundan Verma is solitary one.According to learned counsel for appellant, Monu Verma (PW-13) in his evidence has clarified that the quarrel had taken place on a petty issue between him and appellant.Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of evidence on record, we find that Monu Verma (PW-13) in his evidence has categorically deposed that a quarrel had taken place on a petty issue and when the appellant had started beating Monu Verma (PW-13), Kundan Verma had come to rescue him and thereafter, only appellant had grabbed the collar of his shirt and slapped him twice and blood started Crl.A.891/2016 Page 3 of 7 oozing from the nose of appellant and thereafter matter was pacified and appellant as well as deceased and other persons present there, after taking meals had slept at the spot.However, this witness (PW-13) had deposed that in the intervening night of 9/10 June, 2012, he woke up on hearing the noise of quarrel and he saw that a small gas cylinder was in the hands of appellant and appellant had hit Kundan Verma with that gas cylinder on his head and then Kundan Verma had fallen down and became unconscious.Then, appellant as well as other witnesses present at the spot fled away.A.891/2016 Page 3 of 7As per the MLC (Ex.PW-23/A) of the deceased, there was incised wound (4*1 cm over chin) and right ear of Kundan Verma was partly cut.As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased was antemortem craniocerebrali injury and its complications produced by blunt force, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Considering the fact that the incident in question had taken place on a petty issue and a solitary blow was given by appellant to the Crl.A.891/2016 Page 6 of 7With aforesaid modification in the impugned Judgment and order on sentence, this appeal is disposed of.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,282,074 |
Despite service of notice none has appeared on behalf of private respondent.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 110 of 2019, under Sections 363, 376DA IPC and Section 4/3 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the FIR, the young girl of 13 years was ravished by the applicant.The story culled out in the FIR that the victim was sleeping on the top floor (III floor), in the night of 30.01.2019 and on the next day she was found missing.On the very next day i.e. on 31.01.2019, she has given call to her Mausi Anjali that she is standing near Murad Nagar, Gung Nahar Powerhouse.As per the medical report she is aged about 16 years, and giving variation of two years, she is major.She on her own volition went to Murad Nagar, Gung Nahar without informing any family member to meet the applicant, it fully indicates that she was having consensual relationship with the applicant.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.01.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and 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- Vishal, 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 case crime no. 110 of 2019, under Sections 363, 376DA IPC and Section 4/3 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,871,877 |
A.(MD)No.02 of 2012 and also levied with fine, vide Judgment dated 06.01.2012 in S.C.No.195 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi.2.The prosecution case is that on 20.04.2010, at about 06.00 pm., when the victim was waiting in Thisayanvilai bus stand, the appellant induced her accompany him in his two wheeler.The appellant assured the victim that he would drop her at her village.But enroute, he took her to a lonely spot and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.The victim lodged Ex.Based on Ex.P1- Complaint, Ex.P11-FIR in Crime No.43 of 2010 was registered for the offences 376 and 506(ii) of IPC.Investigation was taken up and final report came to be laid against the appellant for the aforesaid offences before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam.Charges were framed against the appellant for these two offences.The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.M.O.1 and M.O.2 were also marked.The two wheeler, on which, the appellanthttp://www.judis.nic.in2/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.02 of 2012 had taken the victim, was produced, but not marked.The learned trial Judge, after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant under both the provisions and sentenced him as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this appeal came to be filed.P.W.1 had described as to what happened in her chief examination.Her testimony could not at all be shaken in the cross examination.In fact, the cross examination was conducted in such a manner as to suggest that there was an implicit consent.In fact, one question posed to the victim was that the appellant was known to her and that as a result, her name was linked to the appellant by the villagers.The victim answered the said question in the affirmative.The mother of the victim also deposed that on the occurrence date, the victim came home late and that she had reported to her mother that the accused had sexual intercourse with her.The victim was a student of the tailoring class.She had studied upto 8th standard.P.W.5 was the one who was running the tailoring class.He clearly stated that there was an intimacy between the accused and the victim.Interestingly, P.W.5 was nothttp://www.judis.nic.in3/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.02 of 2012 cross examined.P.W.6 is a Mahazar Witness.P.W.7 is the Radiologist.He issued Ex.P.W.9 is the Doctor who examined the accused and he had issued the potency certificate for the accused.P.W.10 produced the victim before the in-charge Magistrate.P.W.11 is the Doctor who examined the victim.P.W.12 produced the accused before the Magistrate and got him remanded.P.W.14 had purchased the two wheeler in question from the accused.P.W.15 was the head constable who registered the FIR.P.W.16 conducted part of the investigation.P.W.17 completed the remaining part of the investigation and filed final report.4.It is true that the Doctor who examined the victim, stated that no injuries were found on the person of the victim.It is also true that there was a delay of some three days in lodging the FIR.The father of the victim was not examined.The testimony of the mother does look a bit doubtful, because, she had claimed that injuries were found on the body of the victim.Even though there are such deficiencies in the prosecution case, I am of the view that the prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.The victim must have been aged just around 16 years.Of-course, she had claimed that she was aged 14 yearshttp://www.judis.nic.in4/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.02 of 2012 before the Doctor who examined her initially.Even if we assume that the victim was aged above 16 on the occurrence date, that would still not absolve the appellant.The victim had clearly and categorically stated that she did not give her consent for having sexual intercourse with the appellant.It is the admitted case of the appellant that he was a married person and he was having two children on the occurrence date.In fact, that is the specific question posed to the victim in her cross examination by the learned counsel for the appellant.The accused was aged around 32 years when the occurrence took place.Even by conservative estimate, the victim was half the age of the appellant.When the accused was a married person having two children, it is simply improbable that an young girl of impressionable age can be said to have given any consent.No motive has been ascribed by the accused.In fact, even in the cross examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused merely characterised the incriminating circumstances as false.He has not come out with any defence version.There is simply no reason as to why a false complaint should have been given against the accused.Merely because, there was no injury on the person of the victim that does not mean, there was a consensual sexual intercourse between the two.A.(MD)No.02 of 2012 the victim had come out with any false complaint.The accused has not come out with any specific defence as to why the prosecutrix should falsely implicate him.Therefore, looked at from any angle, I concur with the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for finding the accused guilty and for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt.5.Having regard to the evidence on record, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that he would not challenge the conviction and that, he would only plead for modification and reduction in the matter of sentence.Since the appellant had admitted his guilt through his counsel before this Court and since he is having a family to support, even though, the crime committed by him is rather grave, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 376 of IPC from 10 years to five years rigorous imprisonment.The sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC stands reduced from five years to one year rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences will run concurrently.A.(MD)No.02 of 20126.With this modification in the matter of sentence, this criminal appeal stands partly allowed.2.The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Thoothukudi District.http://www.judis.nic.in7/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.02 of 2012 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.rmi Crl.A(MD)No.02 of 2012 09.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in8/8
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,874,597 |
For the Appellant : Smt. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate.For the Respondent/State : Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.The prosecution case in brief is that on the occasion of Diwali after `Goverdhan Puja' on 8.11.1999, Shyamlal went at the house of his cousin Ganesh Prasad and told to him that accused persons were beating him.In the meanwhile, accused Maniram and Brajlal reached there and after catching, made him to fall on stone and assaulted him with fists and kicks and also with sticks.As a result of assault, Shyamlal suffered injuries on his head, ear and shoulders.It is not disputed that deceased suffered injuries which resulted into his death.Date of hearing : 20/11/2012 Date of judgment: 27/11/2012 (J U D G M E N T ) Per: Rakesh Saksena; J, Appellant Brajlal has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 17.8.2001 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No. 56/2000, convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2000/-.In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.At the outset, it would be appropriate to mention that in Sessions Trial No. 56/2000, two accused persons viz. Brajlal and Maniram were tried.Since, appellant Brajlal absconded, trial of accused Maniram was completed and by judgment dated 11.7.2000, Maniram was convicted.Against his (2) Cr.1416/2001 conviction, Maniram filed Criminal Appeal No. 2583/2000, which is pending.After arrest of Brajlal, evidence of Radhelal, Omkar, Ganesh and Dilip Kumar were recorded afresh as PW10, PW11, PW12 and PW13, but, since, learned counsel for Brajlal did not opt to cross examine witnesses viz. Komal Prasad (PW4), Dinesh Kumar (PW5), Chhaganlal (PW6), Dr. R.K.Chaturvedi (PW7) and Rajkumar (PW8) afresh, their statements were accepted in evidence against Brajlal.Ganesh Prasad went to the house of Radhelal, brother of Shyamlal and called him.Radhelal carried Shyamlal to his house and made arrangements to take him to a doctor, but on way Shyamlal died.Radhelal gave intimation of the occurrence at police out post Dora, whereupon merg intimation report Ex. P/2 and first information report Ex. P/3 were recorded.The dead body of Shyamlal was sent to Primary Health Centre, Baihar, where Dr. R.K.Chaturvedi (PW7) (3) Cr.1416/2001 conducted postmortem examination and vide his report Ex. P/12 found six injuries on the body of deceased.After requisite investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.On charges being framed, accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity.Though, no specific defence plea was taken, but it was suggested to eye witness that deceased contracted injuries on being dashed by a cow or by a fall on the stone under intoxication.Prosecution, to substantiate the charge against accused persons mainly relied on the evidence of Ganesh (PW12), Dinesh Kumar (PW5), Chhaganlal (PW6) and Radhelal (PW10).Chhaganlal (PW6) and Radhelal (PW10) did not support the prosecution case; they were declared hostile.Finding the evidence of Ganesh (PW12) corroborated by the evidence of Dinesh and Dr. R.K.Chaturvedi (PW7), learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.Aggrieved by his conviction, appellant has filed the present appeal.In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified since there appeared no intention on the part of appellant to commit murder of the deceased.Accused persons (4) Cr.1416/2001 and the deceased were under intoxication and they had indulged in scuffle and quarrel before the appellant dealt lathi blows to him.In these circumstances, at the most appellant could be punished only under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of eye witness Ganesh (PW12) was reliable and stood corroborated by other evidence on record.In view of the nature of injuries found on the body of deceased, the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was justified.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.From the evidence of Radhelal (PW10), Dinesh (PW5) and Ganesh (PW12), it stood established that Shyamlal suffered injuries and died.Radhelal (PW10) stated that when he was taking Shyamlal to hospital, he died on way, then he went to police out post, Dora and lodged merg report Ex. P/2 and first information report Ex.Police then sent the dead body for postmortem examination.Dr. R.K.Chaturvedi (PW7), Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Baihar stated that on 10.11.1999 he conducted postmortem examination of the body of Shyamlal and found following injuries:(i) Contusion on right shoulder joint extending up to back scapula on right side 6" x 4" in size irregular.Contusion (5) Cr.1416/2001 extending up to 8th rib on frontal side.(ii) Contusion on left occipital region behind ear 1" x 1" in size.(iii) Contusion on left side of chest 4" x 4" in size reddish blue.(iv) Abrasion on left forehead 1/2" x 1/2" in size with clotted blood.In his opinion, the injuries were anti mortem in nature.They were caused by some hard and blunt object.The cause of death was shock due to injury to vital organ i.e. rupture of right liver, spleen, kidney, fracture of right shoulder bone and also by excessive bleeding.It is thus established that deceased met with a homicidal death.Now the question is whether appellant was responsible for causing death of deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of sole eye witness Ganesh, who happened to be the cousin of deceased was not reliable since it was not corroborated by the real brother of deceased Radhelal (PW10), who had lodged the first information report (6) Cr.It is true that eye witness Ganesh (PW12) is cousin of deceased, and Radhelal (PW10) who is real brother of deceased, has not supported his version, but merely because of his being relative of deceased, testimony of Ganesh cannot be discarded altogether if it is found otherwise reliable.It is all the more important that Ganesh spoke against the appellant even when real brother of deceased did not support the prosecution case.Ganesh categorically stated that at about 4 O' clock in the evening deceased came to his house and told that Brajlal and Maniram were bent upon beating him.In the mean time, both of them reached there and after catching him started beating him by hands and also with sticks.Shyamlal suffered injuries and became unconscious.He called Radhelal and informed him about the fact of Shyamlal been assaulted by the accused persons.Shyamlal was taken to doctor, but later on he came to know that Shyamlal died.In cross examination, Ganesh (PW12) admitted that on the day of occurrence deceased and both the accused persons had consumed liquor, but he firmly denied that Shyamlal suffered injuries by the push of cows running after `Goverdhan Puja'.He also denied that Shyamlal suffered injuries by fall on stone under intoxication.He, however, admitted that beating of Shyamlal continued for 10-12 minutes, in the course of which, accused persons slapped and grappled with him.In grappling, they fell on the stone also.He informed the incident to Radhelal and also to other village people.Radhelal (PW10), though stated that on being called by Ganesh he (7) Cr.1416/2001 went to his house and saw Shyamlal lying injured, but he denied that Ganesh told to him anything as to who assaulted Shyamlal.Dinesh (PW5) stated that in the evening after `Goverdhan Puja' when he went back to his house, he saw Shyamlal lying unconscious in his 'Badi'.His brother Ganesh told to him that accused Maniram and Brajlal assaulted him with lathis.Shyamlal could not speak anything.When they were taking him to doctor, on way he died.On a close scrutiny of the evidence of Ganesh (PW12), his evidence seems consistent and reliable.Nothing had been suggested to him that he had animus against the accused persons.We find that trial Court committed no error in holding that it was established beyond doubt that appellant assaulted deceased with stick, as a result of which, he died.On perusal of evidence of Ganesh (PW12), it is (8) Cr.1416/2001 revealed that at the time of occurrence deceased as well as accused persons were under intoxication.He did not say that there was any past enmity between the appellant and the deceased.In para-6 of his statement, he stated that initially accused persons put their sticks down and assaulted deceased with hands and legs, but later on they picked up sticks also.In the mutual `Marpeet' deceased also slapped accused persons and they fell on the ground while grappling at the place where a stone used for taking bath was kept.From the postmortem examination report Ex. P/12 given by Dr. R.K.Chaturvedi (PW7), it appears that 2nd and 8th ribs of the right side of deceased were fractured and his spleen, liver and kidney were ruptured.Though, Dr. Chaturvedi did not say, but it appears quite possible that the internal organs of the deceased might have got ruptured by the broken ribs.In these circumstances, in our opinion, it could not be held established beyond doubt that appellant assaulted deceased with the intention of committing his murder, but, since he wielded a stick and caused injuries with it on the vital part of the body of deceased, it can be held that he knew that by his act he was likely to cause his death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death, making him liable to be punished under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the above, the conviction of appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is modified to one under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a (9) Cr.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['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.
|
34,884,820 |
The present petition has been filed to quash the case registered in Crime No.279 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/3 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18540 of 2016Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the case registered in Crime No.279 of 2010 has been closed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground of limitation by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tuticorin.Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.1.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Tuticorin.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/3 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18540 of 2016 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.SML Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18540 of 2016 Dated: 22.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 3/3
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,884,878 |
The petitioners are the parents-in-law of the victim housewife, who committed suicide by setting herself on fire.We find after the incident, she was removed to the hospital where her attending Doctor recorded her statement as to how she caught fire.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
348,850 |
defense Counsel has prayed for discharge of all accused by stating that marriage between parties was solemnised in Bihar.Cruelty and harassment was done at her matrimonial house at Gorakhpur.ORDER Crl.Rev. 180/2000 & Crl.Heard learned counsel for both the parties, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court which has framed the charge has no jurisdiction to do so since the marriage was solemnised in Bihar and the girl has her marital home in Gorakpur.He however, submits that at the time when the complaint was filed the father of the girl was residing in Delhi and so the girl was also residing in Delhi.He further submits that merely because the girl residing in Delhi it does not given the Delhi Court, jurisdiction to try the case.Learned counsel for the State submits that offences u/Ss. 406 and 498A are continuous offences, and therefore, the Delhi Court will have jurisdiction since the complainant before lodging a complaint was a resident of Delhi and at that time she had not received her dowry items back.I am in agreement with learned counsel for the State and having gone through the judgment of M.M. Mahila Court, Shahdara, Delhi.I find no infirmity in the judgment under challenge.The revision petition is dismissed, accordingly.STATE VS.ROSHAN KUMAR ETC.ORDER ON CHARGE:After marriage, she was harassed by her husband Roshan, mother-in-law Meena Tiwari and father-in-law Yogender Tiwari for not bringing dowry, demanded by them.On 9th January, her parents took her to matrimonial home.She was turned out of her house by her in-law by stating that she was fat and was not beautiful.They would bring another bride who would be more beautiful and would bring more dowry.I have heard arguments from both sides.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
348,865 |
The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2010 and subsequent order on sentence date 21.09.2010 in Sessions Case No. 38/09 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.The factual matrix of the of the prosecution case is that on 11.10.2005, a PCR call vide DD No. 14-A, was received in Police Station Seelampur regarding burning of woman in House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi.On the receipt on the said DD, PW-11 S.I. Har Prasad along with PW-8 Constable Surender Kumar, reached at the spot, where they came to know that the injured had been taken to GTB Hospital by a PCR van.3. PW-11, S.I. Har Prasad left PW-8 Constable Surender CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 2 of 35 Kumar at the spot and he himself went to GTB Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Shabana Anjum who had sustained 60-65 % burn injuries.I reside at the aforesaid address.I am a house wife.My marriage was solemnized about eleven years ago.I have two daughters namely Amreen and Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey aged about 9 and 5 years respectively.My husband was harassing me for the last several months and he used to leave the house leaving me alone in the house.On 11.10.2005 at about 3.20 p.m. I was present at my house and my both daughters were playing outside the room in the veranda.My husband and brother-in-law (Jeth) came down from the terrace.Without giving me a chance to take care of myself, my brother-in-law Jafar-ul-Islam poured the kerosene oil on me and my husband lit the match stick and threw the same on me as a result whereof my clothes caught fire.My father-in- law Waheed Ahmad was exhorting to finish me today itself, actual words being "Aaj Ise Khatam Kar do, Baad me main sab dekh loonga ye aurat aise manne wali nahin hai".Both my daughters were also witnessing this incident.These people have set me ablaze with the intention of killing me.PW- 11/B, on the complaint of Shabana Anjum and got the case registered vide FIR No.615/2005 Ex. PW-9/A, in Police Station Seelampur under section 307 read with 34 IPC.During the investigation S.I. Har Prasad prepared the site plan, Ex. PW-11/C, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected one plastic bottle from the spot and some burnt clothes from the scene of crime and put the same in a parcel of cloth and sealed with the seal of GRS and seized them vide memo Ex.Thereafter the investigation was handed over to PW-14, S.I. Nitin Kumar.The discharge slip is Ex. PW-7/DA, 7/DB and 7/DC.Thereafter, on 05.12.2005 her condition deteriorated and she was again admitted in the hospital, but she succumbed to her burn injuries on the same day.The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted on 06.12.2005 by PW-1, Dr. S. Lal in GTB Hospital and the case was converted into section 302 read with section 34 IPC.As per the post mortem report Ex.PW-1/A, the cause of death was septicemic shock due to superficial to deep ante mortem CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 4 of 35 flame burns.Total area involved 60% of total body surface.The prosecution, in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses.The learned ASJ, after examining the testimonies of all the witnesses passed the impugned judgement dated 09.09.2010, wherein it was held that from the statements made by PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey coupled with the statement Ex.PW-11/A made by the deceased Shabana Anjum and the post mortem report Ex.PW-1/A, it is proved that three accused persons namely Mazhar-ul-Islam, Wahid Ahmed and Zafar-ul-Islam, in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Shabana Anjum.PW-11/A is not of the deceased Shabana Anjum, because, as per the MLC Ex. PW-6/A, there were 60-65% burns injuries on the upper part of the body.Further, PW-1, Dr. S. Lal in his cross-examination stated that superficial burns involved the epidermis of skin.When a person tries to extinguish a CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 6 of 35 fire, his palms and hands are bound to be burnt.Even PW- 2 Amreen admitted in her cross-examination that her mother was not able to take food herself as her hands including her palms and fingers were bandaged.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 6 of 35(iii) That the two eyewitnesses, namely, PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza, were tutored by their grandparents (maternal )in as much as since the date of the incident, that is, 11.10.2005, they are in their custody.(iv) That PW-3 Baby Riza stated that the three accused Upar Se Aaye that is they came from upstairs, but, according to the site plan there is no room, no stairs but only terrace.But PW-3 Riza did not see any of the accused persons going upstairs, though, as stated by her, she was playing in the veranda.The accused persons in their defense examined three witnesses namely, DW-1 Abdul Rehman, DW-2 accused Waheed Ahmed and DW-3 Mohd. Haroon.DW-1 Abdul Rehman stated that in October 2005 he had gone to the house of his sister where he came to know that the uncle of accused Waheed was admitted in the hospital.At that time Waheed used to reside in Dehradun and on 10.10.2005, he informed Waheed about the illness of his uncle.He CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 7 of 35 further stated that on 11.10.2005 Waheed came to his house at 12:00 noon and thereafter went to the hospital with him.He left Waheed at the hospital and went to his sisters house.On reaching Jafarabad he came to know about the untoward incident at the old residence of Waheed and he telephoned him at 4:00 p.m. Next day he came to know that Waheed had been taken by the police.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 7 of 35After the retirement he has moved to his house in Dehradun and on 11.10.2005 he had gone to GTB Hospital to see his uncle, he received a phone call from DW-1 Abdul Rehman that there had been a fire incident in the house of his son Mazhar-ul-Islam.After that he came to his house.After that police took him for interrogation and thereafter, detained him and after producing him before the Duty Magistrate, sent him to judicial custody.DW-3 Mohd. Haroon stated that he works at the medical store of accuse Zafar-ul-Islam and on 11.10.2010 he was present at the said medical store.At about 2:00 p.m. on that day, when he was returning from his house after taking lunch, he saw that the father-in- law of accused Mazhar-ul-Islam along with one lady in burqa and one person with beard, entered the house of Mazhar-ul-Islam.At that time CRL. A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 8 of 35 accused Zafar-ul-Islam was present at his medical store.He further stated that after 15-20 minutes the said persons left the house of Mazhar-ul-Islam and at about 3:00 p.m. the neighbors told that smoke was coming out of the house of Mazhar-ul-Islam.My mother was taken to emergency room of the hospital and myself and my younger sister were made to sit outside."A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 14 of 35Ab uprokt ka kahana hai ki isse ladka paida nahin hoga so mujhe bijlee ke chalet pankhe bina bolt ke neeche bitha lita dete hain taki pankha gire to main mar jaaon.Kabhi mere kapde faad dete hain, mitti ka tel chidakkar jalane ki koshish karte rahte hain.Sote hue mujhe va mere baccho ko kai kai din bhookha bhi rakhte hai, khane pine ko kuch nahin dete hai, marte peette hain tatha ladka paida na hone ke karan doosri shaadi karna chahte hain.Kehte hain ki isko aisi maut do taki yeh mar bhi jaye aur hum par aanch bhi na aaye.Mera saara zavar va anye kimti saaman bench chuke hain jeth fad dete hain tatha ghar se zabardasti nikal dete hain.Aapse haath jod kar vinti hai ki meri va meri santaa ki jaan va maal ki raksha CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 18 of 35 karke uprokt logon ke khilaaf kanooni karavai karke meri madad ki jaaye taaki mera va mere bachchon ka bhavishye surakshit rahe.Aapki mahaan kripa hogi."A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 18 of 35The said letter had been proved by PW-16 ASI Prem Chand who brought the complaint register of Police Station Seelam Pur, in respect of the complaint dated 10.10.2005 made by the deceased with the allegation of physical harassment and criminal intimidation which was received vide DD No.34-B and registered diary No.1192 by the Reader-Office.PW-16 deposed that the said complaint was received by the Record Moharir and relevant entry made at serial No.3 and the same was marked to ASI Giri Raj.The original complaint was also produced before the Court.It is pertinent to mention that in the cross-examination of PW-2, she has made the statement that she remembers that her mother had come to home from the hospital once and she was again admitted in the hospital.She has not denied the fact that her nana and nani had taken her mother to the hospital 2-3 times for dressing.She has admitted that the whole body of her mother was bandaged except her face.In the present case, PW-2 in her cross-examination has clearly deposed that she remembered that her mother had come to home from the hospital once and thereafter she had been admitted in the hospital.Her nana and nani had taken her to the hospital 2-3 times.The whole body of her mother was bandaged except her face when she had seen her mother when she came home at her nanas house.The discharge slip is Ex.She was declared fit for statement and PW-11 S.I. Har Prasad recorded her statement Ex. PW-11/A, wherein she made the following statement:A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 2 of 35"Statement of Smt. Shabana Anjum W/o.Mazhar-ul-Islam Aged about 29 years R/o.House No. 1312, Street No. 42, Jaffrabad, Delhi.Necessary legal action be taken against them.I have heard the statement and the same is correct.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 3 of 35RTI of Shabana Anjum"4. PW-11, S.I. Har Prasad made an endorsement, Ex.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 4 of 35After the completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused Mazhar-ul-Islam, Wahid Ahmed and Zafar- ul-Islam.Accused Zafar-ul-Islam, who was on interim bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the High Court of Delhi on 13.07.2006 and a supplementary chargesheet was filed against him.Thereafter, on 02.06.2006 charges were framed against all the three accused persons under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Thus the three accused persons were convicted under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC.Subsequently, the impugned CRL. A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 5 of 35 order on sentence dated 21.09.2010 was passed.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 5 of 35The appellants, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order on sentence, have filed the present appeals.The conviction of the appellants, has been challenged, inter alia, mainly on following grounds:(i) That there are no independent witnesses from nearby houses who had seen the appellants coming from the place of occurrence or who had put of the fire of the deceased or made the PCR call.It has also been pointed out that PW-2 Amreen in her cross-examination stated that her father was in the business of making buttons and the workers assisting her father used to come to the house every day for work except on Eid, but , none of such workers were interrogated or made to join the investigation.(ii) That the thumb impression present on Ex.They closed the shop and went to the roof and saw that there was heavy fire in the house.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 8 of 35The statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C of all the three accused persons were recorded in which they denied the allegations against them.They have also stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.Accused Mazhar-ul-Islam has stated that it is a false case registered at the instance of his in laws and his wife as he had divorced his wife prior to the incident.He has further stated that his daughters were constantly under the influence of their mother and after her demise, they came under the influence of their maternal grand parents (nana and nani) in general and grand mother (nani) in particular.His eldest daughter Amreen ran away from the custody of her nana and nani on 25th January, 2010 and she took shelter at a place where his father was staying.His father informed the police in this regard and gave custody of Amreen to police.Accused Wahid Ahmed has stated that he did not give any exhortation (lalkara).At the time of the alleged incident, he was in Dehradun CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 9 of 35 along with his ailing wife.Zafar-ul-Islam was at his shop at the time of alleged incident.He is not on visiting terms with his younger son Mazhar-ul-Islam and vice versa.He had already disowned him.Accused Zafar-ul-Islam has stated that he was not present at the spot.He was at his shop.He, being the jeth of the deceased, was entitled to claim the dead body of Shabana Anjum.He further stated that he was not on visiting terms with his brother, Mazhar-ul-Islam.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 9 of 35We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and other material placed on record by the prosecution.The following are the main submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants:That the alleged dying declaration, Ex.PW-11/A, cannot be believed as it does not bear thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum.The MLC of the deceased, Ex.PW-6/A, also does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased.That PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum, who are the daughters of deceased and Mazhar-ul-Islam, appellant in Crl A.1245/2010, are the child witnesses and were tutored by their Nana and Nani.Thus, the CRL. A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 10 of 35 statements made by them cannot be believed.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 10 of 35That Wahid Ahmed, appellant in Crl A.1310/2010, was not residing in Delhi and was not present at the spot when the alleged incident took place.That Zafar-ul-Islam, the appellant in Crl A.1311/2010 was also not present at the spot as he was in his shop at the relevant time.That IO has not investigated the case properly.He did not record the statements of public witnesses who were present there at the spot and had extinguished the fire on the body of the deceased Shabana Anjum.Let us now discuss the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.As already mentioned, the first submission of the appellants is that the dying declaration cannot be believed as the same does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased Shabana Anjum and the MLC of the deceased also does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW-6 Dr Rajni Sachan admitted that the palm of the deceased was in burnt condition.As per record, the investigating officer obtained the thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum on the statement, Ex.PW-11/A, which was CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 11 of 35 not possible as her palm was burnt.It is also argued that no certificate was given by the doctor who was present at the time of recording of the statement of the deceased Shabana Anjum about her mental state and fitness and further the said statement was not recorded by any Magistrate.The statement, Ex.PW-11/A, was recorded by SI Har Prasad on 11.10.2005 and it bears right thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum.At the time of cross-examination of PW-11, no suggestion was given to him that the said statement does not bear the thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum.As far as obtaining of certificate from the doctor pertaining to mental state and fitness of the deceased is concerned, the admitted position is that she was brought to the GTB Hospital on the date of incident and she was examined in the hospital at 4:00 p.m. vide MLC Ex. PW-6/A which revealed that she was conscious oriented.The said evidence further shows that the patient was fit for statement.The said MLC was proved by PW-6 Dr. Rajni Sachan, who had stated in the cross-examination that the patient was able to speak well and was fit for making the statement.No suggestion whatsoever was made by the defence counsel in the cross- examination that the deceased was not fit for statement and was not CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 12 of 35 conscious oriented.It was mentioned in the MLC that "Burnt area chest, abdomen, lower chin, neck, both upper limb, back throat, back abdomen approximately 60% to 65%." Since it was not specifically mentioned in the MLC that the palm and fingers were burnt, the presumption is that the investigating officer might have taken the thumb impression of the deceased.As there was no suggestion in the cross-examination of PW-6 Dr. Rajni Sachan as well as PW-11 SI Har Prasad that the same does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased Shabana Anjum, therefore, the evidence recorded in the trial court of PW-6 and PW-11 on this aspect cannot be ignored.It is settled law that if there is no cross-examination of a prosecution witness in respect of a statement of fact, it will only show the admission of that fact.Further, MLC indicates that the patient was conscious oriented and was fit for statement when her statement, Ex.PW-11/A, was recorded by PW-11 SI Har Prasad.The testimony of PW-6 remains unchallenged in cross examination, the same has to be believed as it is settled law that whenever a statement of fact made by a witness is not challenged in cross examination, it has to be taken that the fact in question is not disputed.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 12 of 35A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 13 of 35The other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the statement was recorded on 11.10.2005 whereas she died on 5.12.2005 and the said statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration of Shabana Anjum.PW-2 Amreen made her statement on the date of incident as well as before the Court.The substance of her statement before the Court reads as under:"On 11.10.2005 I and my sister Honey were playing in the verandah of the house.My mother was lying in the house.Then my father, my grandfather and my Tau ji came down.My father and my Tau ji entered the room where my mother was lying and my grandfather remained outside the room.On seeing them, my mother CRL. A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 14 of 35 got up.My grandfather uttered about my mohter, "Aaj isse khatam kar do.Main baad mein sab dekh loonga." Thereafter my Tau Jaffar-ul-Islam threw kerosene oil on my mother.Thereafter my father threw lighted match stick on the body of my mother and as a result whereof the clothes of my mother caught fire.My mother, myself and my younger sister ran out of the house crying.Some people from the street put off the fire of my mother.One of them informed the police telephnically and police came there.My mother, myself and my younger sister were taken to the hospital by the police in a police van.20. PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey, who is the daughter of the deceased and younger sister of PW-2 Amreen, who was also an eye-witness of the incident, has corroborated the testimony of PW-2 on all the material points and has supported the case of the prosecution.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 15 of 35 appellants that both have deposed falsely at the instance of their nana and nani and PW-3 has even admitted in her cross-examination that earlier she used to obey her mother and now she is obeying her nana and nani.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 15 of 35Thus, we feel that PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey are natural witnesses and are daughters of the deceased and were present in the house at the time of incident as it has come on record.It is also important to understand as to why they would falsely implicate their father, grandfather and their Tau ? The statements of PW-2 and PW-3 further fortify the fact that one day before her death, i.e., 10.10.2005, the deceased wrote a letter Ex.The extract of the said letter written in Hindi and transliterated in English CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 17 of 35 reads as under:A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 17 of 35"Vinti hai ki main makan no. 1312, Gali No. 42"Vinti hai ki main makan no. 1312, Gali No. 42In the cross- examination, it is stated by PW-16 that he did not know what steps were taken on receiving the complaint Ex.PW-16/A. Although the said complaint Ex.PW-16/A was also against the mother-in-law and Jethani, however, it appears from the complaint that one day before the incident, she had some apprehension about the incident.She was not able to take her food herself and she also admitted that her palm and fingers were bandaged.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 19 of 3525. PW-2, in her cross-examination, denied the suggestion that when she and her sister had reached the hospital at 5:00 or 5:30 p.m., her nana and nani had come prior to them.Rather she has made the statement that when her mother had reached the hospital, she was in senses and able to talk inspite of her having sustained burn injuries.She has also denied the suggestion that her statement was recorded by CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 20 of 35 the Police after she had been well tutored by nana and nani in the hospital.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 20 of 35The next submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Wahid Ahmed (the appellant in Crl A. No.1310/2010) is that he was not residing in Delhi on the date of occurrence and in fact he had shifted to Dehradoon in 2003 after his retirement from his service.He was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident.Actually he came to Delhi from Dehradoon to see his ailing uncle, who was admitted in GTB Hospital and he came to know about the incident at 4 pm.Both have deposed that at the time of incident Wahid Ahmed, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, was not present at the spot and at the relevant time he was present in GTB Hospital where his uncle was admitted.In fact, he took the plea of alibi.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was present in Dehradoon along with his ailing wife.However, in his defence evidence, he has taken different stand that at the time of incident, he was present in GTB Hospital where he had gone to see his ailing uncle.It is the admitted position that he did not examine his wife in support of his CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 21 of 35 plea that he was present in Dehradoon along with his wife nor he examined his uncle, who was admitted in the hospital, to prove that he was with him at the time of incident.The testimony of DW-1 Abdul Rehman, who was supporting his case, had made a statement that he left Waid Ahmed in GTB Hospital at 12:00 noon on the date of incident i.e. 11.10.2005 and went to his sisters house.The incident in the present case took place at about 3:20 p.m. on the said date, so it appeared that DW-1 Abdul Rehman was not with Wahid Ahmed at the relevant time of incident.Therefore, Wahid Ahmed was unable to prove his plea of alibi.The present case is a case where only the eye-witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, who are the daughters of the deceased, were present.Their statements have been found to be creditworthy and reliable and therefore, even the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has no force and it has to be ignored under the said circumstances.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 23 of 35Her mother was not able to take her food herself in her nanas house as her hand including palm and fingers were bandaged and also she was not in a position to move her hands.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 31 of 35We have also examined the statement of PW-6 Dr Rajni Sachan.From the said statement, there is a conclusion without any doubt that the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, clearly came to the conclusion that the injury was a superficial to deep partially healed flame infected burn present over neck, front of chest, abdomen over upper aspect, both upper limbs completely, front of right thigh and back of chest and abdomen completely.Total area involved approximate 60% of total surface area.Yellowish, green slough present over burns at places and the cause of death was opined to be septicemic shock due to superficial to CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 32 of 35 deep ante-mortem flame burns.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 32 of 35Admittedly at the time of admission, burnt area chest, abdomen, lower chin, neck, both upper limb, back throat, back abdomen was approximately 60% to 65%.It appears from the record that the deceased was discharged on 11.11.2005 at the request of mother of the deceased.PW-7/DA.At the time of discharge, the statement Ex.PW-7/DB of the mother of the deceased was recorded which is signed by her and she has stated that she has been informed that the patient was in critical condition and there was likelihood of risk to her life.The thumb impression of her mother was also taken on Ex.We are of the view that the statements of PW-2 Amreen & PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey are consistent and corroborative and nothing has come out in their cross-examinations which could help the case of the accused/appellants.Therefore, they have to be considered as trustworthy and reliable witnesses and question of disbelieving them does not arise.From the statement, Ex.PW-11/A, of the deceased and the post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A, it is proved that the incident took place on 11.10.2005 as alleged by the prosecution and jeth (brother-in-law) of the deceased threw kerosene oil on the deceased and husband of the deceased threw lighted match stick on her body and at the door, Wahid Ahmed, father-in-law of the CRL. A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 34 of 35 deceased, exhorted "Aaj Ise Khatam Kar Do, Baad Mein Main Sab Dekh Loonga".Therefore, it is established, without any doubt, that all the three accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Shabana Anjum.The appellants are, therefore, not entitled for the benefit of conversion of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 34 of 35The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
|
34,888,272 |
tkm/ct 28 sl no. 186 C.R.R. No. 2710 of 2017 In Re : An application under Section 397 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.And In Re : Ajay Sarkar .....petitioner Mr. Samrat Das ...... for the petitioner Mr. Sarjati Dutta ...... for the State Mr. Sarjati Dutta, learned government advocate, who ordinarily appears for the State, is requested to appear in the matter.Copy of the application be served upon him in court today.Petitioner is accused in both the cases being Santipur P.S case no. 158/2017 dated 11.4.2017 under section 448/436 IPC and Santipur P.S Case no. 171/2017 dated 18.4.2017 IPC registered under the same offences.By order dated 16.5.2017 learned magistrate has directed amalgamation of the said criminal cases as they relate to self same facts.I have examined the allegations in both the proceedings.
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
335,864 |
The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No. 16209 of 2007 to call for the Records in FIR in Crime No 3 of 2007 dated 14.5.2007 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same.The petitioner submitted in his complaint that he has received a notice dated 29.5.2007 addressed to his late father, and himself, from the Inspector of Police, Economic Offenses Wing St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, dated 28.5.2007 under Sections 160 and 91 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was asked to appear before the first Respondent on 31.5.2007 at 10.30 a.m. The notice required that the petitioner and his late father to bring the following documents namely (a) any agreement between the petitioner and his father on one side and the 2nd respondent on the other (b) cheque, DD and partnership dead.After the receipt of the first Respondent's notice, the petitioner was represented by his counsel before the first respondent.Then it was found that the FIR had been lodged by the second Respondent before the first Respondent accusing the petitioner and his late father for offences under Sections 420 and 506(2) of I.P.C.After getting the FIR copy, the petitioner has alleged that the FIR is false and baseless.As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner and his father had approached the second respondent on 4.1.2005 for financial assistance for an alleged Chit Fund business.The second respondent parted with Rs.62 lakhs and the same was not repaid.After negotiations, the petitioner and his father promised a bungalow type residence to the second respondent as settlement.As this was not done, the second respondent again approached the petitioner and his father, when the petitioner threatened the second respondent that he would engage rowdies to eliminate his family members.Subsequently, the rowdies approached the second respondent as well as called him over the phone and threatened to murder him.The second respondent feared for his life and that of his family members and so has lodged a complaint with the first respondent.By order dated 20.3.2007, the first respondent has been directed to register FIR.It is pertinent to add here that the petitioner was not impleaded as a respondent in the said Criminal Original Petition.The petitioner further submitted that there has been no such transactions as alleged by the second respondent in his complaint and relevantly, neither the petitioner nor his late father have ever been engaged in Chit fund business.In April 2006, 3 envelopes were delivered at the petitioner's address and his mother.The envelopes were empty.The petitioners father was no more, and this fact was suppressed before the Court and also before the first respondent by the second respondent.On the basis of the complaint given by the Defacto complainant, i.e., the second respondent herein, the first respondent registered a case stating that the petitioner and his father received Rs.62 lakhs for his chit fund business, and that the said amount was not repaid and hence negotiation was conducted, and that in its conclusion the petitioner had agreed to provide a house, and as this was not done, the petitioner had cheated the second respondent.Subsequently, the petitioners had threatened the second respondent for his life.The second respondent herein filed his counter statement and narrated his case that he has a good financial background, that the father of the petitioner approached him as if he has plots at Anna Nagar, Chennai which had been allotted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.Further, the petitioner's father was a big industrialist and had registered office at Royapattah.The petitioner's father requested the second respondent to give Rs.30 lakhs.On the basis of agreement, the amount was paid by the second respondent.As per agreement, the respondent became a partner of one Kalyanamandapam at Anna Nagar.Subsequently, a dispute arose between the second respondent and the petitioner regarding the said transaction.Further, on 24.3.2002, the father of the petitioner had received Rs.22 lakhs, thereafter on 9.5.2003 had received Rs.4.75 lakhs, and on 29.3.2003 had received Rs. 2.25 lakhs from the second respondent.But the second respondent believed the petitioners and released the fund to the petitioners.Finally the petitioners had cheated the second respondent with malafide intention.Further, the petitioners had engaged goondas and threatened the second respondent in connection with the dispute.This has been the allegation of the second respondent herein in his counter.Considering the contentions of the petitioner, second respondent, counter statements and arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Learned Counsel for State and Learned Counsel for second respondent, the Court is of the view, that as per direction of this Honourable Court in Criminal Original Petition No.7231 of 2003, the case was registered as Crime No.3 of 2007, under Sections 420 and 506 (ii) of IPC.Further, the case has to be tried necessarily in the interest of Justice.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition No.16209 of 2007 has got to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.03.08.2009Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mraToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras C.S.KARNAN, Jpd/mra Crl.O.P.No.16209 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 200703.08.2009
|
['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.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.