id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
33,591,756 |
This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Sunil Kumar @ Bhanwara and Dharamveer @ Amit Kumar, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 27.11.2018, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and, thereby, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1148 of 2017, (Misc.Case No.56/2017), Laxmi vs. Dharamveer and others, under Sections-376-D and 506 of IPC, Police Station-Devarahat, District-Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat.Learned counsel for applicants argued that proceedings, challenged herein, are outcome of false accusation, lodged in counter-blast to a case, wherein, husband of the complainant was summoned for offences, punishable, under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of IPC and as a result of the same, this false accusation was got lodged.Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.Perusal of the complaint reveals that it was filed by Smt. Laxmi against applicants, Sunil Kumar @ Bhanwara and Dharamveer @ Amit Kumar, and one unknown accused person, with this contention that on 12.3.2017, at 6.00 AM, while complainant, alongwith her monther in law, Ram Kali, had gone to the side of forest, for open door defecation, accused persons rushed thereat, they caught her and committed rape with her.Upon hue and cry, her mother-in-law rushed there.A threat of dire consequences was extended.Accused persons ran away from the spot.Order Date :- 14.1.2020/bgs/
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,595,929 |
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.Heard Shri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondents.The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 19.2.2015 whereby his candidature for the post of Constable recruit has been cancelled on the ground that he has submitted false attestation form with regard to criminal case.The facts which are not in dispute between the parties are that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force.In the attestation form he was required to disclose as to whether he has ever been arrested or prosecuted or kept under detention.When these facts were discovered his appointment was cancelled.Referring to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the facts on which the petitioner/appellant had been acquitted was not examined by the S.S.P. Ghaziabad as to whether they were of serious nature or whether on the grounds mentioned therein the petitioner may be ineligible for appointment and accordingly the impugned order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner therein was quashed by the Supreme Court.Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.There shall be no order as to costs."He was selected on 28.8.2006 .The appellant applied for recruitment in pursuance of an advertisement dated 2 May 2006 as a Constable in the PAC.Again, it is not in dispute that when he applied for recruitment, the appellant expressly stated that no criminal case had been registered against him and that no prosecution was pending against him in any Court.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
335,984 |
ORDER M.L. Singhal, J.Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant.Heard learned A.G.A. for the state.The right to a speedy trial implicit in Article 211 of the Constitution of India.The accused applicant Boby alias Ravikant in case Crime No. 290 of 1997 under Section 302, 120B, IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar, District MuzaffarNagar shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,359,876 |
The case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2005 at about 5.30p.m., the victim girl was returning from her work spot.When she was walking in a lonely cart track between Valaiyankulam and Kottaipatti, the Revision petitioner/accused way laid her and forcibly took her to some distance and stuffed her mouth with the cloth of her own half sari and attempted to have forcible sexual intercourse with her.In the process, injuries were inflicted on her upper lips, neck and left forehead.The victim raised an alarm and hearing the same, her co-workers, namely, Muthulakshmi, Rajalakshmi and Sakthi came rushing.Seeing them, the accused run away.The victim informed her mother who in turn took up the matter with the village elders.Since they suggested that police complaint must be given, the victim accompanied by her mother went to Nathampatti police station and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.14 Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered Crime No.39 of 2005 for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C.(Ex.P.15).The victim was referred to the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur for treatment.On 02.03.2005 at about 2.00 a.m., P.W.13 examined the victim.He issued Ex.P.14 Woundhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Certificate.Injuries spoken by the victim have been noted in the said Wound Certificate.P.W.17 Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation and visited the occurrence spot.In the presence of P.W.7 and one Kamatchi, he prepared Ex.P.3 Observation Mahazar.He also prepared Ex.P.16 Rough Sketch.He collected M.O.1 and M.O.2 from the spot under Ex.He recorded the statements of the witnesses.The accused was arrested at around 11.30a.m.The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, in S.C.No.101 of 2005 vide Judgment dated 13.07.2006 as follows:-Accused Penal Provisions Punishment u/s.Questioning the same, the petitioner filed C.A.No.128 of 2006 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.The learned appellate Judge by Judgment dated 21.10.2011 confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence of imprisonment from five years Rigorous Imprisonment to three years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C., and confirmed the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3He was sent to the hospital for taking potency test.After completing all the other formalities, final report was laid against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur.The charges were framed against the accused under Sections 366 and 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.M.O.1 and M.O.2 were also marked.On the side of the accused, no evidence washttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 adduced.The learned trial Magistrate vide Judgment dated 13.07.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above.The same was modified by the appellate Court as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision has been filed.It is true that P.W.2 Sakthi, P.W.15 Muthulakshmi and P.W.16 Rajalakshmi did not support the prosecution case.But then, P.W.15 and P.W.16 have deposed that on the occurrence date when they were coming in the cart track in question, the victim was sitting alone and crying.She had clearly stated that when she was returning from her work-spot and when she was passing a lonely countryside carthttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 track, the appellant/accused forcibly lifted her and took her away to some distance and attempted to have forcible sexual intercourse with her.She raised an alarm and hearing the same, her co-workers came rushing.Seeing them, the accused ran away.The complaint was lodged within one day thereafter.She was referred to the hospital and Doctor P.W.13 had also confirmed the injuries as stated by the victim in her complaint.The testimony of the victim is certainly credible.Even though the accused had alleged that there was motive, the Courts below have declined to believe the same.His defence is too flimsy.As already stated, even though P.W.15 and P.W.16 turned hostile, their testimony lends strength to the version given by the victim.The Courts below have concurrently found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 354 and 366 of I.P.C. After a careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.I confirm the conviction given by the Courts below.Now comes the question of sentence.More than 13 years have elapsed.Due to fortuitous circumstances, the victim escaped from getting raped and her travails ended soon.Taking note of the other mitigating facts and circumstances pleaded by the petitioner's counsel, this Court is of the view that interest of justice will be served by modifying and reducing the sentence of imprisonment from three years Rigorous Imprisonment to two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C. and confirming two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. Both the sentences will run concurrently.With this modification in the matter of sentence, the Criminal Revision stands partly allowed.The learned trial Judge is directed to secure the petitioner to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled.No costs.4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.R.C.(MD)No.949 of 2011 12.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
336,004 |
The background facts, as projected by prosecution in nutshell are as follows:On 18.10.1993 at 7.00 a.m. both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention of kidnapping, induced and procured a minor teenage girl (P.W.2), who had not attained the age of 14 and seduced her to have illicit intercourse with the first accused and first accused took her to Mahadevapuram in Coimbatore District and committed rape in the house of CW8 at Mahadevapuram.The girl was not found out.Finally, a criminal M.C. was filed before the High Court and on the basis of the direction of the High Court, the Circle Inspector of Police found out PW2 and subsequently arrested the accused, continued the investigation and charge was laid.The girl was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry on 30.11.1993 and it was recorded that she had stated to the Magistrate that she was studying in ninth standard and she was staying with her father.She was taken from the tuition center while she was going to Akshaya Tuition Centre, Ceruthuruthy.She stated that she went with Iqbal, appellant and first accused, on her own will to Coimbatore on 18.10.1993 from Akshaya Tuition Centre.They were friends.Friend of first accused, namely, Sasi was also with them.They changed the vehicles and finally second accused, Sasi did not accompany them till Coimbatore.J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1463 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1287 of 2007)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, while directing the acquittal of the co-accused.Both the accused were convicted by the learned IInd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').She also stated that she had intercourse with Iqbal, first accused, at Coimbatore and not with any other persons, that she was aged thirteen years and six months at that time and she was with Iqbal till she was produced before the Court.Statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') given by her to the police was also more or less on the same lines.But, before the Court, she deposed in examination-in-Chief that she and her friend PW4 went to the tuition center and an autorikshaw came there.From the autorikshaw, A2 Sasi and A1 Iqbal, got down and A1 told her to get into the autorikshaw to tell something and on his persuasion she got into the autorikshaw and both of them took her to a place called Kolappully.Thereafter, A2 brought a car and they went upto Palakkad and A2 Sasi left.From there, they went to Coimbatore by bus.They took food and A1 took her to a hotel and forced her for intercourse and thereafter they went to cinema etc. Thereafter, they came to the house of CW8 and they were staying in that house.During cross-examination main endeavour of the accused was to show that she came with him on her own will.Letters written by PW2, Exts.D1 to D3, were also produced and marked to show that PW2 and A1 were in love and that was not allowed by the parents.Further, in cross examination, he asked specifically whether she agreed for intercourse willingly to show that intercourse was committed with consent.Evidence of PWs 8 and 9 doctors show that she had intercourse.Evidence shows that she went with her own will and intercourse also was done voluntarily and not by force.It is clear from the evidence that they were in love and wanted to marry, but parents of PW2 objected.Hence, they together eloped and there is no kidnapping.School certificate as well as the deposition of father of PW2 shows that she was aged only 13 years and nine months at the time of incident.Placing reliance on evidence of PW2, who is the victim, the learned Trial Court found both the accused persons guilty and sentenced them as aforesaid.In appeal, the High Court by the impugned judgment, noted that the charges have been established so far as the appellant is concerned, while directing the co-acquittal of the co-accused.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the victim PW2 clearly shows that she was in love with the appellant and had gone with him on her own will.Letters (Ex. D1 to D3) clearly established this fact.It was further submitted that the evidence of PW2 indicated that though victim and appellant were in love, the parents objected to it.It is also pointed out that in the cross-examination she had admitted that she had sexual intercourse with the appellant on her own free will and consent and there was no force used.The High Court, however, found that girl victim was aged about 13 years and 9 months and, therefore, the consent was of no consequence so far as allegation of rape is concerned.The conviction as recorded by the Trial Court was affirmed.However, on special circumstances which had weighed, the High Court imposed the sentence below the prescribed minimum, reduced the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in respect of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,602,024 |
/427/506/34 IPC.The other complaint being Mahestala Police Station Case No. 702/17 dated December 18, 2017 also ended with the charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 93 dated February 26, 2018 under Section 448/323/354/506/34 IPC.The General Diary dated September 2, 2018 was enquired into and a prosecution under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted.The petition dated December 18, 2018 of the petitioner before the Police Station was enquired into.(Debangsu Basak, J.) 3 4 5 6 7
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,036,787 |
This criminal revision filed on behalf of accused persons Ishwar Lal Dubey and Shivram is directed against order dated 17-03-2015 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad, whereby a multi-headed charge under sections 409, 419/34, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of the I.P.C. was framed against the petitioners and three other co-accused persons.Though, section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits trial of more than one offences of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months, it does not permit trial of more than 3 offences in one trial.The summary of the offence filed before the trial Court reveals that between 18-06-1003 to 17-03-1994, four forged entries of withdrawal each amounting to an offence under section 409, were made.The order dated 04-03-2011 was challenged before this Court in M.Cr.In view of fore-going discussion, there are no grounds for interfering with the impugned order.Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed.(C V SIRPURKAR)
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,042,498 |
Complainant PW4 Om Prakash submitted written report at PoliceStation, Nagaur at 10:15 p.m. on 12.5.1998, that on 10.5.1998 he and hisfather Jeevan Ram were returning after attending a marriage around 11:00pm,when the motor cycle tyre got punctured .Father Jeevan Ram told thecomplainant to proceed with the Motor Cycle while he would return in thetractor of one Mohan Ram.Uday Umesh Lalit, J.This appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and order dated22.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpurin DB Criminal Jail Appeal No. 27 of 2003 acquitting the Respondent hereinof the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.Initially six Persons were alleged to have committed offencespunishable under Sections 147, 341, 149, 364, 302 , 201 read with Section120B of IPC.One of them named Chatra Ram was granted pardon and wasexamined as PW1 in the trial.Out of five accused who faced the trial,Bhanwru Ram and Mohan Ram were acquitted by the Trial Court.It convictedHapu Ram and Surja Ram for the offences under Sections 341, 364, 302 IPCread with 120B IPC, while the other accused named Raju Ram was convictedunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.In the appeals preferred byconvicted accused, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence ofHapu Ram under Section 302 of IPC while acquitting him of the othercharges.The other two namely Surja Ram and Raju Ram were acquitted of allthe charges.In the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State, thePetition as against Raju Ram was dismissed by this court but leave wasgranted as against accused Surja Ram.This matter is therefore restrictedas regards challenge to the acquittal of Surja Ram by the High Court .The report further stated that his father hadsince then not returned.Pursuant to this report FIR No. 206 of 1998 wasregistered and matter was investigated.One of the suspects Chatra Ramhaving being granted pardon, charges were framed against Five accused underSections 147, 341/149, 120B, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and the trial wasconducted in the Court of Addl.PW1 Chatra Ram deposed that on 10.5.1998, his Jeep came to be hiredby Raju Ram and Surja Ram for going to Village Budi with Raju Ram, MohanRam, Surja Ram, Bhanwru Ram as occupants.On the way Hapu Ram joined them.While passing along they found Jeevan Ram on the road, whereupon the jeepwas stopped and Hapu Ram and Surja Ram got down.They brought Jeevan Ramforcibly and made him sit in the jeep.The witness stated that he and MohanRam resisted but Hapu Ram said that they be dropped at Nagaur otherwise hewould kill all of them.Hapu Ram was having a pistol in his hand.LaterMohan Ram left at which stage Surja Ram and Hapu Ram caught hold of JeevanRam and made him sit in the front between them.Hapu Ram with the pistol inhis hand had stated that if anybody raised any protest he would kill them.The jeep was then taken towards Bidasar.After going for about 15-20 kmsfrom Village Katar, the jeep was stopped near a well by the side of theroad.The jeep was taken close to the well.Hapu Ram and Surja Ram madeJeevan Ram get down, then strangulated him by the cycle tube and threw himin the well.Hapu Ram had threatened them not to say anything to anyone.The witness further stated that before strangulating him, Hapu Ram hadasked Jeevan Ram to marry his younger daughter with him.During the trialthe prosecution produced one letter marked as Exh. P21 written by Hapu Ramstating that his marriage with the daughter of Jeevan Ram should not becancelled and had given threats therein.PW 4 Om Prakash, complainantreiterated the contents of his complaint.The Trial Court found that the case was established as against HapuRam,Surja Ram and Raju Ram.It convicted Hapu Ram and Surja Ram principallyfor the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo lifeimprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default whereof to undergosimple imprisonment for 3 years.They were also convicted under Sections341, 364 and 201 of IPC, while accused Raju Ram was convicted under Section302 read with 34 IPC.The other two accused Bhanwru Ram and Mohan Ram wereacquitted of all the charges.The convicted accused carried the matter by filing DB Crl.The High Court while affirming theconviction of Hapu Ram under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 IPCacquitted him of other charges.He was sentenced to life imprisonment foroffence under Section 302 with fine of Rs.5,000/- and for sentence of 3years under Section 201 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.The sentenceswere to run concurrently.The High court however acquitted Surja Ram andRaju Ram of all the charges.While dealing with the eye witness account through PW1 Chatra Ram asregards the role of Surja Ram, the High Court observed as under:-"...Witness stated that Surja Ram and Hapu Ram strangulated deceasedJiwan Ram, but in the cross-examination, said witness stated that deceasedJiwan Ram was strangulated by Hapu Ram and before doing so, even Hapu Ramasked deceased Jiwan Ram to marry his younger daughter and, in that event,he would be relieved, but his proposal was not accepted by Jiwan Ram and,at that time, accused Hapu Ram strangulated deceased by a cycle tube.Thus,the allegation of strangulation by Surja Ram was not made in the crossexamination.Hence conviction of accused Surja Ram under Section 302 of IPCcannot be maintained because of contradiction in the statement...."With this view the High Court acquitted Surja Ram of all the charges.Mr. Puneet Parihar, learned advocate appearing for State of Rajasthansubmitted that the assessment made by the High Court was completelyincorrect.Referring to the testimony PW1 Chatra Ram, it was submitted thatthe role of Hapu Ram and Surja Ram as stated by the witness in hisexamination in chief was :-Both Hapu Ram and Surja Ram had got down and brought Jeevan Ram forciblyand made him sit in the vehicle.Later, both had caught hold of him and made him sit in the front betweenthem.After bringing the vehicle close to the well, Hapu Ram and Surja Ram madeJeevan Ram get down.They strangulated him with cycle tube and threw him inthe well.The relevant portion from the cross-examination of the witness which wasrelied upon by the High Court was to the following effect :-".....I had seen Hapu Ram rounding tube in his neck and drawing himforcibly towards well, nothing else I had seen.I had not seen as towhether the deceased Jeevan Ram was going on his foot or the accusedpersons were drawing him..."Ms. Aiswarya Bhati, learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that theview taken by the High Court in the circumstance, did not call for anyinterference.The assertion in the cross-examination of PW1 Chatra Ram does not inany way detract from the role clearly attributed by the witness to SurjaRam.The witness did not say that Surja Ram never got down from the vehicle or that he had not accompanied Hapu Ram.The cross-examination also didnot challenge such assertion by the witness that both Hapu Ram and SurjaRam had made Jeevan Ram get down from the vehicle near the well.The abovequoted portion in the cross-examination very clearly deals with the role ofHapu Ram.We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the HighCourt acquitting Surja Ram.The conviction as ordered by the Trial Court isrestored."We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of theHigh Court acquitting Surja Ram.The conviction as ordered by the TrialCourt is restored.Surja Ram is convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPCread with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fineof Rs. 5,000/- on the first count and for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1.000/-on the second count.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,042,845 |
The above mentioned two cases were registered in the CBI, STF Branch, New Delhi on 30.07.2015 in compliance of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.During the course of enquiry of the said PE, it is prima-facie found that the five firms/companies of the associates/friends of Sh.Yadav Singh and his family members were also allegedly favoured unduly by Sh.Yadav Singh, the then CME, Noida in conspiracy with other officers/officials of NOIDA Authority and private persons in getting several contracts in NOIDA in gross violation of tender norms and procedures, thereby, causing loss to the NOIDA Authority.These include the following:-(1) M/s Gul Engineers Co., Proprietor, Shri Javed Ahmed (2) M/s SMP Technology Pvt. Ltd., Directors, Shri Sai Raju, Shri Manish Kumar and Shri Prem Pradeep (3) M/s Abu Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Directors, Shri Kumar Saurav and Shri Prem Pradeep (4) M/s Sanjay Electricals, Proprietor, Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta (5) M/s Shakambari Projects, Ranchi, Proprietor, Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma It is alleged that Sh.Yadav Singh while posted and functioning as CME, Noida had favoured M/s Gul Engineers Co. by awarding 31 contracts of electrical work amounting to Rs. 37.99 crores to it during the period 2007-2012, in criminal conspiracy with other officers/ officials of Noida Authority and Sh.Javed Ahmed, Proprietor of the said firm, who also happens to be a friend of Yadav Singh since long.Out of the 31 contracts, two have already been investigated in case RC DST 2015 A 0004 and the remaining 29 contracts are the subject matter of the instant case.It is alleged that M/s Gul Engineers Co. did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as far as the work experience is concerned and was also found engaged in cartelization of the bidders.Yadav Singh in conspiracy with the other accused persons also awarded the said contracts on exorbitant rates, thereby causing wrongful loss of Rs.2.2 crores approximately.It is also alleged that Sh.Javed Ahmed used to pay bribe to Sh.Yadav Singh regularly and had also given an Innova Car No. UP-16AJ-6363 as quid-pro-quo.It is further alleged that Sh.Yadav Singh in criminal conspiracy with other officers/officials of Noida Authority and the Directors of M/s SMP Technology Pvt. Ltd., namely, S/Sh.Prem Pradeep, Manish Kumar and Sai Raju awarded five projects to the said company amounting to Rs.2.19 crore approximately related to computerization of water billing in NOIDA.The above named Directors of the said company were the class mates of Sh.Sunny Yadav s/o Sh.It is also alleged that Sh.Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.As both these petitions, filed separately by co-accused in a case, seek quashing of the same first information report (for short FIR) dated 17.01.2018, registered as Case Crime No. RC/DST/2018/A/0004/CBI, under Section 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on same ground, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being decided by a common order.For convenience, we would be referring to the record of CRLP No.7707 of 2020 (Man Singh versus CBI), which shall be referred to as the leading petition.We have heard Sri Manish Gupta and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh Advocates for the petitioners; Sri Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, for the Central Bureau of Investigation; and have perused the record.The only ground pressed before us, on behalf of the petitioners, for quashing the impugned first information report is that the impugned first information report is a second first information report of the same offence which was reported earlier on 30.07.2015 and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.To test the above submission, we have gone through the record of the leading petition.The 1st FIR is at page 26 of the paper book, which has been e-filed.The contents of which are extracted below:"In the Misc.Bench No. 12396 of 2014 (Dr. Nutan Thakur Vs.State of U.P. & others), the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow vide order dated 16.07.2015 has directed CBI to conduct investigation into all allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money against 9th respondent, one Sh Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer, Noida, Greater Noida and Yamuna Express Authorities and in regard to all transactions, persons and entities connected thereto.It has been disclosed that an FIR was registered against Sh Yadav Singh & others, vide Case Crime No. 371 of 2012 u/s 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 on 13.01.2012 at PS Sector 39-Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar and UP for alleged corrupt practices while executing engineering work between 14.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 in which agreement bonds for Rs.954.38 crores were executed by Engineering Department of NOIDA.After hearing the petition, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.07.2015 has directed for investigation by CBI and a copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court is enclosed as Annexure-I.In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, a regular case is registered against Shri Yadav Singh, the then Chef Engineer, NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and the Yamuna Express Authorities and unknown others u/s 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and the investigation of the case is entrusted to Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Dy SP, CBI, STF, Delhi.The copy of the FIR earlier registered by PS Sector 39 Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar is enclosed as Annexure-II."The second impugned FIR is at page 82 of the paper book.The same is extracted below:"This Regular Case is registered on the basis of the findings of a Preliminary Enquiry No. PE DST 2017 A 0002, which was registered on the basis of inputs received out of the investigation in two cases against Sh.Yadav Singh at the Engineering College in Solan (HP).In one project amounting to Rs. 53 lacs, the contract was awarded to the said company on the basis of calling quotations only and the tendering procedure was not followed which is a blatant violation of the laid down procedures and guidelines of the NOIDA Authority.It is also alleged that the contracts were given to the said company even though it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria.It is alleged that M/s SMP Technology Pvt. Ltd. had hired premises No. H-60, Sector-63, Noida belonging to M/s Kusum Garments Pvt. Ltd., a company of Smt. Kusum Lata w/o Yadav Singh and Sunny Yadav s/o Yadav Singh at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 4.5 lacs per month.Further, the registration papers of one Volvo Car bearing Regn.No. DL-8CAB-8055 registered in the name of M/s SMP Technology Pvt. Ltd. were recovered from the house of Sh.Yadav Singh.Yadav Singh in criminal conspiracy with other officers/officials of Noida Authority and Sh.Kumar Saurav and Sh.Prem Pradeep, Directors of M/s Abu Infracon Pvt. Ltd. awarded 16 projects to the said company pertaining to Jal, Electrical and Maintenance work etc. during 2011 to 2014 by abusing his official position as Public Servant and also in gross violations of the tender norms as the company did not fulfill the eligibility criteria.A number of suspicious transactions are alleged to have taken place between M/s K.S. Ultratech Pvt. Ltd., a company of Kusum Lata and Sunny Yadav and M/s SMP Technology Pvt. as well as M/s Abu Infracon Pvt. Ltd. which are controlled by the close friends of Sunny Yadav.It is further alleged that Sh.Yadav Singh in criminal conspiracy with other officers/officials of Noida Authority and Sh.Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Sanjay Electricals awarded 37 electrical projects amounting to Rs. 76 crores approximately to the said firm during 2007 to 2012 by abusing his official position as Public Servant and also in gross violations of the tender norms as the company did not fulfill the eligibility criteria.It is also alleged that Sh.Sanjay Kumar Gupta used to pay bribe to Sh.Yadav Singh regularly as quid-pro-quo.It is also alleged that Sh.Yadav Singh in criminal conspiracy with other officers/officials of Noida Authority and Sh.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Shakambhari Projects, Ranchi awarded 1 project amounting to Rs. 21 lacs approximately to the said firm in 2014 for cleaning of drains on the Noida Expressway by abusing his official position as Public Servant and also in gross violations of the tender norms as the said firm did not fulfill the eligibility criteria.It is also alleged that Sh.Sanjay Kumar Sharma along with his brother-in-law Sh.Nirbhay Shankar Harit had close relations with Sh.Therefore, a Regular Case is registered against the following:-(1) Shri Yadav Singh, the then CME, NOIDA (2) Shri Javed Ahmed, Proprietor, M/s Gul Engineers Co.(3) Shri Sal Raju, Shri Manish Kumar and Shri Prem Pradeep Directors, M/s SMP Technology Pvt. Ltd.(4) Shri Kumar Saurav and Shri Prem Pradeep, Directors, M/s Abu Infracon Pvt. Ltd.(5) Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Proprietor, M/s Sanjay Electricals, (6) Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Shakambari Projects, Ranchi.(7) Unknown officers/officials of NOIDA Authority and private persons.Rajesh Kumar, Dy.of Police, CBI, STF, New Delhi."A comparison of the two first information reports, extracted above, would reveal that the earlier FIR dated 30.07.2015 was in respect of corrupt practices while executing engineering work between 14.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 relating to agreement bonds worth Rs.954.38/- crores executed by Engineering Department of NOIDA.Whereas, the second impugned FIR has been lodged in respect of certain other corrupt practices which were discovered during the course of investigation of two cases, in respect of period 2007 to 2012 concerning award of 31 contracts of electrical works amounting to Rs.37.99/- crores, out of which two were investigated in other cases and twenty nine were the subject matter of the instant case.Moreover, over a period of time an accused may commit multiple offences of a similar nature.There is nothing in law that separate FIRs can not be lodged for such multiple offences.He also informed the court that after investigation of the case, under the impugned FIR, already a charge sheet has been submitted on 08.06.2020 therefore this petition is to be dismissed out right.We have considered the rival submissions.Moreover, one set of accused can commit multiple offences of similar nature over a period of time and for each of such offence there can be a separate first information report, if need be.For example, if a person indulges in corrupt practice to award contract 'A' and, thereafter, to award contract 'B', and, thereafter, to award Contract 'C', each would amount to a separate offence for which separate FIRs can be lodged.In the instant case, we find that the two FIRs including the FIR impugned relate to separate corrupt practices involving separate contracts executed in a some what different time zone, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned first information report is a second FIR of the same offence is completely misconceived.Apart from the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the context of petitioner Man Singh, has stated that the said petitioner retired from office on 31st August, 2007 and has been falsely implicated.Be that as it may, as correctness of the allegation is to be tested during the course of trial, the same would be examined at the appropriate stage.On the said ground, the prayer to quash the F.I.R. cannot be accepted.For the reasons recorded above, both the petitions are dismissed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,005,250 |
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the offence punishable under Secs.294(b), 342, 324 IPC @ 294(b), 342, 324 and 302 IPC in Cr.No.132 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.The case of the prosecution is as follows:The deceased Sirajudeen borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from one Balu (A.1) and he did not repay the loan.On 29.4.2013, the deceased was taken to a remote place by A.1 and by one Elumalai (A.2).They demanded the repayment of the loan.On receiving information, the respondent obtained a statement from the injured and registered a case in Cr.No.132 of 2013 for an alleged offence under Secs.294(b)342 and 324 IPC.On the same day, the deceased was discharged against medical advice and was taken to a private hospital at Salem.However, on the same day, he died.Postmortem was conducted and the doctors opined that the death was due to multiple injuries.The case was altered into one under Sec.302 IPC and six accused including the present petitioner, who has been arrayed as A.5, were implicated.All the other accused were arrested and released on bail.The present petitioner/A.5 is a practising advocate at Salem Bar and he has come up with the present application for anticipatory bail.V. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner would submit the following arguments:(a) The petitioner has nothing to do with the offence and his name was not found neither in the First Information Report nor in the subsequent statements.The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the above allegations will not attract any offence and the petitioner, being a practising advocate, is not required for any custodial interrogation and in the face of falsity of the allegations, the petitioner is entitled for pre-arrest bail.On the contrary, Mr.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner is closely associated with A.1 and A.2 in their financial business and he was instrumental to shift the deceased from the Government Hospital, Salem, posing himself as the brother-in-law of the deceased, to a private hospital and thereafter, accompanied all the accused along with the deceased to Chennai to admit the deceased in the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai without disclosing the fact that it is a Medico Legal Case(MLC).He further pointed out that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when the involvement of the petitioner is established and the investigation is in the crucial stage.Heard and perused the materials available on record.On the statement given by the deceased himself, initially case was registered against A.1 and A.2 for alleged offence under Sec.294(b), 342 and 324 IPC.The case took a twist on 7.5.2013 when he was discharged from the Government Hospital, Salem against the medical advice.According to the prosecution, with the help of the present petitioner, who is an advocate, the deceased was discharged and was taken to a private hospital at Salem and from there, he was taken to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai on 10.5.2013 and was admitted without disclosing the fact that it was Medico Legal Case and subsequently he died.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner was falsely implicated only on the confession statement of A.1 and A.2 ,as if he was instrumental for shifting the deceased from one hospital to another.He also pointed out that even according to the prosecution, only on the request of the deceased, he was shifted to Chennai, as his son was studying at Chennai, who will take care of the deceased.The consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,056,420 |
The case of prosecution, in brief, is as under:-Complainant Khalil Pathan, resident of Pathardi in District Ahmednagar had come to visit his sister Naushadbee, residing in Rangar lane of Ahmednagar.On 13th July, 1998 he had come to his sister and stayed with her.On 14th July, 1998 in the afternoon at about 1.00 p.m. he was talking with his sister and another person while they were in the narrow lane near the house of his sister.At that time, from front a person came (later on identified as the accused) and told the complainant giving abuse on his mother, to give him side.There was exchange of words and then the complainant and his sister and that person i.e. ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 4 accused went away to their respective homes.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::Complainant Khalil in the evening, went for a movie in Asha Talkies between 6.00 - 9.00 p.m. He was returning from the movie between 9.00 - 9.30 p.m. to go to the place of his sister.He was near a temple in one of the lanes near Rangar lane and suddenly the same person (i.e. accused) came from front having hockey stick in his hand and picked up quarrel regarding the earlier incident and hit the complainant Khalil Pathan by hockey stick on his head, right hand as well on his left leg.Later, Complainant, under a note from police, was sent to hospital and complainant came to know from his sister Naushadbee the name of the accused as Sikandar Pathan.Complainant gave the complaint while he was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.Complaint to above effect was filed by the complainant Khalil which was recorded as F.I.R. (Exhibit 6) by PW-7 Head Constable ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 5 Raghuveer Gaikwad and offence came to be registered.The investigation was then done by PW-::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::8 Head Constable Bansi Sale.The Appellant (hereinafter referred as "accused") has been convicted by 3rd Additional ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 2 Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.8 of 2000, for offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-.In default, he has to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this Appeal has been filed.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::The complainant - Khalil Dilawarkhan Pathan filed the complaint registered at Crime No.215 of 1998 with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar.It related to assault by the Appellant-accused.The Appellant-accused also filed a counter case against the complainant Khalil and his sister Naushadbee regarding assault by knife, leading to filing of Sessions Case No.182 of 1998 under Section 307 of I.P.C.Consequently, both the cases were tried by the Court of Sessions and in both the matters the ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 3 Sessions Court convicted respective accused.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::He drew Spot Panchnama.Statements of witnesses were recorded.The accused was arrested and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.Charge was framed under Section 325, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty.Prosecution brought on record evidence of eight witnesses.The defence of the accused, as is appearing from the cross-examination of the witnesses and statement under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." in brief), is that due to the earlier incident it was rather the complainant Khalil, helped by his sister Naushadbee and another person, who had beaten the accused and given him knife blow.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::cria269.00 6 Defence is that seeing blood of the accused, complainant had run away from the spot and while running he fell in lane on stone and also dashed against a wall and thus sustained his injuries.Sessions Court, after considering the evidence of witnesses and the defence, has convicted the accused for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C., as mentioned above.For offence under Section 504 and 506 of I.P.C., the accused came to be acquitted.I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant-accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State.It has been argued for the Appellant-accused that it was rather the complainant who had attacked the accused and while running away, suffered his own injuries.Argument is that the PW-2 Dr. Pravin admitted in the cross-examination that the injuries of the complainant were possible by fall on stone if the person has consumed ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 7 liquor.Regarding the incident, there is evidence only of the complainant.PW-4 Laxman Gaikwad only saw the complainant and accused pulling hockey stick from each other and did not see the actual assault.PW-5 Naushadbee was interested witness and her evidence that she saw the accused on the spot and going away carrying hockey stick, is doubtful as omission in that regard was proved.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::The other witness PW-6 Laxman Khatade turned hostile.There were contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses and thus the case of prosecution was not proved.Against above arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant-accused, learned A.P.P.referred to the evidence on record and submitted that the complainant was not knowing the accused before the incident and had no reason to speak against the accused.The evidence shows that the complainant suffered injuries on his head, to the face and had fractures of the right hand as well ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 8 as left leg.There is nothing to show that Complainant had consumed liquor.The complainant would not have attributed such injuries to the accused, had the same not been inflicted by the accused.According to the learned A.P.P., the evidence shows that at the time of incident there was free fight between the complainant and accused and in the incident even the accused was injured, for which separate Sessions Case was conducted against the complainant.According to the learned A.P.P., the trial Court has rightly weighed the evidence in both the matters and in present matter the accused came to be convicted.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::supported the reasonings recorded by the trial Court.Having heard counsel for both sides and gone through the record, what appears is that there is evidence of PW-1 complainant Khalil Pathan as well as his sister PW-5 Naushadbee Shaikh which discloses that before taking place of ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 9 the present incident (for which the accused is charged), there was earlier an incident in the afternoon, in which on the count of giving way there was exchange of words between the complainant and the accused.The complainant PW-1 Khalil deposed that in the afternoon at about 1.00 p.m. he was standing in front of the house of his sister and talking with her when accused Sikandar came that side and abusing the complainant on his mother, asked for side so as to pass, as it was a narrow lane.This led to exchange of words.The complainant is corroborated in this regard by his sister, who claims that when the accused started abusing, she had pacified both of them and accused had gone away to his house which is about 300-400 feet away from the house of PW-5 Naushadbee.In ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 10 the cross-examination of complainant it was suggested to him and he deposed that it was true that accused had told him to get aside so as to make way for him to pass through that lane and that at that time there was altercation with the accused.Thus some incident took place in the afternoon is not disputed.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::Then there is evidence of PW-1 Khalil Pathan that after the incident in the afternoon he went to Asha Cinema Theatre for seeing movie between 6.00 to 9.00 p.m. The movie was over at about 9.00 p.m. and he started to go to the house of his sister at Rangar lane.He came near Mangal Karyalaya.He saw the accused on the road.According to the complainant, the accused told him that he will show what is "Dadagiri".Accused had a hockey stick and had consumed liquor and started beating the complainant with the hockey stick.1 has deposed that the accused gave a blow of hockey stick on the head of the complainant and ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 11 thereafter on the left leg and yet another blow was given on the right palm.He deposed that he sustained injury on his face also with the hockey stick.PW-1 complainant Khalil deposed that he then ran to the house of his sister and his sister brought him out of the house at which time the accused ran away.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::The above evidence of complainant PW-1 Khalil is corroborated by PW-5 Naushadbee.Regarding the incident of evening, she deposed that her brother had gone to Asha Cinema Theatre to watch a movie between 6.00 - 9.00 p.m. and she was at home.Thereafter her brother came to her house at about 9.30 p.m. and blood was oozing from his head.She asked him as to what happened and her brother told her that the boy who had abused him in the afternoon had beaten him with the hockey stick.PW-5 Naushadbee deposed that immediately she came out of the house and her evidence shows that she saw the accused walking ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 12 away towards Chitale road.She deposed that accused had a hockey stick in his hand.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::The complainant PW-1 Khalil was cross examined and it was suggested to him that rather -he and his sister and another person had at about 10.00 - 10.30 p.m. near Gauri Ghumat assaulted the accused.The suggestion was denied by the complainant.Complainant denied that due to vengeance of earlier incident, he had beaten the accused and injured him with knife.Similarly the suggestions that after seeing blood of accused, complainant ran away and fell on stone and that he dashed against wall, were denied by the complainant.Thus, the evidence of complainant that the accused gave him blows by hockey stick has not been shaken.As regards PW-5 Naushadbee, learned counsel for Appellant-accused argued that in her cross-examination it was suggested to her that she ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 13 did not state in her statement to police that she saw accused going towards Chitale road holding hockey stick.The suggestion reads as under:-::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::"I have stated in my statement before police that I saw accused leading towards Chitale road holding hockey stick in his hand.At the time of arguments in this Court the statement to police was taken out and perused.She had stated to police (in Marathi, of which translation would be) that:::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::cria269.00 14 "I immediately came out of house.At that time, outside, Sikandar Pathan, resident of Rangargalli holding hockey stick in his hand was there.Seeing me he ran away."Thus, the omission was limited to the fact that she had not stated that accused went "towards Chitale Road".In isolation it was not material also.This shows that the trial Court was not careful while recording the evidence, and left scope to misread the evidence.In the cross-examination the investigating officer PW-8 Bansi Sale was asked and he stated that Naushadbee had not stated before him that the accused ran towards Chitale road.At the time of this cross-examination also the trial Court was not careful while recording the evidence.The statement did show that the witness had seen the accused run away.What however, was recorded was that she did not state that "the accused ran away towards Chitale road".::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::cria269.00 15 The omission was limited to "towards Chitale road." The same, however, was recorded as if the accused was not seen by her running away.Simple way can be by putting inverted commas to pin point portions.The above suggestion to PW-5 Naushadbee in Evidence could have been recorded as under:-"I have stated in my statement before police that I saw accused leading (even this should have been 'walking away') "towards Chitale road" holding hockey stick in his hand.I cannot say why reference of "Chitale Road" is not so appearing in my statement before the police."It would have made it clear that the omission was limited to the portion "towards ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 16 Chitale road".It is necessary that trial Courts recording evidence are careful on this count so that recording of evidence should not be defective.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::Coming back to the evidence of Naushadbee, she does corroborate the complainant that after the incident he ran up to his sister's house and when she came out, she saw that the accused was there with the hockey stick and then the accused went away.12. PW-6 Laxman Khatade turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, except to the extent that he heard hue and cry near Mangal Karyalaya.As regards the evidence of PW-4 Laxman Gaikwad, he deposed that he has a hotel in Anandi Bazar, Rangar lane near Mangal Karyalaya.At the time of evening of incident, he was in his hotel and heard noise of exchange of abuses from Gauri Ghumat side.He claimed that complainant and ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 17 accused were there and they were trying to pull a hockey stick in between themselves and were abusing each other.He then deposed that both of them went away towards Mangal Karyalaya and does not know what happened thereafter.No doubt witness was declared hostile and in the cross examination by A.P.P., denied the suggestions that he saw the actual assault on the complainant.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::However, the fact remains that this witness was knowing the accused for many days and the accused resides in the same lane is admitted by the witness.As such, the witness does not appear to have fully supported the prosecution.However, fact remains that the incident took place, is corroborated partially by this witness also.The evidence of PW-2 Dr. Pravin shows that the complainant had come to the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar on 14th July, 1998 with a police yadi and he examined the complainant at about 11.45 p.m. and found the following ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 18 injuries:-::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::CLW right parietal region 5 cm.X ½ cm muscle deep, blood was seen.The age of injury was within 6 hours.It was simple injury caused by hard and blunt object.Fracture of 3rd metacarpol bone of right hand.It was caused by hard and blunt object.Age of injury was within 6 hours.Nature of injury was grievous.Fracture of left fibula bone, age of injury was within 6 hours, caused by hard and blunt object.Nature of injury is grievous.CLW on lower lip ½ cm.X ¼ cm.X 8 m.m.The nature of injury is simple, age of injury was within 6 hours and caused was by hard and blunt object."Thus, the complainant is corroborated even by the doctor and medical evidence regarding the injuries.The oral evidence of the complainant ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 19 regarding how the injuries were caused, matches with the medical evidence.In the cross-::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::examination the doctor did depose that all these injuries are possible by fall on stone after person consumed liquor.The doctor admitted that the injuries were also possible by dash against otta.However, the evidence cannot be read to say that the doctor admitted that all the four injuries of the complainant were possible by one fall.It has to be remembered that there was contused lacerated wound to the parietal region as well as to the lip.While there was fracture of the metacarpol bone of right hand, the other injury was a fracture of left fibula bone.Apart from this, there is no reason why the complainant would attribute these injuries to the accused who was not even known to him a day before the incident of afternoon leading to the incident in the evening.The trial Court weighed all the evidence ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 ::: cria269.00 20 and came to the conclusion that offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. was proved.From the given evidence, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and thus there is no reason why this Court should take a different view.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::The counsel for Appellant-accused submitted that if the conviction is to be maintained, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be given to the Appellant-accused, considering his age at the time of incident.At the time of framing of charge on 13th January, 2000, Appellant-accused claimed his age to be 27 years.Looking to facts of the matter where quarrel is picked up for petty matters like asking of way or claim of "Dadagiri" i.e. bossing around, I do not find that this is a fit case to extend benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Age of accused at time concerned is hardly a ground to invoke the provisions.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::There is no substance in the Appeal.The Appeal stands rejected.The accused shall surrender to his Bail Bonds and undergo sentence as is remaining.[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/JUL14 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2014 23:50:36 :::
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
1,800,572 |
He has also submitted that the Juvenile Court as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge have erred in declining the grant of bail to the petitioner.(3) Learned Counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was less then 16 years at the time of thisincident, he has inflicted 7-8 knife injuries to Manish Gaur @ Montee, an innocentboy, resulting in his death.She has also submitted that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice since it would amount to giving encouragement toa person committing such a heinous offence.A prayer has, therefore, been made that the application may be dismissed.(4) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submission and have also gone through the statements as also the order of the Juvenile Court and that of learned Additional Sessions Judge, it would, at this stage, be appropriate, to refer to Sub-section (i) of Section 18 of the Act, which read as under:- "18.Bail and custody of Juveniles.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Juvenile Court, such person shall,notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice."It has also been mentioned in the said judgment that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was a previous convict.I had an occasion to deal with this matter in case Ram Inderv.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,069,252 |
2.The case of the prosecution is that the second accused Thennarasu had invited the appellant herein for Diwali Feast.P.W.1 and A2 are neighbours.In the house of P.W.1, there was a pet dog.It appears that the dog had barked and given provocation to the appellant.The appellant had thrown stones at the dog.This happened on 08.11.2007 in the afternoon.They also assaulted him .At that stage, the grand father of P.W.1 intervened.The appellant herein picked up a gravel stone lying nearby and hit the grand father of P.W.1 Veeriah on his left eye brow and nose.Veeriah died on the spot.P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint before the Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Sivagangai District.The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 304(II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.inrespectively, vide Judgment dated 18.03.2010 in S.C.No.55 of 2008 2 on the file of the Sessions Court, Sivagangai.Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.Based on the same, Ex.P1-FIR in Crime No.158 of 2007 was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 109 of IPC.Investigation was undertaken and after completing the usual formalities, the investigation officer filed final report before thehttp://www.judis.nic.inJudicial Magistrate, Manamadurai against the appellant and A2 for 3 the offences under Sections 120B, 294B, 302 and 302 r/w 109 of IPC.The case was taken up for trial in S.C.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as may as 11 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.The learned trial Judge, after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, chose to acquit the second accused Thennarasu, but then, found the appellant herein guilt of the offences 294(b) and 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.Information was given by P.W.1 at about 08.00 p.m. It is seen from the evidence on record that the deceased Veeriah was initially rushed to the hospital and that is why, FIR came to be registered at 8.00 p.m., But then, by no stretch of imagination can this be said to constitute delay.P.W.1 ashttp://www.judis.nic.inwell as P.W.2 have clearly spoken about the role played by the 4 appellant herein.P.W.1 in his testimony has stated that the appellant herein picked up a gravel stone lying on the road and hit his grandfather on his left eye brow as well as nose.The region above the eye brow is a sensitive spot.The testimony of P.W.1 could not be shaken in the cross examination also.P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 and the daughter of the deceased and she has also corroborated P.W.1's testimony.P10 is the postmortem certificate issued by the Doctor.In his certificate, the Doctor had stated that there was a Intracranial Haemorrhage.From this one can infer that the appellant had hit the deceased so hard that it caused Intracranial Haemorrhage.Therefore, the Court below rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304(II) of IPC.4.In fact, having regard to the evidence on record, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not challenge the conviction.He is only pleading for leniency in the matter of punishment.I am unable to show indulgence beyond a point because the appellant who was aged about 33 years, had unjustifiably attacked an elderly person who was elder to him by more than 40 years.However, taking note of the fact that the appellant is also having a family and two children to support, thehttp://www.judis.nic.insentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is reduced from 5 five years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment.The appellant is said to have spent some time in prison.The period of incarceration already undergone by him shall be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The sentence for both the offences will run concurrently.5.With this modification in the matter of sentence, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,074,909 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in C.O.C.No.66/2014, dated 29.11.2014 by the detaining authority, whohas been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by nameSandhanam, Son of Natarajan and quash the same and thereby set him at libertyforthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Sembanarkoil Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case: ?Crime No.242 of 2009, Muthaliyarpettai Police Station, registeredunder Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(a) ofExplosive Substance Act, 1908 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code @Sections 148, 307, 109 and 120(b) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code andalso under Section 3(a) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908?.9.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detentionpassed in C.O.C.No.66/2014, dated 29.11.2014 by the secondrespondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondentsare directed to set the detenu viz., Sandhanam, Son of Natarajan at libertyforthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with anyother case.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.ORDER MADE INH.C.P(MD)No.1439 of 201424.03.2015
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,800,790 |
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.These Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.1998 of the learned Additional Ses'sions Judge in Sessions Case No. 84/96 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant Krishan Pal guilty under Sections 366 and 376, IPC and appellant Som Pal guilty under Section 366 and vide a separate order dated 17.8.1998 sentenced the appellant Krishan Pal to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 376, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four eight months.He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 366, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months.Appellant Som Pal sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 366, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months.2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction.I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction.However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the appellant Krishan Pal has suffered actual incarceration for more than one year and appellant Som Pal has suffered actual incarceration for eleven months and have been on bail since September 17, 1999 and July 6, 1999 respectively.He submits that the occurrence is of 15th May, 1994 and the appellants have already suffered the ordeal of trial for nearly eight years.He submits that there has been no complaint about their having belied the trust bestowed upon them by this Court.He further submits that the appellants are also not previous convicts and have by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as useful citizens, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in requiring them to undergo the remaining portion of their sentence at this belated stage.Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to that already undergone.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the State, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.I order accordingly.With this modification, Criminal Appeal Nos. 336/98 and 100/99 are disposed of.The appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds, and the sureties shall stand discharged.The trial court record be sent back forthwith.
|
['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.
|
1,345,787 |
JUDGMENT Nishita Mhatre, J.It has been filed by a candidate of the NCP-Congress and R.P.I. alliance who unsuccessfully contested the elections.The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has indulged in corrupt practices thereby materially affecting the result of the election for the Sinnar constituency.The petitioner has prayed that the election of the respondent be declared void under Section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii), 100(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act).The petitioner has alleged that the returned candidate had flagrantly violated the provisions of the Act and the election rules framed thereunder.He has also alleged that the returned candidate had violated several orders of the election commission issued under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has pointed out in his election petition that 135065 votes were cast.The respondent secured 67556 votes while the petitioner managed 47593 votes.Bogus names were included in the voters list at the behest of the respondent with the connivance of the Talathi and the Tehsildar of the constituency.The petitioner claims to have complained, on 11.7.2003, to the Minister of State for Revenue and Forest, bringing to light the illegal deletion and addition of names to the voters list.The petitioner then claims that the respondent issued a pamphlet elucidating details of the work undertaken by the latter, who was a sitting MLA.The pamphlet had details about the inauguration of a welfare centre and about a bhoomi-puja being performed for the schools.The petitioner on 7.9.2004 addressed a letter to the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) Nasik Road, complaining against the Tehsildar who had deleted the names of the voters from the Vanzari community as well as other voters from the minority community.According to the petitioner, a letter/pamphlet was circulated in his constituency purported to be authored by him.This pamphlet which was allegedly signed by the petitioner exhorted the voters to cast their vote for the petitioner who belonged to the Vanzari caste.According to the petitioner copies of this letter were distributed amongst the members of the Maratha community in order to prejudice them.The Election Commissioner was to identify the real author of the document by making the necessary investigations.The petitioner issued a public notice in the local newspaper clarifying to the effect that he had not issued the letter/pamphlet.An FIR was lodged by the petitioner with Sinnar police station and the case was registered as CR No. I-180/2004 on 12.10.2004 under Sections 465, 467, 471, 419, 420, 500 of the Indian Penal Code.The FIR was lodged against an unknown person on the basis of the letters/pamphlets.A representation was also sent to the Deputy Chief Minister by the petitioner seeking an enquiry into the issue.The Petitioner has then alleged that the private secretary of the respondent had issued a press release stating that the employees of Bhairavnath Path Sanstha were working against the respondent and that the respondent had not complained against them.A news item was published in the local newspaper Deshdhoot mentioning that the respondent would initiate an enquiry against the petitioner, if elected, and that the existing Board of Directors of the Sanstha of which the petitioner was the Chairman, would be dissolved.A copy of the news item published on 12.10.2004 has been annexed to the petition.A representation was submitted to the Deputy Chief Minister again by the petitioner complaining of illegal and unauthorised work which was being carried out by the respondent when the model code of conduct was in force.A copy of this representation has also been annexed to the petition.According to the Petitioner, this publication was issued to mislead the voters into believing the bogus claims about the work allegedly carried out by the respondent.The next allegation against the respondent is that on 25.11.2004, he had given a speech threatening that villages which did not support his candidature would be neglected by him, in the event he was returned as the candidate for the constituency.These villages according to the petitioner consist of a majority of persons from the Vanzari community to which the petitioner belongs.According to the petitioner, the voters were asked to press this button and thereafter the button corresponding to the candidate of their choice.The petitioner has stated in para 23 of his petition that it was being filed alongwith the VHS cassette furnished by the Collector of Nasik containing video recordings of the speeches delivered by the respondent and by others on his behalf.The Respondent had appealed for votes on a communal basis through these speeches according to the petitioner.The petitioner has relied on these recordings in support of his allegations in the petition.The respondent i.e. the returned candidate has filed his written statement denying the allegations contained in the petition.The respondent has contended that the petition was not maintainable as it was not in the prescribed format.The respondent has submitted that no details of the communal appeals allegedly made by him and his supporters were mentioned in the election petition or in the annexures thereto.The respondent therefore sought dismissal of the election petition as a copy of the VHS cassette and its transcript alongwith the petition was not furnished to him.The respondent has alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Section 86 of the Act since the cassette which was one of the exhibits on which the petitioner relied was not verified.The respondent has then contended that no cause of action has been made out in the election petition and, therefore, it was required to be dismissed.None of the other documents including the VHS cassette and the CD have been exhibited as they have not been admitted in evidence or proved.The petitioner and the respondent examined themselves before this Court in support of their contentions.Neither party led evidence of any other person on his behalf.The evidence will have to be considered in the light of the issues framed by this Court which are answered as follows:1) Whether the Petitioner proves that the election of the Respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside for having made communal appeals in his speeches recorded on the VHS cassette produced by the Petitioner in Court?2) Whether the Petitioner proves that the election of the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside under Section 100(1)(d)(ii) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act 1951 for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9 to 18 of the Election Petition?3) Whether the Petitioner proves that the Respondent had deliberately issued the letter at Exhibit E page 42 dated 28.9.2004 in the name of the Petitioner with a view to misguide the voters?Issue Nos. 1 and 4: The main plank on which the petitioner has challenged the election of the returned candidate is that the latter had delivered speeches which contained a communal appeal thereby violating the provisions contained in Section 123(3) of the Act. The contention is that the VHS cassette which was produced in Court contains speeches which indicate that the respondent had indulged in corrupt practices by appealing to the communal sentiments of the electorate.The petitioner has examined himself to justify this allegation.A perusal of this affidavit shows that it is almost a reproduction of the petition, but in the first person.The petition refers to the communal speeches delivered by the Respondents and his supporters in paragraphs 19 and 23, in the affidavit of evidence.The Petitioner has not been cross-examined on these speeches at all on behalf of the respondent.It was submitted by Mr. Rajgopal, appearing for the petitioner, that the VHS cassette containing these speeches had been produced in Court as required, as evidence, after filing the election petition.He submits that this cassette is a public document and, therefore, need not be proved.Rule 93(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules stipulates certain criteria for production of such cassettes.He submits that under the Instructions for the Conduct of Elections found in the Compendium of Instructions of Conduct of Elections, the election commission is expected to record all speeches of the contesting candidates.The learned Counsel further submits that the VHS cassette and the receipt together prove that the VHS cassette is a public document, obtained from the custody of a public officer i.e. the election commissioner and, therefore there was no need for the petitioner to prove the contents of the VHS cassette.The learned Counsel further submits that the contents of the VHS cassette had been replicated for convenience on a CD which is produced as Item 12 in the affidavit of documents.The petitioner has been unable to establish that the names of certain voters had been added or deleted from the list at the behest of the respondent.If the petitioner was aggrieved by the addition or deletion of the names found on the electoral rolls, he could have applied for correction of the rolls either under Section 22 or 23 of the Act. An appeal has also been provided under the Act and the petitioner could have preferred an appeal had his application under Section 22 or 23 been rejected.On considering the totality of the charges levelled against the Respondent, in my view, the petitioner has failed to prove any of them.The corrupt practices alleged against the Respondent have not been established.Hence, issue No. 2 must also be answered in the negative.The petitioner has then alleged that the respondent had caused a letter/pamphlet dated 28.9.2004 to be circulated.It is annexed at exhibit E to the petition purporting to have been signed by the petitioner.This letter exhorts the voters of the Vanzari caste to vote for the petitioner.According to the petitioner, the copies of the letter/pamphlet were deliberately distributed to voters of the Maratha community by the respondent so as to prejudice them against the petitioner.The petitioner claims that the distribution of this letter/pamphlet was wilfully designed by the respondent to malign him.The petitioner thereafter complained to the election commission that the letter had not been issued by him but by somebody else in order to mar his chances at the polls.The petitioner had also immediately issued a public notice in the local newspaper indicating that he had not issued the letter at exhibit E to the writ petition.An FIR was lodged by the petitioner on 12.10.2004 under Section 465, 467, 471, 419, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.Significantly, this FIR was lodged against unknown persons who, according to the petitioner, had circulated the letter/pamphlet, purportedly written by him, in order to defame him.This letter/pamphlet, again, has not been proved by the petitioner.The FIR which is dated 12.10.2004 and marked as exhibit P2 is filed against unknown persons.Therefore, if according to the petitioner, it was the respondent who had issued the letter/pamphlet falsely under the petitioners signature, he ought to have stated so in the FIR which would then have been directed against the respondent.For reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not implicated the respondent.Even in the complaint dated 29.10.2004 sent to the Home Minister who belongs to the same party as the petitioner there is no indication that the respondent was responsible for the circulation of that letter/pamphlet.Thus the petitioner has been unable to prove, both, that the Respondent had issued the letter/pamphlet and that its contents were false.Issue No. 3 has therefore not been proved by the Petitioner.The petitioner has thus not proved that the election of the Respondent is liable to be set aside under the Representation of People Act, for having indulged in corrupt practices as set out in the election petition.The election petition is therefore dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.The security for costs deposited by the petitioner shall be paid over to the respondent towards the costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,581,685 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.108 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Salem, having beenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C, as against the petitioner.He belongs to Kondareddys Community.The charge as against the petitioner is that the petitioner produced community certificate as if he belongs to Kondareddys community and classified as scheduled tribe community so as to enable him to get a seat in medical college for studying MBBS.Further the charge is that A1, pursuant to their inducement, deceased accused Nachimuthu with the assistance of A1, Chandrasekaran, the then Revenue Inspector of Mettur Revenue Divisional Office created forged community certificates as if A2 to A5 belonged to 'Konda Reddi' community affixing the fascimile seal of the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiru.Kaliaperumal, purporting the same to be made by a public servant, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur and thereby they committed offence for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.2.1.He further submitted that there is absolutely no material either documentary or oral in final report to speak about the fact that the petitioner had participated in any activity of fabricating or forging the communityhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 certificate.Further he submitted that even the case of the prosecution is that the first accused Revenue Inspector has put his initial in the alleged fabricated document.Therefore there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner only applied for the community certificate and he fabricated the said document.Further he submitted that even in his father's statement it was stated that he only applied in the year 1988 for the community certificate of the petitioner as such he is nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution.Further he submitted that except the counter filed by the respondent there is no other document or evidence to attract charge as against the petitioners.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter and averred that there are totally five accused and the petitioner is the second accused.The petitioner with the common intention with the other accused fabricated the community certificate with the help of the first accused who was working as Revenue Inspector, Mettur as if it was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur.Further he submitted that there are materials and evidences to attract the offences under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. as against the petitioner and others.He further pointed out that the permanent caste card was introduced in Mettur Division only from the year 1990 onwards.Before 1990 there was no such facility to issue permanenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 caste card in Mettur Division.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this quash petition.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.5.There are totally five accused in which the petitioner is the second accused.The petitioner has been charged for the offence under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. by the first respondent.It is seen that the charge as against the petitioner is that the petitioner produced community certificate as if he belongs to Kondareddys community and classified as scheduled tribe community so as to enable him to get a seat in medical college for studying MBBS.Further the charge is that A1, pursuant to their inducement, deceased accused Nachimuthu with the assistance of A1, Chandrasekaran, the then Revenue Inspector of Mettur Revenue Divisional Office created forged community certificates as if A2 to A5 belonged to 'Konda Reddi' community affixing the fascimile seal of the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiru.Kaliaperumal, purporting the same to be made by a public servant, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur and thereby they committed offence for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471http://www.judis.nic.in 5 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.There is no such facility before 1990 in the Mettur Division.Further it is also seen from the charge that with the help of the first accused, A2 to A5 fabricated the community certificate to produce before the Officers concerned.It presumes that the petitioner only approached the first accused for issuance of fabricated and bogus community certificate to produce before the concerned officer.Further the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial and not at the stage of quash petition.Therefore it is very clear that there are materials as against the petitioners to attract the charges framed as against the petitioner.It is also 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 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,589,190 |
Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Saryati Dutta ...for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely, Babu Ruidas, be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with two sureties 2 of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore, District: Hooghly, on condition that the petitioner shall attend the court on each and every occasion unless prevented by sufficient cause.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.)
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,590,071 |
Dr. Sudheer Rathore (PW-2) examined injured Surendra Singh and recorded MLC (Ex. P-3).All his three lacerated wounds each of size having diameter of 1 cm and blackening was also found and other lacerated wounds, contusions and an abrasion of face were also found and radio-logical examination was advised for all injuries.In X-ray report fractures of ribs were found but as radiologist he has not reported about radio-opaque shots of metallic density, therefore, in reply to querry-letter sent by investigating officer, Dr. Sudheer Rathore replied that above mentioned lacerated wounds over which blackening was found, were not appearing to be caused by firearms.In the investigation conducted by Ashish Sapre (PW-2) licensee 12 bore gun was seized from each of the respondent no. 1 Ramvaran and no. 2 Kanhai Singh.(Pronounced on 26.10.2018) Per Ashok Kumar Joshi, j:-Applicant/State has filed application u/s. 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated 11.1.2018 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 91/2012, whereby each of the present respondents no. 1 to 6 has been acquitted from the charge of Sec. 307/149, 148 of the IPC.Prosecution's story in brief is that complainant Parmal Singh (PW-6) submitted a written application on 5.10.2010 at Police Station that 2 M.Cr.C. No. 18389/2018 State of M.P. v. Ramvaran and Ors.on that day when in the noon his brother Surendra Singh by his motorcycle reached to his agricultural land, he was beaten by 8 to 10 persons by sticks, farsa, axes and lohangis and when Surendra tried to escape, then fire arms injuries were also inflicted to him.After receiving information at his house, when complainant reached to field then he found that seriously injured Surendra Singh was lying there in unconscious state and assailants have fled away.Thereafter, a tractor was arranged for carrying injured to District Hospital, Guna.After gaining senses injured Surendra Singh disclosed the names of present respondents no. 1 to 6 as assailants.After completing formalities of the investigation, chargesheet was filed before the court of JMFC, Guna and committed the arisen case to Sessions Judge, Guna, who transferred Sessions Trial to above mentioned trial court.Twelve prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial court.It was the defence of acquitted respondents before the trial court that they have been falsely implicated.Defence witnesses Vikram Singh Yadav (PW-1), Sitaram (DW-2) were examined in reference to plea of alibi raised by respondent Sher Singh.The trial court after hearing found that evidence of injured Surendra Singh was not corroborated by medical evidence regarding causing of injury to him by firearms and there were material contradictions and inconsistencies among the evidence of three produced eye witnesses, namely, Surendra Singh, Bheema alias Rajesh (PW-5) and Shivnaryan (PW-7), therefore, accused persons were acquitted.Appearing public prosecutor for the applicant/State vehemently contended that Surendra Singh was seriously injured at the scene of occurrence and he was taken to Indore Hospital for treatment and Surendra Singh's evidence was materially corroborated by two other eye witnesses, but the trial court erred in disbelieving evidence of these eye witnesses, therefore, it is prayed that , it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal.It was clear from the total evidence of Dr. Sudheer Rathore (PW-2) and his MLC PW-3 that he found six lacerated wounds and two contusions and one abrasion, in total nine injuries on the body of injured Surendra Singh and each of the three lacerated wounds mentioned in MLC at Sr.no. 1, 2 and 3 , each was having size of 1 cm diameter and each of 4 M.Cr.C. No. 18389/2018 State of M.P. v. Ramvaran and Ors.these three lacerated wounds were having blackening around it, therefore he opined that only after radio-logical examination, it could be opined that these three lacerated wounds caused by which weapon.It was clear from x- ray report (Ex. P-14) that fractures of 9 th and 10th ribs of right side and 10 th and 11th ribs on left side of chest were found and in right hand dislocation of proximal interphalangeal joint of right ring finger was found.It is also clear from Rathore's evidence and his written reply (Ex. P-5) to query report as no radio-opaque shot of metallic density was found by the radiologist, therefore, no injury to injured Surendra Singh was appearing to be caused by firearm.Injured Surendra (PW-1) deposed that three years ago on 5.10.2010 at 1:30 pm, he reached to his brother Parmal Singh's field, then respondents Sher Singh, Geetam Singh, Upendra, Ramvaran, Kanhai, Vikram and Rakesh alias Ramcharan encircled him and at that time Sher Singh was having an axe and each of Upendra and Geetam was having a lathi, Vikram was having a chain and Ramcharan was having lohangi and each of the two respondents Ramvaran and Kanhai was having separate gun in his hand.Surendra Singh deposed that respondent Ramvaran fired a shot from his gun which inflicted injury at finger of his right hand and calf of the left leg, thereafter respondent Sher Singh inflicted injury by his axe on his right leg and Ramcharan inflicted injuries by his lohangi over his back and face and thereafter he fell down after becoming unconscious about two fields away from the scene of occurrence.Injured Surendra (PW-1) has not mentioned the presence of 5 M.Cr.C. No. 18389/2018 State of M.P. v. Ramvaran and Ors.any other eye witness in his evidence, but Bheema alias Rajesh (PW-5) and Shivnarayan (PW-7) have deposed as eyewitnesses.Bheema alias Rajesh PW-5 deposed that on the date of incident when he was returning after seeing crop standing in his father's land then he stopped after hearing sound of shot fired by Ramvaran from his gun and thereafter second shot was fired by respondent kartar Singh from his gun, which caused injury on waist of Surendra and Shersingh inflicted by his axe on Surendra's leg, but it is clear from medical evidence that no firearm injury was found on body of Surendra and similarly no incized wound caused by sharp cutting object was found on any leg of Surendra.Contrary to the evidence of Bheema alias Rajesh PW- 5, Shivnarain (PW-7) deposed that at the time of incident at 2 pm with Rajesh alias Bheema he has reached to his field, thereafter he saw that Ramvaran and Kanhai Singh fired their guns which inflicted injury on right leg of Surendra and respondent Sher Singh inflicted injury by his axe on toe of Surendra.Shivnarayan also deposed that after seeing incident, being frightened reached in village and intimated complainant Parmal Singh regarding incident.Shivnarayan (PW-7) deposition is also not medically corroborated regarding alleged firearm injuries and injury caused by axe.Bheema alias Rajesh (PW-1) also deposed that after being frightened, he reached in village and firstly went to the house of complainant Parmal and intimated him and Parmal alone went by his motorcycle.No any fired cartilage was seen at the spot by the investigating officer (PW-12) and similarly no pallets was seized from scene of occurrence or taken out from the body of Surendra during treatment.In dehati nalisi time of incident was 6 M.Cr.C. No. 18389/2018 State of M.P. v. Ramvaran and Ors.mentioned as 2 pm, but dehati nalisi was recorded at 6:30 P.M. in the evening whereas scene of occurrence was about 15 km away from the Police Station Bajranggarh.Complainant Parmal Singh (PW-6) deposed that on the date of incident in noon when he reached to his field he found that harvester was standing in his land and when he was about to flee-away from his land then respondents fired on him by guns and ran over to him, then he escaped from scene of occurrence, but in his written application submitted on same day to the SHO, it is not mentioned that present respondents have fired on him or chased him.Investigating Officer (PW-12) admitted in cross- examination that in dehatinalisi assailants in relation to injured were unknown.there were material contradictions between the deposition of Shivnarain (PW-7) and his police statement (Ex. P-3).It is clear from the evidence of Jagdeesh (PW-9) that he was not eyewitness of the incident and injured Surendra has intimated him regarding incident.According to evidence of Shivnarain (PW-7) and Bheema alias Rajesh (PW-5) they have intimated regarding incident caused by respondents at house of the complainant Parmal and thereafter complainant Parmal reached to scene of occurrence and he later submitted written application against unknown accused persons to the SHO and on the basis of such application later on dehati nalisi and FIR were recorded.This clearly establishes falsehood introduced by eye witnesses Bheema alias Rajesh (PW-5) and Shivnarayan (PW-7).Contrary to his application and dehatinalisi complainant Parmal (PW-6) deposed that when respondents chased him, then he has identified them.C. No. 18389/2018 State of M.P. v. Ramvaran and Ors.Bheema alias Rajesh deposed that when shots were fired by two respondents, then there was no gap or distance between relating respondents and injured Surendra, but surprisingly no entry wound and exit wound caused by firearm were found on the body of injured Surender.Surendra deposed that blood from his body has fallen at scene of occurrence, but even no blood stained soil was seized during investigation by the investigating officer.First Information Report was lodged against unknown persons, whereas complainant Parmal Singh was acquainted with the respondents, therefore, absence of names of respondents in the report lodged by complainant makes the prosecution case totally doubtful and unbelievable.From two respondents Ramvaran and Kanhai separately licensed 12 bore gun has been seized during investigation, but as it is clear from medical evidence that no firearm injury was caused to injured Suresh on scene of occurrence, therefore, it is clear that two respondents Ramvaran and Kanhai Singh have been totally falsely implicated by all the three alleged eyewitnesses including injured surendra, therefore in such established circumstance no reliance could be placed on any part of evidence of such witnesses who have tried to falsely implicate two innocent persons regarding a charge under section 307 of the IPC.It was clear from the 8 M.Cr.C. No. 18389/2018 State of M.P. v. Ramvaran and Ors.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,460,045 |
Case diary perused and arguments heard.This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 22.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in Bail Application No.2042/2019, whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Nand Kishore Vijay under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.419/2019 registered at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 365, 368, 376 (2)(N), 370, 371, 506, 120B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)As per the prosecution case, on 02.04.2019 co-accused Nikhil abducted the prosecutrix and took her to his house situated at Kanchanpur where he committed rape with her and also made video of his act and on the basis of that video he blackmailed the prosecutrix.On 05.04.2019 co-accused Nikhil and Sunita took the prosecutrix to Jabalpur Railway Station from where co-accused Sunita and one other person took the prosecutrix to Gangapur City, Rajasthan where appellant Nandkishore and co-accused Pramod meet them, thereafter they took prosecutrix to Pramods rented house where they confined prosecutrix for four days.Thereafter, appellant Sainki and co-accused Nikhil also came there thereafter co-accused Nikhil, Sunita and Sainki took prosecutrix to Kota where they kept her in the house of appellant Nand Kishore and they forcibly married prosecutrix with co-accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya and took Rs.2,25,000/- from co- accused Golu, thereafter co-accused Golu sexually exploited the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix informed the incident to her grand mother Saroj Ben on phone.On that, police recovered prosecutrix from the possession of co-accused Golu @ Rajendra Vijayvargiya and registered Crime No.419/2019 at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 365, 368, 376 (2)(N), 370, 371, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During investigation on 22.05.2019 police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence.He did not know that co-accused Nikhil and Sunita forcibly took the prosecutrix at Kota.Co-accused Nikhil and her uncle took the prosecutrix to Gangapur city, where they meet the appellant Nandkishore and co-accused Pramod and for taking the house on rent thereafter present appellant and one accused Pramod taken away the prosecutrix and other persons to his house and gave the house on rent.Appellant did not know that co-accused Nikhil and Sunita abducted the prosecutrix and forcibly took her for selling.The appellant is in custody since 22.05.2019 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that appellant was also involved in the crime.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 01/08/2019 17:19:50 3 CRA-5537-2019 that appellant was also involved in the crime and took an active part in the incident.Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 01/08/2019 17:19:50
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,600,553 |
Shri Rajkumar Shakya, counsel for the complainant.The inherent powers of this Court are invoked u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 300/2015 alleging offences punishable u/Ss, 307, 34 IPC solely on the basis of the rival parties having entered into compromise and the said parties do not wish to persue the prosecution.A bare perusal of the allegations contained in the FIR indicates that on the issue of construction of wall an altercation took place between the rival parties where the petitioner Ganga Prasad is said to have used fire arm causing gunshot injury in the left thigh of the brother of the complainant.Nature of the allegation made is use of firearm which is a dangerous weapon and the act of the petitioner has resulted into gun shot injury in the thigh.Using of firearm and injuring someone is an act which cannot exclusively be categorized as an offence merely against individual.The repercussion of an offence with use of firearm is disturbance to peace and tranquility of the area within which gun shot is fired as it sends ripples of disturbance in the even tempo of life in the area thereby spreading sense of fear among members of public who are in audible range of the gun- shot.Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court on 01st March, 2017 in CRLMP No. 18630/2016 ( Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan Vs.State of Kerala) whereby special leave petition challenging the conviction 2 M.Cr.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,620,708 |
After purchasing the goat, she fed and served it for about a month.However, applicant Rimaklal had also taken money from co- accused/applicant Harakchand for the same goat.About a month after purchase of goat by deceased Lalita, applicant Harakchand went to the deceased Lalitas place and told her that he had already purchased the goat.At around 04.00 pm on the same day, Harakchand came to the house of Lalita, who got annoyed on seeing him and asked her husband as to who has called Harakchand.Harakchand also got enraged and told Lalita that he does not owe any money to her and started shouting.Lalitas Husband Shivram tried to pecify Lalita and asked her not to be tense because they had transactions with Harakchand and she would get her money back.Thereafter, Harakchand left and Shivram also went to his field.When he returned at about 08.00 p.m., he learnt that deceased Lalita had left home without telling anyone, taking her 2 months old son Abhisekh with her.Lalita could not be traced for next four days.On 22.11.2014, her dead body was found floating in the water of Bel river.The case is posted for admission and consideration of I.A. No. 14511/2015 for stay.However, since copy of complete set of charge sheet has been filed by the applicants and the respondent State is represented, the case is admitted and heard finally by consent.The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision may be summarized as hereunder: About 3-4 months prior to the date of incident, deceased Lalita had purchased a goat with the amount she had received by way of salary for working as Asha wouker, for Rs.2,100/- from applicant/accused Rimaklal.Lalita asked him for reimbursement of the price of goat she paid to Rimaklal but Harakchand refused to part with any money and forcibly took the goat away, telling her to do whatever she could.Deceased Lalita was terribly hurt by the incident and wept a lot.Subsequently, on 18.11.2014 at around 10.00 a.m., applicant Rimaklal was seen by Lalita near her house.She asked her money back from Rimaklal; whereon, Rimaklal told Lalita not to pressurize him for the money and also said that she will get her money refunded by Harakchand.On that day, applicant Rimaklal also misbehaved with Lalita.The Court shall first consider whether there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the applicants Harakchand and Rimaklal?A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the police has recorded statements of witnesses Shivram, Juggubai, Shriram, Chikku, Sevakram, Bekubai, Ramkali, Karesha, Naresh, Nehanglal, Nanakram, Chetubai, Nanho, Durgesh, Sangeeta and Awdhesh.Aforesaid witnesses, in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., have generally supported the prosecution story to the effect that aforesaid transaction between Harakchand, Rimaklal and Lalita took place.The transaction coulld either have been outright sale of goat or the goat might have been pledged by Rimaklal to Harakchand.It is true that deceased Lalita had fed and served the goat for a period of about one month and it is possible that she might have developed some emotional attachment to the goat.In the result, this criminal revision succeeds in part.(C V SIRPURKAR)
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,063,046 |
Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 1578 of 2007 All Backward Class Relief & Development Mission versus Smt. Basanti Mondal & Ors.All Backward Class Relief and Development Mission, a voluntary organization working for the economic development of the backward classes, in different parts of West Bengal, by providing financial aid for self-employment, made a complaint in writing against the opposite party no. 1 and 2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, but the Learned Court below dismissed the same with the following orders;Seen the complaint under Section 406/420/506 IPC registered it.Heard considered.Perused the petition of complaint.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,806,307 |
The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that in the wee hours on 9-11-1982, the informant Jitendra Kumar Singh accompanied by his elder brother Surendra Singh and collaterals Paras Singh (P.W. 2) and Babban Singh (P.W. 3) had gone to the pumping set of Ram Dular Kurmi (P.W. 5) of his village to irrigate his field lying to the north of that pumping set at a distance of about 200 steps.At the time of their arrival at the pumping set, the field of one Ram Adhar Singh was being irrigated.Ram Dular at that time was not present there.Jitendra Kumar Singh his deceased brother Surendra Singh, Paras Singh and Babban Singh sat, on the cots lying beneath a Chhappar overhanging the eastern wall of the room of the pumping set in wait of Ram Dular.It is said that at about 5 a.m. appellants Jhamman Yadav, Rathey Yadav, Nandu and Agardu, all armed with country-made pistols, appeared there and out of them, Agardu, Nandu and Jhamman Yadav dragged Surendra Singh to the north of the Chhappar and shot at him from their respective weapons causing his instantaneous death.During the course of incident, appellant Radhey Yadav stood by the side of the Information and other witnesses present there and issued threats, saying that if any of them moved from his place, he would kill him.It is also alleged that while dragging Surendra Singh, Radhey Yadav had exhorted his companions to kill him, saying that it was he who was doing Pairvi of cases and with his death, all matters would stand resolved.After the incident, all the accused managed to run away through the sugarcane field of Ram Dular lying to the east of his pumping set.At the time of incident, an electric bulb was allegedly glowing at the pumping set and there was also moonlight in which the witnesses are said to have identified the assailants.Soon after the incident, Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) set out for P. S. Cholapur, which lies to the south of the place of occurrence at a distance of four miles.On his way to police station, he scribed a written report (Ext. Kha-1) and made it over at the police station, on the basis of which Syed Hasan Muztaba, then posted as Head Moharrir at P. S. Cholapur, drew Chik F.I.R, (Ext. Ka-2) and registered a case against the accused vide G. D. (Ext. Ka 3) at 6.15 a.m. Inspector S. P. N. Tripathi (P.W. 8) at that time was posted as Station Officer P. S, Cholapur.According to Dr. Shukla, the body of the deceased was of average built.JUDGMENT Y.R. Tripathi, J.Appellants Jhamman Yadav, Radhey Yadav, Nandu and Agardu, having been convicted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to Imprisonment for Life by Sri G.S. Chaube, the then Special Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 538 of 1982 relating to P. S, Cholapur, District Varanasi, have preferred this appeal.The eyes were half-opened and mouth partially opened.Dr. Shukla found the following ante-mortern injuries on the dead body:Gun shot wound 3 cms x 3 cms on the right side abdomen upper part 10 cms below the right nipple, 6 cms lateral to mid-line of abdomen.(Wound of entry) Margins inverted.Blackening around wound present.Gun shot wound of entry 2 cms x 2 cms on the front and middle of chest, 7 cms below the external notch.Gun shot wound 8 cms x 5 cms on the top and back of right shoulder caused by slanting bullet passing from below and back to front and top of right shoulder.Gun shot wound of exit % cm x % cm on the back of right side chest, 2 cms below the angle of right scapula at 6 O'clock position.On internal examination, he found as follows:Gun shot wound in continuation of injury No. 2 piercing the body of sternum at the level of 3rd rib, pericardium, arch of aorta and right side lung upper and middle parts.Gun shot wound in continuation to injury No. 1 piercing at the level of 8th and 9th ribs, upper part of right lobe of liver.8 pellets (small size) and pellet wad found in the abdominal cavity, half litre blood present in the abdominal cavity.As per post-mortem report, the victim had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem gun shot injuries.It transpires that the police of P. S. Cholapur, after due investigation of the case presented charge-sheet against the appellants, which culminated into their trial.The case of the appellants was that of denial and false implication.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Jitendra Kumar Singh P.W. 1, the informant, Paras Singh P.W. 2, Babban Singh P.W. 3, all witnesses of fact, Ram Dular P.W. 4 at whose pumping set the incident took place, Head Constable Syed Hasan Muztaba, scribe of the Chik Report and the G. D. through which the case was registered, Constable Mohammad Yousuf Khan P.W. 6, who along with constable Umesh Kumar Pandey had taken the dead body of the victim to the mortuary for its post-mortem examination, Dr. P. N. Shukla, Medical Officer S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi P.W. 8 who held autopsy on the dead body of the victim and Inspector S. P. N. Tripathi P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer.The defence produced one Indrasan Rai, D.W. 1, a Junior Engineer then posted at 33.11 KV Sub-station Cholapur to prove that there was no supply of electricity at the pumping set of Ram Dular at the time of the alleged incident.The learned trial Court after considering the evidence led by both the parties, found the complicity of the appellants in the incident proved and it accordingly holding them guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid through its impugned judgment and order, dissatisfied from which the appellants have come up in this appeal.We have heard parties' counsel in great detail and have gone through the materials on record.The factum of occurrence and the unnatural death of the victim Surendra Singh are not disputed in this case.What has been disputed is the involvement of the appellants and it has first of all been urged that the evidence led by the prosecution consists of witnesses, who are highly interested and inimical.It cannot be disputed that the three factual witnesses produced are closely related to the deceased, Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) is the real brother of the deceased and the other two witnesses Paras Singh (P.W. 2) and Babban Singh (P.W. 3) are his collaterals.Whereas Paras Singh is the son of real brother of the grandfather of the deceased.Babban Singh is his real uncle.There is, therefore, no dispute about all the three factual witnesses being inter se related.There are also materials on record to show that there was daggers drawn enmity between the family of the deceased and that of the appellant Jhamman.Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) has himself admitted that Jhamman.Sia Ram and Jannu had killed his father about fifteen years prior to the incident and they had been prosecuted for that offence.He has also stated that Jhamman, Agardu, Radhey, Girja and Sadhu had caused injuries to his two brothers Ravi Shankar and Kasinath.He has further stated that Jhamman, Agardu, Radhey, Girja, Sadhu and some others had beaten up his younger brother Kapil Deo and in respect of that incident, a case under Section 307, I.P.C. was pending against them at the time of occurrence.The defence too has filed a number of documents suggesting that several criminal cases were either fought or were pending between the parties at the time of occurrence.Enmity cuts both ends.On the basis of enmity and inter se relation of the witnesses, the evidence led by the prosecution in this case could not have been thrown out.It is by now well settled that in cases where the witnesses are inimical and interested, their evidence should be approached with care and caution.In view of the fact that the incident took place outside, the village at a time when no villager in ordinary course would have been present at the spot, the non-production of any independent witness can hardly be a ground for disbelieving the prosecution case.So far as the presence of three prosecution witnesses is concerned, it would be found that the deceased along with these witnesses had allegedly gone to the pumping set of Ram Dular to irrigate his field lying to the north of that pumping set.It is a matter of common experience that more than one person are required in the process of irrigation.Besides, there being bad blood between the members of the family of the deceased and the appellants and some others, it was but natural for the deceased and his brother to have taken some other persons also with them while going to the pumping set of Ram Dular lying at a lonely place outside the village, that too in the wee hours.The field of Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 1), which was to be irrigated on the date of occurrence measures about 4 bighas necessitating the involvement of certain persons to facilitate the irrigation by looking after the drain and constructing new Nalis in the field according to requirement.The presence of the three factual witnesses on the spot, therefore, in no way appears to be either improbable or unnatural.The evidence on record also shows that there is no other village in close vicinity of the place of occurrence.The incident is said to have taken place in early hours when there was no occasion for any other person to be present nearby the site of the occurrence.The non-production of an independent witness, therefore, can hardly be said to have any impact on the truthfulness of the prosecution case.Adverting to the evidentiary value of the three factual witnesses which has been assailed on various grounds, it would be found that all the three witnesses have supported each other on material particulars.The learned counsel for the appellant has sought to discredit them merely on the ground of certain so-called omissions and contradictions, which are too insignificant to be taken notice of.It has been argued that none of the prosecution witnesses had stated to the Investigating Officer that he was sitting on cot beneath the Chhappar over-hanging the eastern wall of the room of the pumping set.True, that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of any of the factual witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. it has come that at the time of incident he and others were sitting on cots but it goes without saying that F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia to contain all such details.The witnesses being village rustics were not expected to have stated this fact to the Investigating Officer without specifically being questioned on this point.The evidence on record shows that the Investigating Officer had visited the place of occurrence just after a few hours of the incident and had prepared the site-plan on the pointing out of some of the factual witnesses.He has shown the location of the cots in the Chhappar.This itself shows that the Investigating Officer must have been told as to where the witnesses were sitting at the time of occurrence, else there was no reason for him to have shown the position of cots lying in the Chhappar.It was then argued that Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) did not say, during the course of his interrogation by the Investigating Officer, that he had always been irrigating his field from the pumping set of Ram Dular.His evidence no doubt shows that there is another tubewell of Birju Kurmi in that vicinity, but its level is so low that irrigation of his field is not possible therefrom.Ram Dular (P.W. 4) too has supported his evidence on this point and has stated that the field of Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) has always been irrigated from his pumping set.We thus see no reason to disbelieve either Jitendra Kumar Singh or Ram Dular on this point.The evidence of other factual witnesses Paras Singh (P.W. 2) and Babban Singh (P.W. 3) is sought to be belied on the ground of their enmity with the appellants.We have seen above that from before the incident, the family members of the informant including the two aforesaid witnesses Paras Singh and Babban Singh were on litigating terms with the appellants.There was, therefore, nothing unnatural if Paras Singh and Babban Singh used to render help to Jitendra Kumar Singh, the informant, in the litigations.In some of the litigations, they were also involved along with the deceased and the informant.It was next contended that initially in the F.I.R. it was alleged that all the appellants dragged Surendra Singh to the north of the Chhappar where three of them, namely, Jhamman, Agardu and Nandu shot at him from their respective pistols, but at the stage of evidence a deviation from the F.I.R. version has been made and the eyewitnesses produced have stated that it were only Jhamman, Agardu and Nandu who took away Surendra Singh to the north of the Chhappar and fired shots at him.It would be found that there is a specific mention in the F.I.R. that Radhey Yadav armed with country-made pistol remained present near the factual witnesses during the incident and kept on threatening them and he did not participate in actual shooting.We hardly see any contradiction between the F.I.R. version and the evidence of factual witnesses on this point.It was then further argued that there are also some contradictions about the place where the victim was shot at and the, mariner of commission of the offence.It is found that the factual witnesses have stated that the appellants took Surendra Singh 4-5 steps to the north of the Chhappar and shot at him there.The Investigating Officer has stated that the body of the deceased was lying about 20 steps to the north of the pumping set of Ram Dular.The distance of the place of occurrence from Chhappar has been described by the witnesses on the basis of their estimation and it in no way belies their evidence so far as the factum of occurrence and the participation of the appellants in the incident are concerned.The defence itself does not seriously dispute the situs of the occurrence and has thrown a suggestion to Jitendra Kumar Singh that the deceased was done to death by his companion gamblers over some dispute while gambling in the Chhappar.The learned counsel for the appellants, taking us through the evidence of factual witnesses, pointed out some other contradictions, which, in our opinion, have hardly any relevance, 16A. It was next contended that the Incident took place two or three days before or after the Diwali festival when people generally gamble.Taking us through the statement of Ram Dular (P.W. 4) it has been urged that the enquiry made by the Investigating Officer from Ram Dular as to whether his Chhappar was being used for gambling, Indicates that the assailants were not known till then and the Investigating Officer was exploring various probabilities to track down the real assailants.True, Ram Dular has stated about such an enquiry having been made from him by the Investigating Officer and his having denied the Chhappar being used for gambling, but the Investigating Officer has not been confronted with the said statement of Ram Dular.Ram Dular is a village rustic and appears to have been either trapped by the cleverly question put to him by the defence counsel or by making such a statement has obliged the appellants by giving them a base to build their defence.It was also contended that Ram Dular has given a conflicting reason for his absence from the pumping set at the time of arrival of the informant and his companions.At one place he is found to have stated that he at that time had gone to his house to call his son and in the next breath he has stated that he had gone to his house to give fodder to his cattle.It is also possible that he might have left his pumping set for both the aforesaid purposes i.e. to take back his son to the pumping set as also to give fodder to his cattle.The learned counsel for the appellants then referring to certain excerpts of the statements of factual witnesses made a futile attempt to belie their presence op the spot on the ground of certain contradictions made by them with regard to position of the appellants and the deceased at the time of actual shooting.One can visualise the situation at the time of incident.All the four appellants armed with country-made pistols had appeared on the scene all of a sudden and some of them had dragged Surendra Singh to some distance and one was keeping guard on the witnesses and issuing threats by them not to move from their respective positions, In such a terror surcharged situation, it would not have been possible for any of the scared witnesses to have made minute observation about the position of either the deceased or the assailants at the time of firing.The failure of these witnesses, therefore, to give picturesque account of the actual incident, to our mind, can hardly be taken 16 be fatal.The presence of blackening around ante-mortem injury No, 1 as also the fact that the deceased had sustained as many as four exit wounds, lend support to the prosecution version about the first shot on the deceased having been fired by appellant Jhamman from close range and the other two appellants Agardu and Nandu firing the subsequent shots with a view to ensure the death of the victim.The ante-mortem injuries thus found on the person of the victim besides being compatible with the number of the assailants, also fit in with the ocular account given by the factual witnesses.The learned counsel for the appellants then in an attempt to belie the existence of light on the pumping set of Ram Dular at the time of occurrence referred to the statement of Indrasan Rai and urged that from the entries of log-sheet proved by Indrasan Rai, there did not exist any light on the pumping set of Ram Dular at the time of incident, which too belies the incident having taken place in the manner and fashion as alleged by the prosecution.From the evidence of Indrasan Rai D.W. 1 it is borne out that certain entries in the log-sheet are in different handwriting.The learned trial Court has discussed at length this aspect of the case and relying on the evidence of factual witnesses and Ram Dular P.W. 4 the owner of pumping set, has held that there was electric supply at the time of occurrence.So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, besides there being sufficient materials to show that the incident took place at the pumping set of Ram Dular, the defence too has not challenged it.It has rather thrown a suggestion to Jitendra Kumar Singh P.W. 1 that the victim was done to death by his companion gamblers.It does not stand to reason that in order to feed far his grudge against the appellants, the informant would have screened the real assailants of his brother with whom he had an immediate grievance,Thus on an overall consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has, on proper appraisal of the evidence on record, rightly concluded about the complicity of the appellants in the Incident.From the facts proved, we are also of the view that it was a cold-blooded murder having been executed by the appellants in a well planned manner, The injuries found in the post-mortem examination of the victim also indicate that they were sufficient in ordinary course to cause his death.The appellants thus appear to have rightly been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court does not, warrant any interference.In view of what has been observed above we find no merit in this appeal.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.The appellants-are on bail.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi shall cause them to be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence imposed on them.He shall also submit compliance report within one month.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,635,761 |
The Petitioner herein/A2 is working as a Graduate Teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Moovarasampet, Madipakkam, Chennai.d) The details of all the assets/ investments amounting to Rs.42,05,684/- in the name of A1 to A6 are shown in the statement-A, for the said checkhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 period.The details of all the assets/ investments amounting to Rs.1,27,00,984/- in the name of A1 to A6 are shown in the Statement-B, which includes house plots, bank balance as on 17.01.2016, etc. The details of income of the accused persons during the check period are given in the Statement-C. The details of the expenditure incurred during the check period are given in the Statement-D.This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order of dismissal of the discharge petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.PC, by the Petitioner in Crl.MP.No.4915 of 2018, in CC.No.6 of 2018, dated, 28.11.2018, on the file of the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.The facts leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Petition are as follows:-a) One S.Durga Prasad/A1 worked as a Public Servant, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in various capacities in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO),http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Government of India, during the period from 01.01.2010 to 17.1.2016, which was taken as the check period.In the trap proceedings in Crime No.RC.2/A/2016, he was arrested and suspended.b) The charge sheet in CC.No.6 of 2018 before the Trial Court was filed for the offences under Sections 13(2) read Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 109 of IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against six accused persons, namely S.Durga Prasad/A1, his wife, the Petitioner herein/A2, his son Shyam Prasad/A3, his father in law, Malaikani/A4, his mother in law, Mallika/A5 and his sister Anna/A6, alleging that the main accused/A1 had acquired assets, in question, abetted by A2 to A6, disproportionate to the known sources of the income of A1 and that as on 17.01.2016, A1 was found in possession of assets/pecuniary resources in his name and in the names of his family Members, A2 to A6, to an extent of Rs.4,28,50,092/-, against their known sources of income of Rs.1,37,21,040/-, for which he could not satisfactory account.c) It is further alleged that the said abettors, namely, A2 to A6 did not have adequate income to account for the quantum of assets, which have been found to be disproportionate.e) The main source of income of A1 and A2 during the check period were the salary and allowances, interest on bank accounts, rental income etc. The total income during the check period is calculated as Rs.1,37,21,040/-, the break-up details of which are shown in Statement- C. The percentage of of disproportionate assets held by A1 to A6 was computed as 312%.The above acts would attract the offences as stated above.f) Before the Trial Court, the Petitioner/A2 has filed Crl.Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the impugned order or dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the Petitioner.Her sources are very much known; each and every document was recovered by the CBI, however that has been ignored.Therefore, in the present case, everything cannot be left for trial.If there is no case made out against the petitioners, then why they should face the trial, which will definitely go for years together.The petitions are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.”Since there is no case made out against the Petitioner/A2 and since the trial will go for years together, then the Petitioner/A2 should not be asked to face the trial long time for having committed no offence and consequently, sending the Petitioner/A2 to face trial will be misuse of judicial process.27.In 2006 1 SCC 420 (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai Vs.The Prosecution has not been able to establish, by producing valid legal material, that the Petitioner/A2 had abetted A1 in accumulation of the disproportionate assets in question.Whereas the Trial Court, on the wrong presumption, had dismissed the discharge petition.Consequently, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.26.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 15 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To:The Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, ChennaiThe XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madrashttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.Srcm Crl.RC.No.239 of 2019 26.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,635,853 |
For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent will be referred to as complainant and accused.The complainant is the elder brother of the accused.The complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.593 of 2007 before the Additional District Munsif at Vellore against the accused for a declaration that the Settlement Deed dated 30.07.1966 registered as document no.3059 of 1966 at SRO Vellore is null and void.The accused entered appearance in O.S.No.593 of 2007 and filed his written statement, wherein at paragraph 5, it was stated as follows:"The plaintiff is not working at Vellore and he was roaming here and there and also doing so many ugly things and he never paid single pie to his father or his family."Similarly, in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by the accused, it was stated as follows:"The defendants submits that there was not mentioned about the plaintiff's son except the plaintiff roaming from Velappadi or some other places with his mischievous friends and also wantonly done from unwanted things to give bad name his family." Further he never done any job till he vacated from Vellore.Now also the defendant wants to know what the plaintiff is doing at Chennai, but his wife and children are in one place, there was also non co-operation between the wife and children and himself."Aggrieved by the said averments, the complainant filed a private complaint in C.C.No.190 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore for an offence under Section 499 r/w 500 IPC against the accused.Before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked two exhibits.The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and marked five exhibits.After considering the evidence adduced by both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 500 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.A.No.267 of 2011 before the Sessions Court, Vellore.The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, by judgment dated 25.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.267 of 2011, reversed the trial Court judgment and acquitted the accused, aggrieved by which, the complainant is before this Court.Though the averments made may be out of context, yet, for mulcting criminal liability under Section 499 r/w 500 IPC, the averments should be per se defamatory and it should lower the moral or intellectual character of the person, in the estimation of others.In this case, the accused wanted to show to the civil Court that the complainant was not taking care of the family and only in those circumstances, the impugned Settlement Deed was registered, under which, the complainant was not given any share.In support of the allegation that the complainant was leading a wayward life, the accused has marked Ex.In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.1.The Additional District Judge, Vellore.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vellore.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,636,363 |
The prosecution case in brief is that the accused Uttam Kumar was in love with Sujata i.e. the deceased.They both got married against the wishes of their parents.The parents relented subsequently to perform a proper marriage ceremony.According to the prosecution allegations, the appellant used to harass the deceased on account of dowry demands and even physically beat her.On 4.4.2009, within four and a half month of their marriage, the deceased was found hanging in the matrimonial house.The information in this regard was received by the concerned Police Station i.e. PS Mehrauli.The concerned police officers Crl.A. 838/2011 Page 1 reached the spot and found the body of the deceased hanging in the drawing room by the ceiling fan.The deceased had used a chunni.It is alleged that the police called the Crime Team, which searched for clues and incriminating materials, which were duly collected.The body was taken down and sent to the mortuary.The deceased's parents were informed.The concerned SDM recorded their statements in which they alleged that they were compelled to marry off their daughter to the accused.According to their statements recorded in the course of the investigation, the deceased used to complain about tension between her and the accused with regard to the gifts, which according to the accused were inadequate from her side.The parents also alleged that on the day of the incident, they had received a call from the deceased that she would be returning to her parental home.However, in the evening, they received a call from the police mentioning that she had committed suicide by hanging.The marriage was initially opposed by the deceased's parents, i.e. PW-3 and PW-5; it was solemnized in a temple.Later, the parents were reconciled and - according to PW-5 - hosted a reception.He alleged that he paid money to the couple to buy a sofa, and that Sujata and Uttam used to demand Rs. 4-5 lakhs to enable them to settle abroad.He was confronted with his previous statement on these aspects (demand for money having paid for a sofa set, the accused quarreling and beating the deceased), where these allegations had not been made.The appellant, PW-5 also corroborated PW-3 about the events that led to her daughter's marriage.The deceased's parents further alleged that the accused had been married earlier and had a son but he had not disclosed it to the deceased at the time of their marriage.On the basis of the allegations made by the deceased's relatives, the police registered First Information Report (FIR) alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B IPC.The investigations were concluded after which a charge-sheet was filed.The accused was arrested during the course of investigation, and upon being charged denied guilt and claimed trial.The prosecution relied upon the testimonies of 13 witnesses; besides, it also relied upon several documents, including the postmortem report, the forensic report and other materials, which were collected during the investigation.He was accordingly acquitted.PW-5, the appellant, on the other hand, clearly stated that Sujata used to ask for gifts as she was also tortured in connection to these demands.Besides, PW-5 clearly deposed that her daughter (the deceased) and the accused used to ask for money in order to settle abroad.She had even mentioned that the sum claimed or demanded by the accused was about Rs.4-5 Lakhs.Furthermore, argued counsel, PW-6 in the deposition stated that she had looked after all arrangements pertaining to the reception during the marriage and more importantly that she had sent dowry articles such as sofa etc. to victim's house.This significantly, according to the appellant's counsel was not subjected to the cross examination.Cumulatively seen therefore the prosecution had demonstrated and proved that the demand of dowry in the form of articles, Crl.A. 838/2011 Page 3 money and the facilitation to the accused and the deceased to settle abroad were being made.It was argued that the Trial Court's findings that Sujata probably could not face the harsh reality due to the existence of accused's son from a prior marriage, had compelled her to commit suicide is a mere surmise.It was further argued that the impugned judgment concluded erroneously that the deceased knew before her marriage to the accused that he was a widower and had a child from the first marriage.These were extraneous to the record.On the other hand, PW-2 had produced relevant record of the marriage of the deceased with the accused.These coupled with the demands of dowry, which were incessant and the harassment meted out both physically and mentally to the deceased compelled her to commit suicide.Although the deceased and the accused had been seeing each other and decided to get marry without the consent of their parents, nevertheless the latter thereafter reconciled to the alliance and even celebrated the marriage.She confirmed to having given the statement to the SDM (Ex.PW-5/A).For that she had alleged tension between the deceased and Uttam Kumar, the latter's demand for dowry, cruelty meted out to Sujata by the accused etc. She also mentioned that the deceased had called her up in the morning of 04.04.2009 saying that she wanted to go to the parental home, on account of tension.A. 838/2011 Page 6It has emerged, from the evidence of both PWs-3 and 5 that the accused had been married earlier.According to both, he had a son by the previous marriage, which he had concealed from the deceased at the time of their marriage.12. PW-6, the neighbour of PWs-3 and 5, mentioned about the reception held after the marriage of the deceased with the accused.He stated that the accused reached the reception party late.Similarly, the accused reached the witnesses' house late for a lunch hosted by him, to celebrate their marriage.PW-9, the accused's brother, deposed to awareness, on the part of PW-3 about the accused's previous marriage, since his father had disclosed it.The Crime Team report (Ex.The FIR in this case was registered on 5.4.2009, at 06:10 PM (Ex.PW-10/A).The statement of PW-5 (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at that time.The evidence of the SDM (PW-7) establishes that he was informed about the death soon after the occurrence, in the evening of 4.4.2009 itself.In these circumstances, the prosecution owed a duty to explain why when the deceased's parents and relatives were available, the FIR was lodged after one day's delay.Even if the Court were to overlook the delayed reporting of the FIR, the overall conspectus of evidences reveals that the couple got married since they fell in love, which each other.Though the deceased's parents initially opposed the idea, they later relented.As far as the deceased's knowledge regarding the Crl.As regards the allegations of dowry demands and attendant cruelty by the husband, this Court notices that PW-3 was silent about these, in his statement recorded by the SDM.He sought to make improvements and was confronted in the cross examination.There is, therefore, conflicting evidence about both dowry demand and cruelty.Though PW-5 mentioned that the daughter had called her before the death, in the morning, the prosecution made no effort to trace the call and prove it in the Court.The High Court cannot substitute its view merely because the Trial Court adopted one of the plausible views.This appeal is, consequently, dismissed.The application also stand dismissed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,637,323 |
BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 3 of 31The Applicant submits that apart from the aforesaid companies, he and his family have incorporated other companies to carry out the objective of the parent companies.Together, all these companies are referred to as "Vigneshwara Group of Companies" (hereinafter "VGC").The Applicant, his brother and father are all directors in VGC, wherein the Applicant is the Managing Director, his brother is the Finance head, and father is the Chairman.The Applicant was involved in the construction of two projects, namely, "Aquarius" and "Darsons and Kisson I Valley" in Gurgaon, Sector 74 and IMT, Manesar respectively.The development rights of the project "Darsons and Kisson I Valley" at Plot No. 2, Sector-8, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon , Haryana (Project-1) vested in M/s Vigneshwara Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the development rights of "Aquarius" at Sector 74, Gurgaon (Project-2) vested in M/s Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd.It is the case of the applicant that pursuant to receiving approval from the concerned authority i.e. Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) for Project-1 and Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Government of Haryana for Project-2, the applicant invited applications from general public to invest in the said projects for booking built-up space on lease hold basis.The applications were invited through advertisements in print media, TV and FM radio.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 4 of 31The investment options available under various schemes were down payment, barter agreement, construction linked program, and advance full payment by investors.The investors invested, inter alia, through the barter scheme or through advancing full payment.The barter scheme was in the nature of exchange of immovable property with a unit (s)/space in the projects of the applicant.The Applicant executed two kinds of agreements with the investors, namely, the Developer-Anchor-Unit Agreement and the Developer Anchor Option Agreement-Assured Return Plan.All these agreements were executed by the applicant on behalf of the aforesaid companies.The Developer assured the investors that the construction will be completed within a period of sixty months from the date of the agreement and after receipt of the completion certificate from government authority.The investors were also guaranteed assured return at the rate of 9% to 12% per month.As per the agreements, on the expiry of the period, the Developers were to hand over the booked units to the investors and the units, post construction, were to be rented, and the rent shared in the ratio 65:35 between the Developer and the respective investor.In the event of the company failing to offer possession of units within the stipulated time i.e. 60 months, accused were to pay back to the investors/complainants sums of money as agreed.It is the grievance of the complainants/investors that more than 60 months have lapsed since their investment, and the accused have not completed the construction at the project sites, let alone delivered BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 5 of 31 possession.The accused have failed to pay the assured returns from April, 2014 onwards.They are alleging that the accused have siphoned off more than Rs 600 crores by colluding, conspiring and illegally benefitting from the complainants money.They are, thus, liable for cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 5 of 31It is further alleged that these properties were bought at a low sale consideration on the assurance that the complainants would be compensated adequately with the allotment of a property equivalent to the value of the property bought.They were also promised a 12% per month assured return on the actual agreed price and not the lower sale price consideration till the delivery of the constructed unit.FIR No. 109/2014 pertains to Project No. 1 and is with respect to agreements executed other than through the barter system.FIR 110/2014 pertains to Project No. 2 at the site of Sector 74, Gurgaon, Haryana, wherein after collaboration with the farmers, the Applicant was building a project on the land owned by farmers.They submit that despite a lapse of 6 to 7 years, possession of the booked units has still not been offered.As regards Project BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 6 of 31 No. 1 only two towers are partially built out of the six, and Project No. 2 has still not seen daylight and only a ditch exists there.It is the case of the complainants that the accused have stashed the money in their individual accounts or accounts of persons, firms, companies owned and/or controlled by them.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 6 of 311212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 7 of 31 mind and heart of the public to invest their money in the projects of the accused.The Complainants have referred to an advertisement in Navbharat Times (Hindi) dated 12.04.2009 and Times of India (English) dated 14.04.2009 wherein the accused has stated that their project has been rated by PNB and Bank of India (BOI), which is false and misleading.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 7 of 31The Complainants allege that the applicant and his family members are habitual offenders and have been accused of cheating several investors in several FIRS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 8 of 31The Complainants allege the accused/ applicant along with the other directors has, by making false assurances and misrepresentation, induced the complainants to purchase the units and sell their properties.They have committed the offence of breach of trust, and cheating, and played fraud which is punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.It is further alleged that all three directors are the persons from the same family and are incharge of and responsible for day to day affairs of the said company.They deliberately did not carry out the construction at the desired pace in order to further rotate the money invested by the complainants and other investors.As per the agreement, it was agreed between the corporation and the accused that the breakup of the project implementation shall be as follows:BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 9 of 31It is stated that more than eight years have lapsed, and project is just 40-50% complete and for the last several months is in an abandoned condition as no construction activity has taken place.Further, as per the terms and conditions of agreement and clause 13.2 of EMP-2011, for booking of built space on lease rental basis during construction stage, the accused/ applicant were to seek permission from the corporation in a prescribed format, which was not sought.Project 2 @ Sector 74, Gurgaon BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 10 of 31BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 10 of 31The license came in the year 2009, given by DTCP Chandigarh.The Police had appointed an auditor to make a report on the amounts siphoned.It is revealed that huge amounts have been transferred into the individual account of the applicant's father, and also into the account of the sole proprietorship firm of the applicant's father and brother, as well as the applicant.The details of which are mentioned and discussed later.The charge sheet further states that "The present accused in the capacity of the Director of the company was not only acting as an agent of the company but also was a trustee of the assets of the company.To evidence the same, the Applicant has relied upon a verification report of Dun and Bradstreet verifying the performance of all projects.The Applicant submits that since the assured returns were diligently paid from inception, there is no intention to cheat and mens rea to constitute criminal offence is absent in the present case.Mr. Nigam, learned senior counsel submitted that there was no dishonest intention on part of the Applicant regarding the implementation of the projects, since the project at IMT Manesar is on the verge of completion BAIL APPLNS.As regards project at Sector 74, Gurgaon, the Applicant submits that the company could not proceed further for want of relevant sanction and approvals from the appropriate government authorities.The zoning plan was approved by the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana on 01.08.2014 and thus the implementation of the projects got delayed.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 12 of 31senior submits that the applicant from inception had bonafide intentions to carry out the project.The applicant has made payments to the investors to the tune of Rs. 2,137,842,537/- from 2006 till 31.03.2013 towards assured returns.He submits that the two towers at the project in Manesar are nearing completion, and only internal fit outs are required.The Applicant is fully inclined to develop the same and honour his part of the commitment.The Applicant submits that as per the agreements, the allottees (investors) were to pay all government levies, taxes and charges.It is submitted that the real estate industry was facing recession and thus the Applicant's company offered their investors additional space in place of the assured returns for the months of April 2014- December 2015 and assured to continue to pay the assured returns from January 2016 onwards.The Applicant also submits that the Police Authorities got all the bank accounts of all VGC attached which left the Applicant paralyzed and brought the functioning of its company to a standstill.This action of the Police Authorities affected the payment of assured returns and caused dishonour of cheques issued by the Applicant.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 13 of 31The applicant is a habitual offender.He has duped around 1500 investors to invest in his projects on the promise of lucrative returns.He relies upon the response from the said banks to RTI Applications, wherein BOI and PNB have indicated that M/s Vigneshwara Developers have published the names of the bank without the permission of the banks.BAIL APPLNS.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 23 of 31Even the terms and condition which has been printed on the back side of the receipt are hardly legible.........As per the terms and conditions of agreement dated 17/05/2006 between M/s Vigneshwara Developers Pvt. Ltd. and HSIIDC, accused got permission for freedom of leasing and renting the land and building within the campus for the uses permissible as per the industrial policy 2005 and notified for inviting applications which form part of the zoning plan and no other purposes whatsoever was given.However allottee has to obtain permission from HSIIDC on the prescribed format.In our opinion as per the terms and conditions of the above said agreement the accused was authorized to book the IT units only on or after 17/05/2006 subject to obtain permission from HSIIDC on prescribed format.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 24 of 31The accused had withdrawn a sum of Rs 5,40,00,000/- (Rs five crore forty lacs only).They had withdrawn material amount from the funds received from the investors it (sic) shows manipulation/misappropriation of funds......................................... The authorized and paid up capital of the company is Rs 1,00,000/- only, they have received the share application money in such a huge amount without increasing their authorized capital.During the year 2009-2010 company has received share application money of Rs 21,14,70,980/-.The company had shown the share application money lying pending for allotment since long period, and not taken any step for increase in his authorized capital so that he can allot the shares.In normal practice these types of entries are fake and bogus and companies use this type of practice to manipulate funds and convert black money into white................It has also been revealed during the course of investigation what number of properties purchased from the investors/complainant were further sold to third parties, either as a outright sale or as a collateral security BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 25 of 31 against the finance advanced by various individuals to the alleged company.BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 25 of 31A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.."BAIL APPLNS.1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016 Page 26 of 31These applications are:(iii) Crl.M.A. No. 10388/2016 in Bail Appln.The Ld. ASJ (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi has dismissed the bail applications of the applicant under Section 439 CrPC vide order dated 10.09.15 in all three subject FIRS.The Applicant states that he is in the business of real estate and in the construction of State-of-the-Art I.T. Parks in Gurgaon and Manesar.The Applicant along with his brother and his father has incorporated the following companies in this regard:FIR No. 108 pertains to complaints made by investors who invested in both Project 1 and Project 2 by opting for the barter system.It is alleged that the accused purchased various properties owned by the complainants, and the amount paid to the complainants was then got invested by the accused in their projects.It is further alleged that the assured returns which the applicant had assured to pay haven't been given since February 2014, despite demands.It is alleged that the accused had delivered some post dated cheques of July 2014 - March 2015 to the complainants to pay the pending assured returns, which have also started getting dishonored.Mr. Singla relies upon the auditors findings as mentioned in the charge-sheet, which reveals that during the year 2009- 2010, the company received share application money to the tune of Rs. 21,14,70,980/-.These FIRs are all similar in nature and substance and have been filed by the Investors.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,637,822 |
Ms. Sonali Das ... for the opposite party No. 2 -16 Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the petitioners be kept on record.By the instant application the petitioners have sought for transfer of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1108 of 2014 arising out of Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 342 of 2014 dated 17.05.2014 under Section 147/148/149/448/325/326/ 379/354A/307/427/302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, Nadia to any other Court within the State of West Bengal.Learned advocate for the petitioners contends that there is no possibility of fair trial where the learned A.P.P. has been threatened by the defence counsel.Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 16 submits that 25th February, 2019 has been posted for commitment of the case.It appears that the petitioners have sought for transfer of the case on the sole ground of derogatory utterances alleged to have been made by the learned advocate for the accused persons in open court at the time of hearing before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat shall expedite the process of commitment in accordance with law.The application being C.R.R. 4079 of 2017 is thus disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.( Asha Arora, J.)
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,806,431 |
Shecomplained to P.W.3 that her husband is ill-treating her on a suspicion thatshe is in illicit relationship with one Dharmalingam.P.W.3 told the deceasedthat he will ask the accused about his conduct.At about 4.00 p.m., she leftthe village for Bangalore.P.W.3 questioned them and came to knowthat his sister had run away with someone.P.W.3, therefore, went to thehouse of another sister, Vijaya, but could not get any definite details aboutthe deceased.P.W.3, along with his father, returned to the village.Though,they thought of going to the police station to lay a complaint, they did notdo so.In the meantime, on 12.5.92, P.W.2, the Village AdministrativeOfficer, when he was in the office, was informed that a dead body of a womanis floating in a well belonging to one Madhan @ Mariappan.This informationwas given to him by the said Madhan.This was reduced into writing.The saidcomplaint of Madhan is Ex.(The said Madhan, during the trial, was notalive and therefore, he was not examined, as could be seen from the evidenceof P.W.1).P.W.2 went to the well and found the dead body of a woman agedabout 25 years floating and on the dead body, a green colour saree and a blackblouse was seen.P.W.2 went to the police station and gave the informationabout his seeing the dead body.He took up investigation in the case andreached the scene of occurrence.He prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.2and drew a rough sketch, Ex.The dead body was brought out of the welland inquest was conducted in the presence of panchayatdars.Headskull bones intact.Brain weight normal.C/s.congestion present.The doctor issued Ex.P.6, the post-mortem certificate, with her opinion thatthe deceased died on account of drowning about 24 to 30 hours prior toautopsy.In the meantime, P.W.3 searched for his sister, but couldnot get any information and therefore, went to Palacode police station, thoughhe was living within the jurisdiction of Papparapatti and informed about themissing of his sister.They were identified by P.W.3 andthereafter, the crime was altered to one under Section 302 I.P.C. and Ex.P.12is a copy of the printed first information report in the altered crime.In the meantime, P.W.17, who took over investigation fromP.W.14, went to Bangalore and questioned witnesses.He also seized M.O.13, acompliant given by A-1 at Payal police station, Bangalore, complaining aboutthe missing of his wife.On 25.5.92, A-2 appeared before P.W.6, the VillageAdministrative Officer of Jagadalapuram.He gave a statement stating that heand his employer committed the murder of Lakshmi by pushing her into the well.The said statement given by A-2 was reduced into writing and the same standsmarked as Ex.P.W.6 handed over Ex.P.4 and the second accused at Palacodepolice station.P. W.17, remanded the second accused to custody.He was brought to the police station and later, sent to Court forremand.According to P.W.3, the elder brother of the deceased, thedeceased visited him about three or four days prior to the date of incidentand complained to him that her husband is suspecting her fidelity and that shewill return to the village along with her husband, who has to execute a saledeed in respect of a land, which was already conveyed.P.W.3 has furtherdeposed that his sister did not come to the village along with her husband andtherefore, he made enquiries and came to know that she has eloped withsomeone.The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to them.Index: YesWebsite: YessraTo1.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.2.-do- Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.3.The Judicial Magistrate, Palacode.4.-do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.5.The District Collector, Dharmapuri.6.The Director General of Police, Chennai.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.DHINAKAR, J.) The appellants, two in number, who were tried as A-1 and A-2before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in Sessions CaseNo.19 of 2000, were convicted by the trial Court.A-1 was convicted underSection 302 I.P.C. and A-2 was convicted under Section 302 read with 34I.P.C. and on being convicted, each one of them was sentenced to imprisonmentfor life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a defaultsentence of one year simple imprisonment.The above conviction and sentenceare under challenge in this appeal.The case of the prosecution as could be discerned from theoral and documentary can be briefly summarised as follows:-She informed P.W.3 that she will return to thevillage along with her husband, as he had to execute a sale deed of aproperty, which he has already sold.A-1 went to the village of P.W.3 on11.5.92 and executed the sale deed and went away.P.W.3 came to know that hersister had run away with someone.At the time ofinquest, Madhan and some others were examined, whose statements were recorded.P.9 is the inquest report.After the inquest, the body was sent to thehospital for autopsy.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.8, the Civil Surgeonattached to Government Hospital, Palacode, conducted autopsy on the body ofLakshmi and found the following:-A body of a female lying on its back with the arms by the sides, skin peelingpresent.Blood stained discharge from the nostrils and mouth present.Nodischarge from other natural orifices.Ear lobes, lips, eyelids - fish eaten.No external injuries.Hyoid bone intact.Heart weightnormal.C/o.All the chambers empty.Lungs: Balooned out.C/s.Trachea c ontains about 200 ml. of water.Abdomen:Distended.Stomach weight normal.Contains about 400 ml. of water.Spleen weight normal.C/s.congestion present.Liver weight normal C/s.congestion present.Kidneys weight normal.C/s.congestion present.Intestine weight normal.C/s.congestion present.Urinary bladder containsabout 100 ml. of urine.Uterus weight normal.On26.5.92, he questioned Natarajan and recorded his statement and A-1 wasarrested by P.W.1 6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at about 5.00 a.m. on30.5.92, when he was standing near a bus stop at Thottalampatti.A-1 gave astatement.P.W.17, in the meantime, questioned other witnesses and recordedtheir statements and on 10.10.94, filed the final report against the accusedunder Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. onthe incriminating circumstances appearing against them.They denied all theincriminating circumstances.They did not examine any witness on their side.The prosecution, before the trial court, examined P.W.8 toestablish the cause of death of Lakshmi and according to him, Lakshmi died onaccount of drowning.The accused also do not dispute that she died on accountof drowning.He made attempts to trace her by going to Bangalore and otherplaces, but could not get any definite information about the whereabouts ofhis sister.While the matter stood thus, a dead body of a woman was seenfloating in the well of Madhan, which fact was promptly conveyed by the saidMadhan to P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer.P.W.2 gave a complaintat Palacode police station and the dead body was taken out and sent forpost-mortem.At that time, the identity of the dead body of the woman, whichwas taken out of the well, was not identified and later, the identity of thedead body came to be established when P.W.3 went to Palacode police station on23.5.92 to inform the police officials about the missing of his sister.Theofficer, P.W.16, thereafter, altered the crime to one under Section 302 I.P.C.and the same was sent to the Inspector of Police.The facts, which we have narrated above, do not show thateither of the accused committed the murder of the deceased and the onlycircumstance, which we have to consider is the alleged statement, Ex.P.W.6 is the VillageAdministrative Officer of a different village and according to him, when hewas in his office, at noon, A-2, accompanied by his brother, P.W.7 (who turnedhostile), appeared before him and gave a statement implicating himself and hisemployer, A-1, saying that he and A-1 pushed the deceased into the well.Thisstatement, Ex.P.4 and A-2 were produced before the officer, who remanded A-2to custody.We have perused Ex.P.4 and also the evidence of P.W.6 and fromthe evidence of P.W.6, it could be seen that he was running his office in abuilding, which was adjacent to the police station.It is not known as to whyA-2, on 25.5.92, should appear before a total stranger, P.W.6 and give astatement implicating himself and A-1 with the crime.It is not as if thepolice were suspecting him and searching for him.The statement, Ex.P.4, runsto several pages and contains several details and it creates an impressionthat it must have been prepared at the instigation of someone, in which hissignature was obtained.According to P.W.16, P.W.3appeared before him on 23.5.92 and thereafter, he altered the crime to oneunder Section 302 I.P.C. He has marked Ex.P.12 as the express report in thesaid altered crime.P.4, which, according to theprosecution, came on 25.5.92 cannot be true and this must have been preparedby the police to suit the prosecution version.It is also to be remembered that the said statement ofA-2 cannot be put against A-1, since a statement of a co-accused can be lookedinto as against other accused to lend assurance if there are othercircumstances.The prosecution did not let in any evidence to show that A-1committed the murder of his wife with the help of A-2 and we are unable toaccept Ex.P.4, the alleged statement of A-2, as voluntary.We, accordingly,acquit A-1 and A-2 of the charges, under which they were convicted.7.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.8.The Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station, Palacode, DharmapuriDistrict.9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,806,435 |
Sarvodapa Enclave, New Delhi; he had let out the ground floor of the said premises to South Delhi Public School through Surinder Nath (accused No. 1, being the husband of the appellant) at the monthly rent of Rs. 1000, the school is run by a Registered Society known as Cosmopolitan Society of Education Research and Child Welfare, of which the appellant and her husband Surinder Nath were at all material times the Secretary and the Jt.Secretary respectively.JUDGMENT V.D. Tulzaparkar, J.(1) In this appeal the question raised is whether the process issued by Shri Om Prakash, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, against the appellant (Smt. Manju Gupta) for an offence under Ss. 467/471 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code .on a complaint filed by the respondent (Lt. Col. Ms. Paintal) should be quashed or not ? The appellant's attempt to get it quashed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. failed before the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal.After hearing counsel on either side at great length we were satisfied that the process should be quashed and by our order dated 26.4.82 we directed accordingly and observed that the reasons would follow.It appears that civil proceedings are pending between the parties ; one is an eviction petition field by the respondent against Surinder Nath and the Society and another is a suit filed by him for recovery of arrears of rents against them and the complaint has arisen from what transpired in these civil proceedings.In substance the allegation of the respondent has been that this Surinder Nath in furtherance of the common intention of three accused (himself, his wife and the Society through its Chairman) had forged two rent receipts dated 7.6.76 and 18.10.77 and had filed them in the proceedings pending before the respective Rent Controllers with a view to show that no rent was due from the tenants and the case in the complaint is that these forged receipts had been fraudulently and dishonestly used by the accused as genuine.After registering the complaint, recording complainant's evidence and perusing the various documents filed by the respondent the learned Magistrate issued process by summoning both the accused Surinder Nath and his wife (the appellant) for offences under Ss. 467/471 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code .
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,645,712 |
The short facts of the case are as follows:-One Mr.Praveen, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint before the first respondent herein and the same has been registered in Crime No.1211 of 2010 as against the petitioner and his father Duraisamy for the offence under Sections 323, 506(i) 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC.The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner herein received Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant, but later on cheated him.It was also alleged that the defacto complainant was not paid his one month salary.Hence, the prosecution case has been levelled against the accused.The petitioner submits after investigation, the first respondent filed the charge sheet which was taken as C.C.No.5083 of 2010 by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.The petitioner submits that he has filed a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.557 of 2011 and the same is pending.While so, the petitioner in order to prove his case filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.626 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.557 of 2011 in C.C.No.5083 of 2010, under Section 91 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, to call for the tower report of the mobile number of the following persons, viz.,1) N.P.Rajendran - Inspector of Police (Special IO)2) Mrs.Sivagami, Inquiry Officer (SI of Police) 96001134003) Mr.J, defacto complainant No.99405133074) Mr.Thangaraj Medical Officer No.9600340545) Mr.The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on this petition and perused the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate observed that the petitioner herein and his father had filed two petitions in M.P.Nos.556 of 2011 and 557 of 2011 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and that the petitions had been filed to call for the tower report from the aircel, vodafone, south limited, bharati airtel limited etc. However, the learned Magistrate on observing the contentions of the prosecution that the report requested by the petitioner from the various Departments is not maintainable as per law and that he is not entitled to disprove the case, held that the petition is not maintainable as per the facts of the case and on observing that the M.P.Nos.556 and 557 of 2011 are pending, opined that the said report cannot be called for as requested by the petitioner and hence, dismissed the petition.Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed.The Inspector of Police, has filed a counter statement and resisted the petition after narrating the facts of the case.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint before the first respondent herein and the same has been registered in Crime No.1211 of 2010 as against the petitioner and his father Duraisamy for the offence under Sections 323, 506(i) 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC.The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner herein received Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant, but later on cheated him.It was also alleged that the defacto complainant was not paid his one month salary.Hence, the prosecution case has been levelled against the accused.The petitioner submits after investigation, the first respondent filed the charge sheet which was taken as C.C.No.5083 of 2010 by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.The petitioner submits that he has filed a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.557 of 2011 and the same is pending.While so, the petitioner in order to prove his case filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.626 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.557 of 2011 in C.C.No.5083 of 2010, under Section 91 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, to call for the tower report of the mobile number of the following persons, viz.,1) N.P.Rajendran - Inspector of Police (Special IO)2) Mrs.Sivagami, Inquiry Officer (SI of Police) 96001134003) Mr.J, defacto complainant No.99405133074) Mr.Thangaraj Medical Officer No.9600340545) Mr.As per the complaint, the date of the alleged occurrence was on 13.10.2010 at about 06.30 a.m. But, the complaint was given only on 14.10.2010 at about 8 p.m. It was submitted that in order to prove that the Investigation Officers, Medical Officer as well as the defacto complainant in this case were not available at the time of alleged occurrence.It is just and necessary for the petitioner herein to be provided with the cellphone tower report of the mobile communication with the second respondent herein as it is necessary to prove his innocence and also prove that the other cases were falsely foisted against him and his father.The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is a B.E. and M.B.A. graduate and highly qualified person and his father is working as a Divisional Engineer in B.S.N.L. It was contended that the petitioner had filed Crl.O.P.No.5003 of 2012 before the High Court and when the petition came up before this Court, the Court by its order dated 06.06.2012 observed that :-In view of the above submission and endorsement made, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed as not pressed however with liberty to the petitioner to file revision against the orders impugned in these petitions".Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to set-aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.626 of 2011 in C.C.No.5083 of 2010, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.Praveen, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on the advice of the petitioner, he resigned his earlier job and started own business viz., M/s.RDM Airtel Agencies along with the petitioner / accused.The petitioner fixed the salary of the defacto complainant at Rs.20,000/- and incentive of Rs.5,000/-.In order to improve the business, the petitioner/accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and the defacto complainant had given the said amount to him.After two months, the said company was closed by the petitioner/accused and he failed to pay the defacto complainant two months salary due, incentive and also Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by the defacto complainant for the improvement of the business.On demand made by the defacto complainant, to return his money to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, the petitioner/accused along with his father attacked the defacto complainant and threatened him and sent him out of the house.Hence, the defacto complainant had preferred a complaint before the respondent police.It was submitted that based on the complaint, a case was registered on 14.10.2010 at 20.00 hours by Tmt.Sivagami, the then Sub Inspector of Police, V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.1211 of 2011 under Section 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC.On the same day, the said Tmt.Sivagami went to the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and also examined 8 witnesses.On 16.10.2010, the petitioner and his father were arrested and confession statement was also recorded and both of them were remanded to judicial custody.It was submitted that based on the examination of the witnesses and also based on the opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai-8, Thiru.Now, the case is pending trial before the said Court.The hearing was posted on 12.07.2012 for examination of the accused.It was submitted that in the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a discharge petition before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai vide Crl.M.P.No.554 of 2011 and the same was pending.The petitioner filed another petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai vide Crl.M.P.No.626 of 2011 to call for the tower report of the mobile number of the investigation officer (i.e., Inspector of Police) Thiru.N.P.Rajendran and Tmt.Sivagami (i.e. Inspector of Police) along with the defacto complainant, Dr.Thangaraj and also the petitioner's cell tower report from Aircel, Vodafone, South Ltd., Bharathi Airtel Ltd., etc and the same was dismissed on 16.02.2012 on the ground that the report requested by the petitioner from the various Department is not maintainable as per the law and the accused is not at all entitled to disprove this case.It was submitted that during the course of the pendency of the trial, the petitioner has filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.5003 of 2012 before the High Court and the same was dismissed on 06.06.2012 with the observation that the petitioner has the liberty to file a criminal revision against the orders.Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor entreats the Court to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner/accused.Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.626 of 2011 in C.C.No.5083 of 2010, on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 16.02.2012, is confirmed.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,655,048 |
4 M.Cr.Shri S.M. Guru, Advocate for the applicants.Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.(O R D E R) Passed on: 09.09.2015 This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the FIR No. 417/2011 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dsitrict Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequential order dated 29.04.2015 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Damoh in Criminal Case No.1133/2011 convicted the accused applicants No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC & under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.Short facts of the prosecution case is that on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 Urmila @ Soumya Soni, a criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 498-A & 506- 2 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015 B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the applicant No.1 Sandeep Soni, husband, applicant No.2 Gokul Prasad, father-in-law, applicant No.3 Smt. Shakun @ Janki, mother-in-law and Smt. Ragni Soni, sister-in-law.After conclusion of investigation a challan has been filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh.2 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015On the basis of the challan papers learned trial Court levelled aforesaid charges against the applicants, who abjured their guilt, hence, they put to trial.During trial, the complainant/respondent no.2 and applicants filed two applications as envisaged under Section 320 (A) (1) and 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court after endorsing such applications for compounding, compounded the offence punishable under Section 506-B/34 of IPC and acquitted the applicants, however, declined to discharge the applicants from Section 498-A of IPC & under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that such offence is not compoundable.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined complainant Smt. Urmila @ Soumya and other witnesses and also got exhibited documents.During accused statements, they denied the charges levelled against them.Learned trial Court after appreciation of the prosecution evidence vide judgment dated 29.04.2015 convicted the accused applicants No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC & under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of 3 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015 Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations, Against the judgment of conviction, the applicants preferred an appeal which is registered as Criminal Appeal No.52/2015 and pending for consideration before learned Sessions Judge, Damoh.Simultaneously the applicants filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.3 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015Learned counsel for the applicants submitted at bar that their clients have amicably resolved their disputes and there is no likelihood of any kind of dispute between them.It is pertinent to mention here that dispute between the parties is of private nature and having no adverse effect on the society as the nature is personal.The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 AIR SCW 5333 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and concluded as under:-"The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent 4 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015Since the parties had buried the hatchet by amicably settling their disputes, this Court could allow the matter to be compounded.In the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties in form of compromise petitions filed before the learned trial Court and as submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants before this Court is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalize the relationship between them.In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the answer of question is givev in affirmative.Resultantly, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.FIR No. 417/2011 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dsitrict Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequential order dated 29.04.2015 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Damoh in Criminal Case No.1133/2011 convicting the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC & under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.The applicants are acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC & under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 20155 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015Consequent thereto, proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 52/2015 pending before Sessions Judge, Damoh are also hereby quashed.This petition is accordingly disposed of.Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Appellate Court for intimation and necessary compliance.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,661,007 |
Since both the aforesaid miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first applications for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of aforesaid petitioners, in Crime No.169/2018 registered by P.S. Sikarpura, District- Burhanpur under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act.As per the first information report lodged by complainant Tausif, there was previous enmity between the complainant party and the petitioners with regard to possession of agricultural land.At about 09:30 a.m. on 15.05.2018, petitioners accompanied by co-accused persons Krishnapal Singh, Rakesh Solanki, Rahul Bais and Shailendra went to the disputed land to cultivate the same.Co-accused persons Krishnapal Singh, Rakesh Solanki and Rahul Bais were armed with .315 bore guns and Shailendra was armed with a revolver.When victim Tausif and 8 other persons Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 13/07/2018 18:28:25 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C.No.22854/2018 (Dravindra and another Vs.State of M.P.) & M.Cr.C No.22876/2018 (Baldev Singh and others Vs.State of M.P.) resisted the petitioners, co-accused Krishnapal Singh and others filthily abused them and Krishnapal Singh fired upon victim Tausif with intent to kill.As a result, he sustained injuries to his calf muscles of the right leg.Rahul Bais beat Shahid with the butt of the gun.As a result, Shahid sustained injuries to his right palm and wrist.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an order of S.D.O. dated 24.02.2016 in respect of the disputed land in their favour; therefore, they had gone to the field to cultivate the same but they were assaulted by the victim and his accomplices.As a result, co-accused Rakesh and Krishnapal Singh had sustained injuries.They had lodged a counter case, which was registered as crime no.170/2018 by P.S.-Sikarpura, District-Burhanpur under Sections 323, 294, 147, 148 and 506 (B) of the IPC.It has further been submitted that none of the petitioners is said to have been armed with any weapon.No overt act has been ascribed to any of the petitioners.They have been in custody since 15.05.2018 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that petitioners be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail applications; however, he has conceded that no overt act has been ascribed to any of the present petitioners in the first information report.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners and those conceded by the Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 13/07/2018 18:28:25 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C.No.22854/2018 (Dravindra and another Vs.State of M.P.) & M.Cr.C No.22876/2018 (Baldev Singh and others Vs.State of M.P.) learned Government Advocate for the respondent State; in the opinion of this Court, petitioners deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioners Dravindra, Dilip, Baldev Singh, Akash, Giriraj Rathore, Naveen Saxena, Gajendra Singh and Somendra Singh, are allowed.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.
|
['Section 148 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', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,066,683 |
1 346 01.11.2011 328/411/34/394 Gandhi Pending IPC Nagar Trial 2 80 22.03.2012 33/10/10 Delhi Gandhi Pending Excise Act Nagar Trial 3 303 14.09.2012 12/09/55 Gambling Gandhi Pending Act Nagar Trial W.P(Crl) No.1148/2015 Page 5 of 18W.P(Crl) No.1148/2015 Page 5 of 18W.P(Crl) No.1148/2015 Page 11 of 18The Additional DCP, from the materials available before him namely the statements of witnesses recorded in camera by one Mr.Asif Mohd.Ali, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and the records and other relevant materials held the petitioner to be a habitual offender and because of such involvement in offences in quick succession, the petitioner had become a dangerous person.The Additional Deputy Commissioner therefore, held that his presence in the community would be hazardous to the society.The Commissioner of Police has first to be satisfied about the proceedee to be a dangerous person and that allowing him to roam at large would be hazardous to the society or cause harm and danger to any person or property or reasonable grounds for believing that he would involve W.P(Crl) No.1148/2015 Page 11 of 18 himself in offence affecting human body, property, counterfeiting coins and currency notes.Thereafter, the Commissioner of Police is required to formulate his opinion that witnesses are unwilling to come in open to depose against such person for the fear of their lives.Then only a person/offender/proceedee could either be directed to behave himself or remove himself outside any part of Delhi or remove himself completely outside Delhi.the urgency of externing the petitioner in 2015, iv.requirement of the petitioner to be Delhi to attend to cases which are pending trial, v. the financial burden on the proceedee in coming from outside Delhi to Delhi Courts, W.P(Crl) No.1148/2015 Page 17 of 18 vi.the possibility of delay in disposal of cases and, therefore, delay in vindication of the assertion of either i.e. the petitioner or the prosecuting agency, vii.two acquittals and one conviction of the petitioner and so on and so forth.The externment order dated 10.3.2015 passed by the Additional DCP and the appellate order dated 5.5.2015 passed by the LG, Delhi are, therefore, quashed.The petition stands disposed of accordingly.In view of the main petition having been allowed, this application becomes infructuous.ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J July 15, 2015/k W.P(Crl) No.1148/2015 Page 18 of 18W.P(Crl) No.1148/2015 Page 18 of 18
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,668,906 |
This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to applicant.Applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.59/2016 registered at Police Station-Jarone, District-Tikamgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506-B, 326, 307, 329, 195, 34 of IPC.Thirty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.C. stands disposed of.Certified copy on payment of usual charges.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE ashish
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.
|
180,669,909 |
1 11.07 M 2018 C.R.R. 1334 of 2018 Sri Partha Pritam Pal @ Partha Pritom PalSmt. Kanika Mondal Nee Sikdar Nee Pal & Anr Mr. Bikram Banerjee, .... For the Petitioner.The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for leave to correct the cause title, which is granted.This is an application for quashing of an investigational proceeding in Barasat Women Police Station Case No. 121 of 2017 dated 23rd August, 2017 under Sections 498A376/417/323/324/371 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2738 of 2017 now pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24 Parganas.A charge sheet dated 21st February 2018 has been filed in this case.The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 1 has been filing vexatious complaints one after the other against the present petitioner over the same issue.He submits that although the de facto complainant filed the instant proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 2 and other sections, over the self same allegations and with a little bit of embellishment she filed a second First Information Report being Dumdum Police Station case no. 843 dated 23rd August, 2017 but under Sections 376/417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. That second First Information Report had resulted in a final report that prayed for discharge for accused/petitioner.He submits that she did not stop at that and filed a third First Information Report being Barasat Woman P.S. Case No. 121 dated 23rd August, 2017 under Sections 376/417/323/324/371/506 of the Indian Penal Code.He submits that in both the subsequent F.I.Rs.she had suppressed about filing any other F.I.R.The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no prima face case is made out against the present petitioner as would be evident from a plain reading of the F.I.R. and the charge sheet and in view of the submission of final report in respect of the second F.I.R., further continuation of the present proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law.I have heard the submissions of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the revisional application including its annexures.Let the petitioner serve a copy of the application to the State through Learned Public Prosecutor and upon the opposite party no. 1 3 by speed post with AD within a week.An affidavit to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.The parties shall be at liberty to pray for extension of modification or vacation of the interim order upon notice to the other side.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.( Jay Sengupta, J.)
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,671,217 |
The petitioner claims that there was a scuffle following an altercation and the petitioner suffered a broken arm.Considering the nature of the incident, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody.However, considering the manner in which the petitioner inflicted the injury on the victim, the petitioner cannot be unconditionally set at large.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
180,671,306 |
DATED: 19th December, 2019ORAL JUDGMENT:The prosecution case in brief can be summarized asunder :-It is the case of the prosecution that about 2 to 3 monthsafter the marriage, Archana was treated properly by the accused,however thereafter, he started ill-treating her.Whenever Archanaused to visit her parents' place, she used to complain against theaccused about ill-treatment and the accused used to insist fordivorce by consent.The accused used to suspect her fidelity.Whenever Archana telephone her mother, she used to complainagainst the accused, so also used to cry.The accused contactedPW4-Prabhu Meshram,i.e. father of the deceased, telephonically ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 ::: APEAL.426.07 3and informed that Archana was seriously ill.As such, PW4immediately proceeded to Umari ie.matrimonial house of deceasedThis Appeal has been directed against the judgment andorder dated 20th September, 2007 delivered by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Sessions Trial No. 61/2006, convicting the appellant/accused for offence punishableunder Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.For offencepunishable u/s 498A, the appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 ::: APEAL.426.07 2two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo SI for threemonths; whereas for offence u/s 306 IPC, he was sentenced tosuffer RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, SI forsix months.The learned trial Judge further directed that both thesentences shall run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::On reaching there, PW4 found Archana in a disturbedcondition.Archana informed him that she was beaten by herhusband i.e. accused.PW4 stayed there overnight in the house ofthe accused.On the next day, in the Panchayat, accused insistedfor divorce.The accused then asked PW4 to take Archana withhim and, therefore, PW4 brought her to his house.PW 4 thenproceeded to the market, however, when he returned home, hefound froth coming from the mouth of Archana.Therefore hebrought her to Primary Health Centre, Asgaon and then shifted toGeneral Hospital, Paoni, however she was declared as dead.PW6-PSI WarluPursange registered an accidental death.PW6-PSI Pursangevisited the place of incident and recorded the spot panchnama(Exh.17) and Inquest Panchnama (Exh.15).Statements of the ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 ::: APEAL.426.07 4witnesses were recorded.Muddemal including glass in whichArchana allegedly had consumed poison, was taken charge andsent to CA office for its analysis.After completion of investigationcharge sheet was filed.The case was committed to the Court ofSessions.On recording the evidence and hearing both the sides, thelearned trial Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid.Theprosecution examined in all six witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::As against this,Mr. I.J. Damle, learned APP for respondent supported the impugnedjudgment and canvassed that the learned trial Judge has properlyassessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and hasrightly convicted the accused.In order to consider the rival contentions of both sides, it ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 ::: APEAL.426.07 5would be advantageous to go through the evidence led by theprosecution witnesses, more particularly PW1-Sakhubai Meshram,mother of deceased and PW4-Prabhu Meshram, father of deceased.::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::It is worthwhile to note that the prosecution has notplaced on record the CA report in respect of the viscera of thedeceased which was collected, while performing the autopsy.ThePM report (Exh.23) shows the cause of death due to poisoning,however, the opinion was reserved till the report of the ChemicalAnalyser was received.Thus, the cause of death is not clear fromExh.23 and it shows that final cause of death was not mentioned bythe Medical Officer in the PM report (Exh.23) for want of viscerareport i.e. CA report.Thus, since the CA report has not been placedon record, the cause of death is not clear.The testimony of Medicalofficer PW5 -Dr.Jyoti Kukade shows that she opined the probablecause of death due to poisoning.Thus, herevidence makes it clear that the viscera was preserved and sent forchemical analysis.The requisition letter (Exh.27) also shows that ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 ::: APEAL.426.07 6the glass which was taken charge from the place of incident, wassent for chemical analysis to find out whether there was anyresidue of poison in that glass.However, as discussed herein-above, the CA report is not placed on record by the prosecution forthe reasons best known to it and for want of CA report, onecannot come to the conclusion that the cause of death was due topoisoning.Thus, it is held that the prosecution has failed to provethe cause of death of Archana and consequently that Archanacommitted suicide by consuming poison.Since the cause of death isnot proved, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove thatthe accused aided and abetted the commission of suicide ofArchana.::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::After marriage, she went to cohabit with the accused atUmari.She contended that the relations between Archana and theaccused were cordial for two to four months after the marriage.::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::APEAL.426.07 7Thereafter, the accused started ill-treating Archana.Archana usedto narrate about the ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands ofthe accused.The accused used to ask Archana whether her fatherhad given him sufficient money.The accused was insisting fordivorce however Archana was reluctant to give consent fordivorce.PW1 contended that the accused used to suspect hercharacter.Since the accused used to beat her Archana used tocome to her parental home.A day before the death of Archana, theaccused had informed telephonically in the neighbourhood thatArchana was serious.Therefore, she contended that her husbandPW4- Prabhu went to the house of Archana and brought her to herparental home.When PW1 returned home from the field at 6.00pm, she saw Archana lying outside the house and froth wascoming out from her mouth.Archana was taken to the hospitalhowever she was declared as dead.The cross-examination of PW1 shows materialimprovements in her version before the Court.The improvementswere with regard to the fact that the relations between Archana ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 ::: APEAL.426.07 8and the accused were cordial for about two to four months aftertheir marriage and then the accused started ill-treating her.Archana used to frequently call her on telephone and complainabout the ill-treatment at the hands of the accused and at that timeshe used to cry.The accused used to ask Archana about theamount of money paid by her father and also about insistence ofthe accused for divorce.Improvement was also made by PW 1in her testimony that Archana visited her house on 2 to 4 occasionsprior to her death.Similarly, further improvement was also pointedout in the testimony of PW1 that one day prior to the death ofArchana, the accused had informed them on telephone that shewas serious.All these improvements made by PW1 go to the root ofthe prosecution case and it create a serious doubt about thestrained relations between the accused and Archana, so also thefact whether Archana used to cry on telephone and complainagainst the accused to her.Similarly, the accused had asked aboutamount of money paid by PW4 to her and the fact that accusedinsisted for divorce to Archana.It was suggested to PW1 that dueto scolding by PW4, father of deceased, she consumed poison.::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::APEAL.426.07 9Thus, the testimony of PW1 does not throw any light on the aspectof alleged ill-treatment at the hands of the accused to deceasedArchana, prior to her death.According to PW4-Prabhu Meshram, father of deceased-Archana used to cry and tell something to her mother.He admittedthat Archana was not telling anything to him.PW4 deposed thatthe accused telephonically informed that Archana was serious.Therefore PW4 proceeded to Umri.He found that Archana wascrying and her bangles and mangalsutra were broken.Archanadid not tell at that time, however, in the evening, she was beatenby her husband i.e accused and Meerabai.On the next day, theaccused called five persons and in their presence, he insisted fordivorce.The accused then asked PW4 to take Archana with him.Therefore he brought his daughter to his house.In the evening,he returned from the market and found that Archana was lying infront of his house and froth was coming out from her mouth.PW4contended that he took Archana to the hospital however she wasdeclared dead.PW 4 then lodged the complaint (Exh.14).::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::The cross-examination shows that PW4 has madecertain improvements in his testimony before the Court with regardto the fact that for about one and a half years, the relations betweenArchana and accused were cordial and thereafter she used to cry infront of her mother.So also, PW4 made animprovement with regard to the fact that the accused called apanchayat and insisted for divorce by mutual consent.The saidversion of PW4 creates a serious doubt about the accusedinsisting for divorce to Archana, so also about the fact that he usedto ill-treat Archana and Archana used to cry in front of her mother.It also creates a doubt about finding of Archana in a disturbedcondition and that mangalsutra and bangles were found in brokencondition.The aforesaid improvements go to the root of the caseand creates a serious doubt that accused used to ill -treat Archana,so much so that she was constrained to take the drastic step.::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to provethat the learned trial Judge has not assessed the evidence led bythe prosecution witnesses in it proper perspective and as such, aninterference at the hands of this Court in the impugned judgment,is warranted.Hence, the order.(iii) The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.(iv) Fine amount if paid by the appellant/accused, be returned tohim.JUDGEsahare ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:23 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,546,498 |
The victim started weeping and came back home.She narrated the incident to her mother, who in turn immediately reported the incident to Police Station Morshi, District Amravati.ORAL JUDGMENT :This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No.270/2013, thereby convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (in short, "POCSO Act") and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal code (in short, "I.P.C.").::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 :::J-apeal50.16.odt 2/11The facts giving rise to this appeal are stated briefly as under :The victim of the crime was a minor girl when the incident occurred.The incident occurred on 30.8.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. when the victim was proceeding to her school.It is alleged that at that time, she was accosted by the appellant by stopping her and the appellant put a question to her as to why did she not love the appellant The victim girl gave a negative reply and thereupon the appellant, getting angry, slapped the victim in her face.The statement of the victim was recorded.The F.I.R. was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The investigation was carried out.A charge-sheet was filed.The appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. On merits of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out and, therefore, he acquitted the appellant of these offences.But, he found that the offences punishable under Section 354-D of the I.P.C. and Section 12 of the POCSO Act were ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 ::: J-apeal50.16.odt 3/11 made out and accordingly convicted the appellant for both of these offences.::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 :::Section 354-D defines the offence of "stalking" and it lays down that in order that this offence is committed, there must be following of a woman and contacting her or attempting to contact a woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such a woman or there should be monitoring of the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication.In the instant case, we are not concerned with that part of the offence of stalking which relates to monitoring the activity of a woman on the internet, email etc. and we are only concerned with the other part of the offence as indicated by the allegation that the appellant followed the victim and contacted her.The allegation made against the appellant is not that he followed and contacted the victim repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest shown by her.The allegation is that he contacted the victim only once ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 ::: J-apeal50.16.odt 5/11 and when she refused to go ahead with any kind of relationship with the appellant, the appellant slapped her in the face.So, this incident, which was the sole incident, would not constitute the offence of stalking, as defined under Section 354-D(1).It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all considered the essential ingredients of the offence of stalking, which must be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of stalking.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in recording a positive finding in this regard.::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 :::Besides, the utterances in question have not been made repeatedly but only singularly.Such being the nature of evidence, I do not think that the utterances made by the appellant, in the presence of the victim girl and that were heard by her as well as her friend PW 6 Manisha in this case, indicated any sexual intent on the part of the appellant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in not considering the true import of the offence of sexual harassment, as defined in Section 11 of the POCSO Act.::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 :::In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned judgment and order.The appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, are hereby quashed and set aside.The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code.His bail bond stands discharged.::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2016 00:02:41 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,552,585 |
Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGEThis is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Applicant is apprehending his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in connection with Crime No.134/15 registered at Police Station Naryawali, District Sagar.Looking to the allegations as made in the F.I.R., prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.He is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigating agency and the trial.In the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.Conditions of Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C shall apply on the applicant during currency of bail.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,505,610 |
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgmentof acquittal dated 28.9.2004 made in C.C.No.77 of 2003 onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Namakkal.Respondents 2 to 9 in the criminal revision are theaccused 1 to 8 and the revision petitioner is the de-factocomplainant, who was also examined as P.W.1, before thetrial court.As per the prosecution case, on 1.9.2002 at about1.30 p.m., when the revision petitioner/P.W.1, was sowinggroundnut in her field, respondents 2 to 9 herein proceedingtowards her and threatened the victim, then attacked herwith a spade and thereby caused injuries.After theoccurrence, the de-facto complainant/ P.W.1 gave a complaintbefore the first respondent/Police, based on which, the casewas registered against the respondents 2 to 9 under Sections147, 148, 324, 430 and 506 II I.P.C. After following thelegal formalities, charges were framed and as the accusedpleaded not guilty the case was posted for trial.In support of the prosecution case, apart from therevision petitioner/ P.W.1, 7 other witnesses were examinedas P.Ws. 2 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P5 were also marked.Learned Judicial Magistrate after considering theoral and documentary evidence, also hearing both the learnedcounsel, held that the charges levelled against the accusedhave not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordinglyacquitted the accused under Section 248(1) Code of CriminalProcedure.Learned counsel appearing for the revisionpetitioner would contend that the revision petitioner/P.W.1, herself being the injured witness, has given cogentand corroborative evidence with regard to the occurrence,that took place on 1.9.2002 at about 1.30 p.m., due toproperty dispute between the parties.Apart from P.W.1 andP.W.2 has given corroborative evidence, as eye witness, butthe Trial court, without considering the evidence, properlyhas recorded acquittal.As per the prosecution evidence, P.W.8, the SubInspector of Police attached to the respondent/PoliceStation, registered a case based on the complaint given byfrom P.W.1, in Crime No.531 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148,324, 430 and 506 II I.P.C. After registering the case,proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observationmahazar Ex.P.2, and rough sketch Ex.P.5, in the presence ofthe witnesses.He has also examined the witnesses and afterreceipt of the copy of Accident Register, Ex.P.3, examinedthe doctor, who had given treatment to P.W.1 and aftercompleting the evidence filed the charge sheet.Per contra the learned counsel appearing for therespondents 2 to 9 would contend that there is alteration inthe F.I.R. as well as in Ex.On a perusal of Ex.P.1/complaint aswell as F.I.R, Ex.P.4, it is seen that in two places, nameof Periyasamy was altered as Subarayan and the countersignature found both in the complaint and the F.I.R. showsthat it has been made by the very same person.It is not indispute that the author of the complaint is the de-factocomplainant, who was examined as P.W.1, whereas the authorof the F.I.R. is, as per the evidence, P.W.8, Sub-Inspectorof Police, attached to the first respondent/Police Station.Therefore, it could not be legally possible to becountersigned by the very same person in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4.Further, as contended by the learned counsel for therespondents 2 to 9, the material object, namely spade whichwas said to be used for causing injuries on P.W.1 was notrecovered and marked, for the reasons best known to theprosecution.The firstrespondent/complainant has not preferred any appeal.In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Alias Vs.Similarly, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below cannot be construed as perverse finding, as there is no explanation for thecorrection or material alteration in the complaint and theFIR, countersigned by the same person, for the non-production of the material object, spade, allegedly used forcausing injuries and the contradiction in the prosecutionevidence, as discussed by the court below and the decisionof the court below would not lead to miscarriage of justiceand therefore, the High Court cannot interfere with thefinding of acquittal, by the trial court.Hence, thecriminal revision fails.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case isdismissed.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Namakkal.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mohanure Police Station, Namakkal District.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,566,255 |
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::1. Heard.The matter is taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.This appeal takes exception to the impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail to the appellants in Crime No. 188 of 2019 registered with Hadgaon Police Station, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded, under Sections 143, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Act of 1989").The prosecution case in short compass is that on 10-10- 2019, complainant - Latabai Dattrao Gajbhare, resident of Talni, Taluka Hadgaon, District: Nanded approached to the Police of Hadgaon Police Station, District Nanded and filed the report that on 08-10-2019 at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m., she had been to grocery shop of one Magar in the village for purchasing balm.At that time, appellant No. 1- Janardhan abused her on her caste saying that "Tumhi Mange Lai Majalat Kay".According to complainant, when she asked reasons for the same, that time, other appellants thronged at the spot and reprimanded her.They hurled casteist abuses with intention to insult and humiliate on her caste within a::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 ::: 3 928-CriAl-1134-19 public view.According to complainant, appellants assaulted the first informant and her son.Eventually, the first informant filed the report with Police Station for penal action against the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::Pursuant to FIR, the Police of Hadgaon Police Station registered Crime bearing No. 188 of 2019 and set the penal law in motion.The appellants, apprehending their arrest, filed Miscellaneous Criminal (Bail) Application bearing No. 935 of 2019 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded.The learned Sessions Judge considered the circumstances on record and rejected the application of appellants on the ground that there are sufficient allegations to make out the offence under the Act of 1989 and for the sake of investigation, custodial interrogation of appellants is necessary, therefore, it would not justifiable to grant relief of anticipatory bail in this case.The impugned order of rejection of application for anticipatory bail of the appellants is the subject-matter of present appeal.The learned counsel for appellants vehemently submits that the appellants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case to wreak vengeance as appellant Janardhan prevented the son of first informant from driving the motor-bike, in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to public at large.Therefore, statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to preclude the appellants for availing benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in this case.The learned counsel contends that present complaint is lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the appellants.There is no any impediment to entertain the application for relief of pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of appellants.The learned counsel further submitted that there is no any recovery nor custodial interrogation of the appellants is essential for the sake of investigation.Therefore, impugned order rejecting application for bail by learned trial Court be set aside and appeal be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::P.C.. The first informant is from SC/ST community.The appellants hurled casteist abuses and assaulted the first informant to humiliate and insult her within a public view.There is no propriety to entertain the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::(a) xxxxxxxx to(q) xxxxxxxx(r) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Snheduled Caste or a Snheduled Tribe in any plane within publin view ;(s) abuses any member of a Snheduled Caste or a Snheduled Tribe by naste name in any plane within publin view;Explanation : For the purposes of this nlause, the expression "objent" means and innludes statue, photograph and portrait."The minute scrutiny of the factual score of the prosecution case reveals that prima facie ingredients of penal provisions of the::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 ::: 7 928-CriAl-1134-19 Act of 1989 do not match with the allegation nurtured on behalf of first informant in this case.The basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(r)::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::If the word "Mange" is taken out from the conversation shown occurred in the FIR for moment then other utterances "Tumhi Lai Majalat Kay", etc. perceived from the FIR though indicate "threat" or "intimidation", but it would not sufficient to draw the inference that there was any intent or mens rea to humiliate the complainant and others on their caste within public view.It is to be noted that the present offence was the fallout of preventing the complainant's son by appellants from riding the motor-bike rashly in the village.In the altercations, there were abuses by uttering the names of caste of first informant.But, it does not mean prima facie that there was::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 ::: 8 928-CriAl-1134-19 abuses in the name of caste of first informant to humiliate and insult her intentionally within public view.The allegations are found omnibus and general in nature.Therefore, prima facie, it would unsafe to draw any adverse inference against appellants for commission of crime under the Act of 1989 as alleged by the prosecution.The allegations in the FIR of threat or intimidation would be at the most constitute offence under the Indian Penal Code.In such circumstances, prima facie, the provision of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to the facts of the present matter, and consequently, would not create statutory embargo as prescribed under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 in this case.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::Moreover, in order to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989, it is essential to demonstrate that the appellants committed the present crimes under the Act of 1989, not being a members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.The opening sentence of Section 3(1) of the Act of 1989, itself shows, "whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe".It means that there must be prima facie affirmation or say in the FIR / complaint that the appellants- accused are not the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.In the instant case, there are no whisper or averment in the FIR that appellants are not the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or they are from higher caste.There is also::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 ::: 9 928-CriAl-1134-19 no reference in the FIR that the appellants-accused were aware or they had an knowledge about the caste of first informant.These are the primary ingredients of offence under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1989 for appreciation at this initial stage relating to grant of relief of pre-arrest bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for relief of pre-arrest bail on behalf of appellants.In regard to offences levelled against the appellants under Sections 143, 323 and 504 of the IPC, it is to be noted that the custodial interrogation of the appellants is not essential as well as there would not be any recovery from appellants for the sake of investigation.However, the appellants has shown inclination to co- operate with Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::10 928-CriAl-1134-19 In such circumstances, it would justifiable to allow the bail application filed before learned trial Court on behalf of the appellants.In result, the appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 06-11-2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 2, Nanded, in Miscellaneous Criminal (Bail) Application No. 935 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.The application of the appellants filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby granted.The present appellants be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 188 of 2019 registered with Hadgaon Police Station, District Nanded, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellants- applicants shall not indulged, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.The appellants-applicants shall attend the Police Station Hadgaon, Tahsil Hadgaon, District Nanded, on every Sunday, in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and co-operate the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer, accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::11 928-CriAl-1134-19The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK ***::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 05:05:46 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,566,747 |
By perusing the materials available on record, itappears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence.There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants eitherassaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the secondrespondent from discharging his official duty.Challenging the same, the petitioner /accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.118 of 2007, before the learnedAdditional District Sessions Judge and E.C.Special Judge, Tanjore District,and the Appellate Court, by Judgment dated 08.05.2008, confirmed theconviction, however, set aside the sentence and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment.Against the saidJudgment, the revision has been filed by the petitioner / accused.The case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2006, at about 05.00 p.m.,when P.W.1 / Sub-Inspector, Thiruvonam Police Station, was on duty at thePolice Station, the petitioner / accused came to duty in a drunken stage andwhen P.W.1 questioned the petitioner / accused, he quarreled and abused P.W.1 in filthy language in the presence of P.Ws.2 to 5, who are none other thanthe Head Constables and Para Duty Constable.Immediately, P.W.1 informed the same to P.W.6 / Inspector of Police.Thereafter, on the next day i.e.,13.01.2006, at about 06.00 p.m., the petitioner / accused came to the PoliceStation and abused P.W.1 in filthy language in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 /Para Duty Constable and Head Constable and thereby, the petitioner / accusedwas charged for the offence punishable under Sections 294-B and 353 I.P.C.The petitioner / accused had denied the charges framed as against him andtrial was conducted and on the side of the prosecution, six witnesses wereexamined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and three documents were marked as Exs.After completion of the trial and after examining the oral and documentaryevidence, the Trial Court, by Judgment, dated 04.12.2007, found thepetitioner / accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 294-B I.P.C., and acquitted him from the said charge by giving benefit of doubt,however, found the petitioner / accused guilty for the offence under Section353 I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him for the said offence as statedabove and the period during which, the petitioner / accused was in remand wasdirected to be set off.Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, thepetitioner / accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.118 of 2007, before thelearned Additional District Sessions Judge and E.C.Special Judge, TanjoreDistrict and the Appellate Court, after hearing both sides and carefullyperusing the entire materials placed on record, by Judgment dated 08.05.2008,confirmed the conviction, however set aside the sentence imposed by the TrialCourt and imposed a fine as stated above.Challenging the same, the presentrevision has been preferred by the petitioner / accused.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / accused submitted thatthe Court below had erred in relying upon the prosecution evidence, which isinadequate and suffers from serious infirmities and thereby, the impugnedJudgment is inconsistent and liable to be set aside.The further argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner /accused is that even assuming for a moment the entire evidences of thewitnesses taken to be true, no case has been made out against the petitioner/ accused for the offence under Section 353 I.P.C., and thereby, both theCourts below erred in convicting the petitioner / accused.The learnedcounsel further submitted that to make out a case for Section 353 I.P.C.,there should be ingredients that the petitioner / accused assaulted or usedcriminal force to a public servant and that the public servant at the time ofoffence was acting in discharge of a duty imposed on him by law and that inthis case, there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner / accused hadeither assaulted or used criminal force on the public servant.Further, though the alleged occurrence of abusing P.W.1 in filthylanguage is stated to have been taken in the Police Station and when chargewas also framed against the petitioner / accused for offence under Section294(b) I.P.C., the Appellate Court had acquitted the petitioner / accusedsince P.Ws.2 to 5 had not deposed anything in evidence with regard to thesame fact.In such case, when there is absolutely no material that thepetitioner / accused either assaulted or used criminal force, the Courtsbelow ought to have acquitted the petitioner / accused.Hence, for all thesegrounds the learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the petitioner / accusedfrom the charges levelled against him.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courtsbelow, after carefully perusing the oral and documentary evidence adduced andhearing the arguments advanced on either side, convicted the petitioner /accused.The charges levelled against the petitioner / accused have beencategorically proved by the prosecution witnesses.Furthermore, there is noinfirmity in the prosecution evidence and there is no contradiction in theevidence deposed by P.Ws.1 to 5 and their evidence has been corroborated witheach other.Hence, the impugned Judgment of the Court below does not callfor any interference from this Court and the revision preferred by thepetitioner / accused is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.I have heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materialsplaced on record.In view of the above, when no criminal force much less force has beenused on the de facto complainant, the Courts below erred in convicting thepetitioner / accused for the offence under Section 353 I.P.C., thereby theJudgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside.In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the Judgment, dated08.05.2008, made in C.A.No.118 of 2007, on the file of the AdditionalDistrict Sessions Court and E.C.Special Court, Tanjore District, confirmingthe Judgment, dated 04.12.2007, made in C.C.No.27 of 2007, on the file of theDistrict Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Orthanadu, Tanjore District, are setaside.The petitioner is acquitted from the charges framed against him.The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner is directed to be refunded tohim and the bail bond executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.1.The Additional District Sessions and E.C.Special Judge, Tanjore District.2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Orthanadu, Tanjore District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvonam Police Station, Tanjore District.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,505,670 |
Simple case of the prosecution, which was found proved by the prosecution, was that after marriage, the accused-appellants were harassing and treating Kaushalya Bai with cruelty.She became pregnant in the matrimonial home.JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7-1-88 of Second Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chhindwara.By that judgment, three appellants were convicted for having committed offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in as much as they treated Kaushalya Bai with cruelty after her marriage with appellant No. 1, Dhobilal.She had died sometime between the night of 2nd and 3rd March, 1986 by drowning herself in a well in village Jamuntola.Kaushalya Bai was married to Dhobilal about 5 years before the incident.Sammi is the sister of Dhobilal, Kammo is his mother and Fakira is his father.Fakira was also tried as co-accused, but was acquitted by the trial Court.But then she had to leave her matrimonial home and had to go to her parents' house, while she was having about 6 months' pregnancy.About 3 months later, a son was born to her She continued to live with her parents for 2 to 3 years.Then Dhobilal and his father Fakira approached the parents of Kaushalya Bai to send her with them.Her parents wanted some assurance from them.So an assembly of Panchayat-people gathered and a writing was obtained from Fakira and Dhobilal that Kaushalya Bai had to leave her matrimonial home due to quarrel and differences with her mother-in-law.But thereafter the parents of Kaushalya Bai were assured that they would not, in any manner, harass her and if at all she felt harassed, then Fakira ensured that he would allot a piece of land separately to Dhobilal and his daughter-in-law along with a pair of bullocks, so that they may live separately and earn their livelihood.Kaushalya Bai was sent with her in-laws.Then in the night of 2nd March, 1986, she left the house.In the morning Dhobilal noticed that she was not there.When she did not return for a long time and they could not find her, they informed the parents of Kaushalya Bai.But the search did not reveal any result So report of missing of Kaushalya Bai was made to police on 4-3-86 at Police Station.Continuous search in various wells revealed on 5-3-86 that she was lying dead and drowned in a well belonging to Suklu Gond in village Jamunatola.Autopsy revealed that she had died as a result of drowning about 26 hours earlier.The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of Mulia Bai (P.W. 2), mother of the deceased.Godari (P.W. 1) uncle of the deceased and Jairam (P.W. 4), brother of the deceased and the document Ex. P-2, which was a writing in the Panchayal.held that the girl had been harassed and treated with cruelty by the husband, his sister and his mother and so they were responsible for unnatural death of Kaushalyabai.The Court found that she committed suicide due to cruelty done upon her by the husband and his relatives which led her to this step and so these appellants were convicted for offences Under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced as under:-(a) R. I. for 7 years under Section 306, I.P.C. each.(b) R. I. for 3 years under Section 498A, I.P.C. each.4.learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that in fact, there is no evidenee of any witness worth belief that the deceased was treated with cruelty by these appellants and that the document Ex. P-2 has not been properly proved.He also argued that in the document Ex. P-2, there is no specification thai she was treated with cruelty.He further argued that the mother of the deceased Mulia Bai made improvement on vital aspect regarding cruelty, in her statement in Court over her statement to police and entirely a different story has been narrated by her in Court in comparison to what she narrated to police and similarly, brother of the deceased, Jairam has also narrated a different story about how the deceased kept on shifting between the matrimonial home and the parental home.It is proper to examine the evidence of these witnesses in order to adjudicate on the question of cruel treatment by the appellants towards the deceased.First and most important document is Ex. P-2, which was recorded before the panchayat.None of the signatory to this document has appeared in the witness-box.Godari P.W.1 uncle of the deceased, has stated that in his presence, the document Ex. P-2 was recorded and Fakira had signed it.Dhobilal had also signed it.These accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. admitted that they executed this document.In this document, it is narrated on behalf of Fakira that his daughter-in-law was sent away to her parents' house by his son Dhobilal, because of differences between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law (sic.) and two years had passed eversince she was residing with her parents.So now he (Fakira) was taking his daughter-in-law back to his house and she would live in his family and no cruel treatment will be meted out to her by words or otherwise (sic.).He promised that if any member of the family treats her badly, then he would give some land separately to his son and daughter-in-law with a pair of bullocks.Thus, he put his thumb impression on this writing.Dhobilal also put his thumb-marks under his writing that he would keep his wife properly and will not cause any annoyance to her.Evidence of Godari P.W. 1 is that he did not know how she was being treated in the houses of her parents and in-laws as he had not been there, that at time of panchayat meeting, she declared that she was being beaten and treated with cruelty.Now this part of declaration by Kaushalya Bai was not recorded in the document Ex. P-2 that she was beaten.In what manner she was being treated with cruelty is not exactly recorded in Ex. P-2 Only general inference can be drawn that she had felt harassed because of differences with her mother-in-law and so her husband Dhobilal sent her to parents house.Statement of mother of the deceased namely, Mulia Bai (P.W. 2), shows that after about 1 1/2 years of the marriage, she was sent back to her house and she stayed there for about 3 years when her husband and father-in-laws took her back on giving promise before the panchayat.She says that Kaushalya Bai used to tell that she was being beaten and ill-treated.This lady has also narrated that few days before the death of Kaushalya Bai she came to know from Indiya Bai that Kaushalya Bai was being maltreated at her in-laws' house.So, on Thursday, she went to Kaushalya Bai's house and there she (Kaushalya) had shown the marks of beatings on her body and Kaushalya Bai complained to her that she was being beaten and ill-treated by her husband and in-laws and that she should be taken back by her mother.But the mother left her there, saying that she should wail for some time.But then she learnt about her missing and death.Now this witness has made an improvement in the statement in the Court on vital aspect of her visit to the house of Kaushalya Bai on Thursday (GURUWAR) and having talked to her daughter Kaushalya Bai and having seen the marks of beating on her body.All these are not narrated before the police Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. These improvements are to be ignored.It may be noticed that Indiya Bai (P.W. 5), about whom Mulia Bai says that she informed about illtreatment to Kaushalya Bai at her husband's house and then she went to Kaushalya Bai's house, does not support Mulia Bai.She denied having told anything to Mulia Bai.Of course she was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution.But that does not take the story of the prosecution a step further.Statement of brother of the deceased, Jairam, does not show anything more than what is stated by Godari regarding the panchayat and declaration by Kaushalya Bai before the panchayat and that when Kaushalya Bai came to her parents' house, she was saying that she was being maltreated and beaten.He also says that he used to often take her back to her parents' house after every week or 10 days maximum stay at matrimonial home, because she Was maltreated.Then for about 2 1/2 years to 3 years or 2 to 3 years, she had remained at her parents' house and after returning from the parents' house, she died after a month.There is no evidence what happened during this period.We have little knowledge.Even her mother and brother were reluctant to sending her to husband's house for some reason.So there is no evidence whatsoever about how she was treated at her husband's house during the last one month of her life.Thus, the only question is whether Ex. P-2 leads to sufficient inference of such cruel treatment to her as is covered by Section 498A, I.P.C. and also leads to an inference of abetment of suicide, as, in all probabilities, she committed suicide by drowning though there is no evidence as to how she fell in the well.Assuming that she committed suicide, the question would be if what happened about 3 years earlier, would be sufficient to lead to an inference of abetment as a result of recent cruelty.We do not know, in fact, what happened to her during 3 years when she was in husband's house.The evidence is of varying nature.The best evidence is provided by Ex. P-2 which gives assurance by the husband and father-in-law that there will be no ANAITIK VYAVHAR or use of ANAITIK WORDS would not be made to the deceased and another indication is that due to AAPSI RANJISH with mother-in-law, she was sent to her parents' house.The question is whether there was wilful conduct of nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide.She had not committed suicide 3 years earlier when she was sent to her parents' house.So whatsoever was the conduct of the appellants then, it was not of such a nature as to lead her to commit suicide.We do not know as to what happened during the last one month after reaching the house of her husband which led her to jump into a well.At least there is no reliable evidence about it which can meet the standard of 'proof beyond doubt'.So I find no proof of a type which can meet this required standard to show that there was wilful conduct on the part of the husband, mother-in-law or the sister-in-law of the deceased which might have led her to commit suicide.We do not know why she committed suicide.We do not know what she felt or if she was harassed.The trial Court appears to have gone on the face value of the narration of Mulia Bai and has taken support from Ex. P-2 and has held that P.W. 1 Godari and P.W. 4 Jairam support her.A close scrutiny of their evidence, reveals that this evidence is unreliable and insufficient to base conviction of the appellants.The net result of my discussion aforesaid is that the approach of the trial Court has been on an infirm footing and the evidence has not been scrutinised in its proper light.The evidence does not establish beyond doubt that Kaushalya Bai was treated with cruelty in a manner covered by Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or that the cruel treatment with her was such as led her to commit suicide.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,568,650 |
324 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").As per the prosecution story, on 4/3/2008 at about 7.30 a.m., while complainant Kamlesh was cleaning front portion of his house, respondents came there and after filthily abusing him, asked him as to why he was throwing water on the road, and thereafter started assaulting him with Hockeys and Lathis causing him injuries on left side of the head, ear, back, abdomen and private parts.When his brothers Durgesh, Sunil, Anil, mother Shyamvatibai, and sisters-in- law Khushbu and Sadhna, came for his rescue, they were also beaten.As per the medical report (Ex.P/5) of Kamlesh, one lacerated wound was found present on the tip of left pinna of ear.It was suggested that, because of the disfiguration, it was a grievous injury.As per the X-ray report of Smt. Baby and Mrs. Kamlesh, no bony injuries were noticed on their bodies.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,505,739 |
By the present Chamber Summons Respondent has moved this Court to contend that Election Petition No. 16 of 1999 be dismissed under section 86(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and/or Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the Petition discloses no cause of action.A few relevant facts may be set out.On the Petition being presented on 6th December, 1999, order was passed to issue Summons for appearance and filing written statement.Matter has thereafter come up on various dates.In between on 18th February, 2000 the Respondent took out the present Chamber Summons.In para 3(u) of the written statement the Respondent had averred that there is no cause of action for filing the present Petition.In paragraph 4, it is averred that the Respondent was advised and accordingly craved leave to take appropriate proceedings including Chamber Summons for dismissal of the election petition at threshold and/or upon framing preliminary issue for non-compliance of the various mandatory provisions of the Act, Rules and the Code and that the Respondent was taking appropriate steps.The Chamber Summons was not taken for hearing then and it was set for hearing after the Issues were framed.It was directed that Issue Nos. 1 and 2 to be heard as preliminary Issues.Issue Nos. 1 and 2 read as under :-(1) Whether the Petition is verified in accordance with the previsions of section 83(l)(c) of the Representation of People Act and as per Order 6 Rule15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as per provisions of Rules 44, 55 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 ?(2) Whether the Respondent proves that copy of petition supplied to him is not a true copy as contemplated by section 83(2) of Representation of People Act for reasons stated in paras 3(e) to 3(u) of the Written Statement?At the threshold it may be pointed out that Issue No. 9 was framed, however, considering averments in the pleading, the said issue will not arise and is not required for determination to decide the question arising in the Petition as the name of the Respondent was included in the voters list in the Electoral Roll of 288-Chandgad Assembly Constituency.The said issues along with the Chamber Summons are being disposed off by this order.The Special Judge, Kolhapur by Judgment and order dated 12thJuly, 1996 found Respondent guilty under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 read with section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the Respondent.The Respondent herein was granted bail.The Apex Court was pleased to pass an order issuing notice in the said matter.For the sake of narration though this does not form part of the pleadings in the Petition, but in the written submissions filed it has been pointed out that the Apex Court has subsequently dismissed the Special Leave Petition.The second objection was that the Respondent was a permanent resident of Belgaum and staying there permanently along with his family members.The affidavit filed by the Respondent herein that he was resident of Mhalewadi, Taluka Chandgad was false and therefore he is liable to be punished.It was stated that the Respondent was disqualified and hence his nomination papers be rejected.Some other objections were raised which are not relevant for the petition.The Returning Officer by an Order dated 25th August, 1999 was pleased to reject the Objections.It is contended that the Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers of the Respondent illegally and contrary to the provisions of the said Act.The Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers of the Petitioner and two other candidates and consequently all of them contested election against each other.On 11th September, 1999 voting took place.On 6th October, 1999 the counting of votes took place.After counting was over, the Returning Officer was pleased to declare the Respondent as a candidate duly elected from 288-Chandgad Legislative Assembly Segment of the State of Maharashtra.In Chamber Summons taken out by the Respondent as already referred to earlier, it is the case of the Respondent that Petition should be dismissed under Section 8(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and/or Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the Petition does not disclose any cause of action.In support of the Chamber Summons, the Respondent has filed his own affidavit and relied on the averments in the election petition and various annexures thereto.It is contended that right to challenge the election is a statutory right and can be resorted to only in the manner provided under Part VI of the Act. II is specifically contended that Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1999 preferred by the Respondent against the Judgment and Order in Special Case No. 4 of 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kolhapur has been admitted by order dated 7th August, 1996 by this Court.It is, therefore, contended that the Chamber Summons for dismissal of the Petition be made absolute.As already set out.Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were to be heard as preliminary Issues.Both the Chamber Summons and the preliminary Issues were heard together.The Chamber Summons will be first considered and thereafter both the preliminary Issues.The Division Bench was considering the disqualification likely to be incurred under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils.A petition was filed for his disqualification.In the meantime he was also elected as President of the Council.An application was made for suspending the conviction.In view of that Issue No. 2 will also have to be answered in the negative.
|
['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.
|
14,734,752 |
None for the respondent No.2 though intimated.With consent, heard finally.Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 7.9.2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Gwalior, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail has been rejected.Appellant is in custody since 18.6.2018 in connection with Crime No. 290 of 2018 registered at Police Station Vishwa Vidyalaya Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2), (i), 511 of the IPC, 3 (2) (v) of the Atrocities Act and 5(m)/18 of the POCSO Act.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the case is of false implication against the appellant.The contents of the F.I.R, statement of the prosecutrix and her family members nowhere establish ingredients of offence under Section 376 of the IPC and of the POCSO At.Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant informed this court that all material witnesses have been examined including the prosecutrix and her family members as well as investigating officer, therefore, chance of tampering with the evidence is remote.Confinement since 18.6.2018 amounts to pre-trial detention.(Pinki Rathore alias Kishore Vs.State of M.P. ) investigation and would make himself available as and when required.On these grounds, the appellant prays for grant of bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant.The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rks.R. K. SHARMA 2019.04.12 18:32:56 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
147,356,951 |
The case of the prosecution is consciously narrated below:(a) The accused and the deceased viz., Murugeswari are husband and wife.The marriage between them was solemnized about 12 years ago.They were blessed with two children.The deceased was working in the Government Hospital at M.Pudupatty as Nurse.The accused was working in a Mill atUsilampatti for some time.Thereafter, he was roaming around without any joband also frequently demanding money from the deceased, due to which there was frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased.Hence, the deceased went to her parental home along with her child.Two years prior to theoccurrence, when the deceased was going for job, the accused had caused a cut injury on the deceased by an aruval.In respect of the same, a complaint ispending at M.Puduppatty Police Station.In such circumstances, the deceased had filed H.M.O.P. on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar for divorce andgot an ex parte decree of divorce.Even after divorce, the accused continuedto pick up quarrel with the deceased demanding money and suspecting her fidelity.On 15.02.2006, the accused came to the house of the deceased anddemanded Rs.1 lakh and threatened to kill her.On hearing the hue and cry ofthe deceased and her children, PW3 came to the house of the deceased.On seeing PW3, the accused ran away from the house of the deceased.(b) On 17.02.2006 at 7.10 a.m. the deceased came to Sivakasi inSrinivasa Bus and alighted at Rani Anna Nagar Colony Bus-stop, Sivakasi forgetting another bus to go to M.Puthupatti for work.PW1 also travelled alongwith the deceased to Sivakasi for purchasing materials relating to crackersand alighted at Rani Anna Nagar Colony Bus Stop along with the deceased.When they were waiting for bus, the accused came there and questioned the fidelity of the deceased by asking her as to how many husbands she requiredand how could she deny payment of money to him and having stated so, the accused indiscriminately cut the deceased by using a sickle all over herbody, including on her right side neck.The deceased succumbed to theinjuries on the spot.When PW1 tried to catch hold the accused, the accusedcriminally intimidated him.PW1 and one old lady, who was standing in thebus-stop, raised hue and cry.On hearing their hue and cry, PW4 - PanchayatPresident and some other persons came to the spot.On seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with weapon.Then, PW1 rushed to the Police Station and gave complaint.(c) PW10 - the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to SivakasiTown Police Station, recorded the statement of PW1 at 8.00 a.m. andregistered a FIR in Crime No.145 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and forwardedthe complaint - Ex.P1 and FIR - Ex.P7 to the Court through one First GradeConstable No.2407 by name Saravanan and handed over the file to the Inspectorof Police - PW11 for investigation.(d) PW11 took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrenceat 09.30 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P3) and a rough sketch(Ex.P8) and seized bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place ofoccurrence in the presence of PW7 - VAO and one Paramasivam.Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body to the hospital with a requisition letter to conductpostmortem.He gave an opinion that the deceasedwould appear to have died of injury to vital organs in neck and brain 6 - 10hours prior to the occurrence.(f) Due to transfer, PW11 handed over investigation to PW12. On19.02.2006, PW12 ? Inspector of Police took up the investigation and on thesame day, at 5.30 p.m., PW12 arrested the accused at Thiruthangal Road.On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of PW7 -VAO, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval andshirt.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took the Police andwitnesses to the place of hide out and produced bloodstained sickle (MO.5),bloodstained shirt (MO.4 and brown colour pant (MO.3).PW12 recovered the same under a mahazar.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded theaccused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objectsunder Form 95 to the Court.At his request, the material objects were sentfor chemical examinations through Court.PW1 has stated in his evidence that he is a relative of the deceased and that 12 years back the marriagebetween the accused and the deceased was solemnized.The accused was working in a Mill at Usilampatti and the deceased was working at the GovernmentHospital, Puduppatti as nurse.[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] This appeal has been filed by the appellant / sole accused as againstthe conviction and sentence, dated 28.03.2013, made in S.C.No.55 of 2006, bythe learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.2.The appellant stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:Conviction U/s.Sentence Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment.506(ii) IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.)Then, he recorded the statement of witnesses.(e) On receipt of requisition letter for postmortem, PW6 -Dr.Venkatasubramanian, on the same day, at 3.00 p.m., conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.He found the following injuries on the body of thedeceased:"(1) A deep cut injury on the right side of neck expanding from midlineof neck anteriorly to nape of neck with irregular edges and depth of 8 cmsexposing the severed muscles, carotids, trachea and cervical vertebral.(2)A cut injury right ear severing the pinna partially.(3) A cut injury right cheek 2.5 c.m.x 4 cm x muscle depth.(4)A cut injury parieto-temporal region of right side 5 cm x 2 cm xbone depth exposing the brain matter.(5) A cut injury occiput 11 cm x 5 cm x bone depth with fracture ofoccipital bone.(6) Two cut injuries left shoulder 5 cm x 3 cm muscle depth (eachwound) with 1 cm gap between two wounds.(7) A cut injury posterior rib cage right side 10 cm x 2 cm x bonedepth 5 cm below the scapula.(8) A cut injury over spine 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle depth between twoscapula.(9) An incised wound right breast 8 cm x 5 cm x muscle depth.(10) A cut injury right below 8 cm x 5 cm x muscle depth.(11) A cut injury right forearm 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle depth.(12) A cut injury right index finger at the level of middle phalanxwith hanging proximal part.(13) A cut injury right thumb at the level of MP joint and hangingright thumb.(14)A cut injury front of neck left side 2 x 1 cm x muscle depth.(15) A cut injury above left clavicle 2 x 1 cm x skin depth.(16) A cut injury left hand extending from left thenar area to distalphalanx of left thumb injuring left I metacarpal bone.(17) A cut injury over right shoulder 6 cm x 1 cm x skin depth.(18) A cut injury over right arm 5 cms below right shoulder 8 cm x 0.5cm x skin depth.(19) A cut injury 5 cm x 0.5 cm x skin depth above right scapula.(20) An abrasion back of right knee 4 x 4 cm.(21) An abrasion front of left knee 3 x 2 cm."P2 is the Postmortem Certificate.The chemical examination report(Ex.A4) and serological report (Ex.A5) disclosed that there were human bloodof ?B? group on all the material objects, including billhook, shirt, etc.(g) PW12, during the course of investigation, collected the medicalrecords and examined PW17 and few more witnesses, and recorded their statements.After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet againstthe accused.4.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as twocharges under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the charges, on the side of theprosecution PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 and MOs.1 to 9 were marked.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution, theaccused denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.However, heneither choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any document.6.The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence,has found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced theaccused, as stated supra.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, theappellant/accused has come up with this appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contendedthat there are lot of contradictions in the evidences of the prosecutionwitnesses and those contradictions are affecting the root of the case.Inthis regard, the learned senior counsel for the appellant took this Courtthrough the evidences and documents and submitted as follows:(a) As per the case of the prosecution, PW1, PW2 and PW4 witnessed the occurrence.But, PW4 turned hostile.PW1 and PW2 are close relatives of thedeceased and therefore, they have been purposefully pressed into service bythe prosecution in order to prove the case.(b)The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit thatthough the occurrence is said to have taken place in a bus-stop, noindependent witness was examined and the same is fatal to the case of theprosecution.(c) He would next submit that though PW1 has stated in the crossexamination that he has stated the name of PW2, PW4 and one Mani in the complaint- Ex.P1 as they were also travelled along with him in the bus, thename of PW2 is not mentioned in the complaint - Ex.P1, which creates a doubtabout the presence of PW2 at the time of occurrence.(d) He would further submit that though PW1 has stated in his evidencethat the accused attacked the deceased with sickle from her backside, theprosecution agency has denied the same.He would further submit that PW3 has deposed that he only identified the deceased to the Police and PW1 himselfhas admitted in the cross examination that he informed about the occurrencethrough phone to PW3, which would go to show that till PW3 identified thedeceased, nobody knows, who was involved in the occurrence.Thus, the presence of PW1 is also highly doubtful.(e) Yet another submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant isthat though the complaint is stated to be given at 8.00 a.m., the FIR reachedthe Court only at 11.00 a.m. The said delay was not properly explained andthe same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.(f) The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit thatthough PW1 stated that in the complaint lodged by him, one Veeralakshmi put her thumb impression, but in the FIR, the thumb impression of Veeralakshmi isnot available.Thus, the original FIR has been suppressed by the prosecution.Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrencemight not have occurred, as projected by the prosecution and the case wascooked up at every stage and the appellant/accused was falsely implicated inthis case.Hence, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejectedand consequently, this appeal may be allowed.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that theprosecution has clearly proved its case beyond reasonable doubts through theeyewitnesses - PWs.1 and 2 and the medical evidences.PW3 also corroborated the versions of PW1 and PW2, in respect of motive for the occurrence.Under such circumstances, no infirmity can be found on theconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.Thus, he prayed fordismissal of the appeal.We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissionsmade on either side and perused the materials available on record.The prosecution has examined PW1,PW2 and PW4 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence.There was frequent quarrel between the accusedand the deceased.The deceased was living separately at her parental home.Before two years back, the accused attacked the deceased with aruval, inrespect of which a complaint was also given.Thereafter, the deceased hasalso got divorce.For attending duty, she boarded on the bus atRamalingapuram and alighted at Rani Anna Nagar Bus stop.He has also travelled in the same bus and alighted at the said bus stop.At that time,the accused came there and by shouting at the deceased that as to how many husband she would require and as to how she could fail to give money asked byhim, attacked the deceased on her right side neck by an aruval andthereafter, cut the deceased on all over her body.The deceased succumbed tothe multiple injuries.At that time, PW2, PW4 and one Mani witnessed theoccurrence.When he and others attempted to catch the accused, the accused threatened them with aruval.Then, the accused ran away from the place ofoccurrence with aruval.Further, PW3 has corroborated the earlier occurrences.PW4, who was stated to be an eyewitness by the prosecution, has turned hostile for the reasons bestknown to him.PW5, who is the daughter of the deceased and aged about 17 years, has categorically stated about the earlier occurrences.PW6, who hadconducted postmortem, has stated that there was 21 cut injuries on the deadbody of the deceased and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries in thevital organs.PW7 - VAO has stated about the arrest and confession of theaccused and also seizure of the materials objects.PW8 and PW9 are hearsay witnesses.PW10 - the then Sub Inspector of Police, has stated about theregistration of FIR.PW11 and PW12 have stated about the investigation doneby them.More over, as per forensic report, human blood of ?B? was found onall the material objects, including billhook, shirt, etc.By the categorical evidences of PW1 to PW3 and PW5, the prosecution has clearly proved the motive for the occurrence and by the evidences of PW1and PW2, and medical evidences and other documents, the prosecution has clearly proved that it was this accused, who cut the deceased by a sickle andcaused the death of the deceased and also criminally intimidated PW1 andothers.On late this Court has been receiving a large number of appealsagainst acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecutionversion is rejected either for want of corroboration by independentwitnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses.Insome cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining allwitnesses to the occurrence.We have recently pointed out the indifferentattitude of the public in the investigation of crimes.PW6 -Dr.Venkatasubramanian, who had conducted postmortem, has accepted in the cross examination that some of the injuries would not have been caused onlywhen the attack was made by standing in front of the accused.When that beso, the version of PW1 can be believed to the effect that the attack was madeon the backside also.In the cross-examination, PW10 has categorically deniedthe question put forth by the defence that he had suppressed the complaint inwhich the said Veeralakshmi had put her signature.When that be so, such statement of PW1 in the cross examination can be eschewed.PW1 has stated inhis cross examination that immediately after the occurrence, he informedabout the occurrence to PW3 over phone and PW3 immediately came to the spot and then, they went to the Police Station to give complaint.According to PW1 and PW2,the occurrence took place at 7.30 a.m. In Ex.P1, it is stated that thecomplaint has been given at 8.00 a.m. The FIR reached the hands of thelearned Magistrate at 11.00 a.m. According to PW10, he forwarded the FIR tothe Court through one First Grade Constable No.2407 by name Saravanan.He did not specifically state about the time at which he forwarded the complaint.The said constable was not examined.However, we are of the view that inthis case, the delay of three hours cannot be stated to be inordinate.Moreover, on that score, we find it difficult to discard the evidences of PWs.1and 2, whose evidences inspire the confidence of the Court.Having come to the conclusion that it was this accused, who hadcommitted the offence, now, we have to examine as to what was the offencecommitted by the accused by the said Act. According to the prosecution, themotive for the occurrence is that the accused was without any job and he waspestering the deceased by suspecting her fidelity and demanding money, andtwo years prior to the occurrence, the deceased had cut the hands of theaccused with aruval and though the deceased had got divorce, on 15.02.2016the accused came to the house of the deceased and again demanded money from the deceased and due to the intervention of PW3, the deceased ran away fromthe house of the deceased and on 17.02.2006, with an intention to kill thedeceased, the accused came to the place of occurrence with sickle and caused the death of the deceased by causing as many as 21 cut injuries.Most of theinjuries were on vital parts.The weapon used is a dangerous weapon.Fromthese circumstances, it can easily be inferred that the intention of theappellant/ accused was only to cause the death of the deceased.Thus, theact of the accused would squarely fall within the first limb of Section 300IPC and thus, he is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 302IPC.His act would not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC.It is also proved by the prosecution that the accused criminally intimidatedPW1 and PW2 by showing the weapon, when they attempted to stop the attack and to catch him.Thus, the offence of Section 506(ii) IPC is also proved.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court hasimposed only the minimum punishments which also require no interference atthe hands of this Court.Thus, we do not find any merit at all in thisappeal.In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is,accordingly, dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar in S.C.No.55 of 2006 against theaccused is confirmed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
147,363,073 |
The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Pavathal.She was the maternal aunt of P.W.1 Mr.P.W.1 was residing at Karattam Palayam village in Erode Taluk.The husband of the deceased died four years before the occurrence and thus the deceased alone was residing at her house.These two accused also belong to the same village.It is alleged that few years before the occurrence, P.W.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased.Four days before the occurrence, he repaid the said amount to the deceased.The deceased in turn, deposited the said amount in the bank.It is the case of the prosecution that the fact that P.W.1 had repaid Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased was known to the first accused.But, he was not aware of the fact that the deceased had deposited the said amount in the bank.He was under the impression that the said amount was kept in the house of the deceased.2.4. A1 and A2 were friends.Accordingly, on 23.04.2015, around 07.00 p.m., the first accused came to the house of the deceased and watched television programme along with her.Then, around 11.00 p.m. he took A2 with him and went to the house of the deceased and with the help of a ladder, scaled down the southern wall of the house, claiming down the staircase and entered into the house.The deceased was then sleeping.She questioned the accused as to why they were in the room.The first accused asked her as to where she had kept Rs.1,00,000/-.Then both of them fled away from the scene of occurrence with Rs.1,500/-, a pen and an arruval.There were bloodstains on their clothes.The occurrence was not noticed by anyone.The house was bolted from inside.He rang the calling bell and also tapped at the door, but there was no response from inside.Then, the neighbours came there.Since even after violent knocking at the door, there was no response from inside, P.W.1 with the use of a ladder scaled down the wall of the house, went into the house and found the deceased lying in the pool of blood in the kitchen.There were number of injuries on the body.P23 is the F.I.R. Both the documents were sent to the Court.2.9. P.W.21 the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch and also recovered the bloodstain earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He recovered the broken spectacles of the deceased.At his request, the Fingerprint experts arrived at the scene of occurrence.At 10.30 a.m. on 24.04.2015, after thorough examination, he found that there was no decipherable chance finger print.Internal examination: abdomen-intact, peritoneal cavity intact, ribs contusion, fracture of 1 and 2nd rib left side, heart 150 gms c/s pale, Lungs 550 gms each, c/s pale; Hyoid bone intact, Stomach empty, Liver-1500 gms c/s pale, Spleen 150 gms c/s pale, Kidney 100 gms c/s pale, intestine distended with gas, bladder empty, uterus atrophied, skull contusion 4x5 cm over left side scalp.Brain 1500 gms, Hematema found over left side temporal lobe.Spine intact.Ex.P19 is the postmortem certificate and Ex.P20 is his final opinion regarding the cause of death.He opined that the said injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.14 (arruval).He further opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries.During the course of investigation, P.W.21 recovered the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to Court.Then, along with Ex.P.W.21 arrested both the accused.On such arrest, the first accused produced a sum of Rs.1,500/- from his pocket.The first accused, while in custody made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the bloodstained dothi, shirt, arruval, marker pen and the ladder.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hideout and produced these material objects.The second accused also similarly made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the bloodstained lungi and banian.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witness to the place of hideout and produced the said material objects.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.111 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Mahila Fast Track Court), Erode.The second accused was one Mr.Murugan.The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 451, 392 and 302 IPC and the second accused for the offences under Section 451 r/w 34 IPC, Section 392 r/w 34 IPC and Section 302 IPC.By judgment dated 07.03.2016, the trial Court convicted both the accused under all the charges framed against the respective accused.So far as the appellant / first accused is concerned, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 451(Part ii) IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 392 (Part i) and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC.A1 therefore hatched a plan to commit robbery of the above said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the house of the deceased.He took the second accused with him to commit the said crime.The second accused stood near her.The first accused went to the next room, opened the bureau and searched for the above said sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.But there was only a paltry sum of Rs.1,500/- found in the bureau.There was no other jewel or any other valuable property.The first accused told the second accused about the same.The deceased was awakened by the above murmur.The deceased told that she had already deposited the said sum in the bank.The deceased started shouting and raised alarm.Immediately, the second accused took out a grinding stone lying there and gave the same to the first accused.The first accused hit her with the grinding stone on her head and chest.The deceased fell down and fainted.Then, the second accused held the deceased and the first accused silt the neck of the deceased with an arruval.Her spectacle was found broken and she was lying in a pool of blood.Upon the said complaint, a case in Crime No.153 of 2015 was registered for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.The sniffer dog which was brought to the place of occurrence also did not bring out any clue.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.P.W.14, Dr.S.Karthikeyan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 24.04.2015 at 04.40 p.m. He found the following injuries:External injuries: A cut throat injury lacerated injury over anterior aspect of neck 12x5 cm and 4 inch depth, complete cut injury of trachea, oerophagus, canobid vessels and neck murales.2X2 cm laceration right side jaw, 1x1 cm punctured wound left eyebrow, 2x2 cm laceration left index finger and right thumb.Contusion over left side scalp.When the investigation was in progress, it is alleged that on 26.04.2015, both the accused surrendered before P.W.13, the Village Administrative Officer of Aavudaiyarparai village.On such surrender, the first accused made a voluntary confession in the presence of the Village Assistant.P.W.13 reduced the same into writing.P.W.21 recovered the same under independent mahazars.On returning to the police station he forwarded both the accused to Court for judicial remand and also forwarded the material objects also to Court.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination, which revealed that there were human bloodstains on all the material objects.On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined, 29 documents and 21 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the nephew of the deceased has stated about the repayment of Rs.1,00,000/- made by him to the deceased a few days before the date of occurrence.He has further stated that the deceased alone was in her house.He has further stated that on 24.04.2015 at 07.30 a.m. in the usual course he went to the house of the deceased and he found the house bolted from inside.There was no response and with the help of the neighbours, he scaled down the wall by using a ladder and went into the house and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen.He has further spoken about the complaint given to the police.P.W.2, the scientific officer in the forensic lab has stated that he examined the visceral organs and there was no ethyl alcohol or poison.2.17. P.W.3 an expert from the Regional Forensic Lab has stated that he examined the material objects sent to him for examination and found that there were human bloodstains on the material objects.P.W.4 a neighbour of the deceased has stated that around 07.00 to 08.00 a.m. on 24.04.2015, P.W.1 was knocking at the door of the house of the deceased, as there was no response, with the help of her, P.W.1 scaled down the wall of the house with a ladder and then she found the deceased lying dead inside the house.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch and recovery of the material objects.2.18. P.W.6 has stated that on 23.04.2015, at around 06.00 p.m., she found the first accused at the house of the deceased and was watching a television programme.P.W.7 is the Bank Manager of Canara Bank, Thamaraipakkam branch.P.W.8 the Head Clerk of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi has stated that she forwarded the material objects to the forensic lab for examination.P.W.9 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch at the place of occurrence.P.W.10 has not stated anything incriminating.P.W.11 has stated that he took the deceased to the Canara Bank as she wanted to go to the said bank for depositing the said amount and at 02.00 p.m. according to him, they returned to the house of the deceased in his Omni van.P.W.12 has stated that on 24.04.2015 around 10.00 p.m. he found both the accused together at Karur bus stand.P.W.13, V.A.O. has spoken about the surrender of both the accused before him and the extra judicial confession given by the first accused and also about the recovery of the material objects in pursuance of the disclosure statement made to P.W.21 by the accused.P.W.14 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.15, the head of the sniffer dog squad has stated that at the place of occurrence the dog could not make out any clue.P.W.16 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence.P.W.17 a constable has stated that he handed over the body of the deceased to the doctor for postmortem.P.W.19 yet another constable has stated that she assisted in lifting the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence and handed over the same to the doctor for postmortem.P.W.21 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However they did not choose to examine anyone nor mark any documents.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above the trial Court convicted them as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and that is how the appellant / first accused alone is before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The foremost circumstance is that the deceased alone was at her house as her husband died four years before the occurrence.She was lastly seen alive in her house by P.W.6 around 06.00 p.m. The dead body of the deceased was found on the next day around 07.00 07.30 a.m. According to the medical evidence, the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like grinding stone.The death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the said injuries.At the place of occurrence, no chance finger print was traced.There was no other clue.According to P.W.13, these two accused appeared before him on 26.04.2015 and the first accused made a voluntary confession vide Ex.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the said extra judicial confession cannot be believed as the accused would not have chosen P.W.13 to confess.We find no force at all in the said argument.A perusal of the extra judicial confession (Ex.P15) would show that the accused had explained as to why he had chosen the Village Administrative Officer to make such a confession.He has stated that since the police had suspicion against him, and since he had fear for the police, he had chosen to surrender before the Village Administrative Officer.Though P.W.13 has been put to severe cross examination, nothing has been elicited to even remotely suspect his credibility.Thus, we hold that Ex.P15 extra judicial confession was made voluntarily by the first accused.In the said extra judicial confession, he has narrated clearly that he came to know that P.W.1 had returned Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased.He has further stated that he was under the impression that the deceased was keeping the said amount in her house.On the day of occurrence, he alone went to the house of the deceased chatted with the deceased and watched T.V. Programme.At that time, he hatched a plan to commit theft of Rs.1,00,000/- from her house.He has further stated that he explained his plan to the second accused and the second accused has agreed to the same and that is how they came to the house of the deceased around 11.00 p.m., scaled down the wall of the house using a ladder, entered into the house and fount the deceased was sleeping in a room.A2 stood near her and A1 went into the other room and searched for the above said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the bureau.But neither the said amount nor any valuable property was found.Cash of Rs.1,500/- alone was found.The first accused returned to the other room and informed the same to the second accused.This murmur awakened the deceased.She questioned them and she told them that she had deposited the amount in the bank.Then she started shouting.They killed her.The first accused dropped the grinding stone on the head and silt her neck with arruval and then the first accused took a marker pen and wrote that the hunt will continue and thereafter both of them fled away from the scene of occurrence.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,473,632 |
The affidavit-in-opposition by the Deputy Secretaryto Government does not explain these time lags between theprejudicial acts and the preventive detention order, andbetween the order and the detention.The petitioner'saverment in this context becomes disturbingly meaningful,for, according to him, the instances were false and when hewas prosecuted in Court, the cases ended in his favour.Hehas stated in his representation to the Advisory, Board that"over the grounds No. 1, 2 and 3 Burdwan P. S. Case No.G.R.P.S. No. 10(1)71, 9(11)71, and 6(1)72 was started.But soon as the petitioner wasdischarged from the case, the petitioner again arrested andarbitrarily detained under MIS Act."We will consider these aspects in a little detail later.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,473,718 |
a)P.W.1 is the brother of the accused.The deceased Chinnasami had threesons.First son is the appellant herein/first accused.The second accused is the paternal uncle'sson and the third accused is the friend of the second accused.Chinnasamidivided the properties into three equal shares, but the first accused was notsatisfied with that division and he was quarreling for the same.Thereafter, thefather agreed to allot half acre extra, but he was not satisfied.On 4.5.2006,the first accused along with two others attacked Selvaraj and he was injured.Hewas taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli.On the same day night,P.W.1, the deceased and others returned home and stayed in their house.b)On 5.5.2006 at about 4.00 a.m., when Chinnasami went outside to attendthe call of nature, P.Ws.1,2 and 3 were inside the house and they heard adistressing cry.When they came out, they found the first accused attacking thedeceased with aruval and the other accused also attacked the deceased with spearand stick.Immediately on seeing the witnesses, the accused fled away from theplace of occurrence.c)P.Ws took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Manapparai, whereP.W.8 the Doctor, who was on duty at that time, gave first aid to him and issuedEx.P.10, the Accident Register.The deceased was referred to the GovernmentHospital, Tiruchirapalli and on the way to the Government Hospital,Tiruchirapalli, the deceased died.d)P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the intimation fromthe Government Hospital, Manapparai, went there and recorded the statement ofP.W.1, which was marked as Ex.On the strength of Ex.P.1, he registered acase in Crime No.64 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC.P.11, theF.I.R. was despatched to the Court.e)On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.13, the Inspector of Police,took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar andEx.P.15, the rough sketch.He also recovered the bloodstained earth and sampleearth under a cover of mahazar.Then, he went to the Government Hospital,Manapparai and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in thepresence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.17, the inquestreport.The dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy.f)P.W.11, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Manapparai, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased and has issued Ex.P.12, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage dueto the injuries sustained.g)P.W.14, the Inspector of the Police, took up further investigation.Hearrested all the accused on 6.5.2006 at 7.30 a.m. in the presence of thewitnesses.The first accused voluntarily came forward to give a confessionalstatement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissiblepart of the which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, he producedM.Os.1 to 3, the weapons of crime, under a cover of mahazar.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The sole appellant challenges the judgment of the I AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Division (PCR Court), Tiruchirapalli made in S.C.No.191 of2006, whereby the appellant herein, who was shown as A-1, along with two othersranked as A-2 and A-3, stood charged under Sections 341 and 302 r/w S.34 IPC.On trial, A-1 was found guilty under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC and was sentencedto undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default toundergo one month R.I. The second accused was found guilty under Section 326 IPCand was sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, indefault to undergo one month R.I. The third accused was found guilty underSection 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three months RI and to pay a fineof Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month RI.The accused were acquitted ofthe charge under Section 341 IPC.Hence, this appeal has arisen at the instanceof the appellant herein/first accused.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could bestated thus:The accused weresent for judicial remand.All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the M.Os recovered from theaccused were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department,which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P.20, the Serologist's report andEx.P.21, the Biological report.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 14witnesses and also relied on 22 exhibits and 6 M.Os.On completion of theevidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned underSection 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidenceof prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witnesswas examined.The trial court, after hearing the submissions made on both sidesand looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution hasproved the case beyond reasonable doubt and has found the accused guilty asstated above and awarded punishments as referred to above.Hence, the firstaccused has brought forth this appeal before this court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counselwould submit that the occurrence has taken place on 05.05.2006 at about 5.00a.m., according to the prosecution; that three witnesses were examined asoccurrence witnesses, who are P.Ws.1 to 3; that P.W.1 is the son of thedeceased.P.W.2 is the cousin brother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is the cousin sister ofP.Ws.1 and 2; that they are close relatives of the deceased and they are alsopartisan witnesses; that if the test of careful scrutiny is applied, the lowercourt should have rejected their testimony; that actually Selvaraj, the son ofthe deceased, was attacked by the accused on 04.05.2006 and thus, he wasinjured; that he was taken to the hospital and was under treatment; that neitherthe said Selvaraj was examined nor any records were produced by the prosecution;that from the evidence of P.W.2, it would be quite clear that P.W.1 was in thehospital to look after the said Selvaraj and hence P.W.1 could not be in theresidence at the time of occurrence, which has taken place at about 5.00 a.m. on05.05.2006 and thus, P.W.1 could not have been present at all.5.Added further the learned counsel that there was variation as to theplace and time of occurrence; according to P.Ws.2 and 3, the occurrence hastaken place at about 5.00 a.m.; that according to P.W.1, the occurrence hastaken place at about 4.00 a.m.; that as per Ex.P.10, the Accident Register, theoccurrence has taken place in the house of the deceased, but according to theprosecution witnesses, the occurrence has taken place on the southern side ofthe house of the deceased and thus, the place of occurrence would also differand hence both P.Ws.2 and 3 also could not have seen the occurrence all; andthat it would be quite clear that there were lot of inconsistencies in theevidence of these two witnesses.6.The learned counsel would further submit that the material objectsrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased andthe material objects recovered from the accused were subjected to chemicalanalysis; that no bloodstains were found in the aruval, which was alleged tohave been recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement;that in the instant case, the medical opinion did not support the oculartestimony; that according to P.Ws.1 to 3, the deceased had a cup of tea beforethe occurrence, but the post-mortem certificate would indicate that the stomachwas found empty; that the time of occurrence seems to be differ and thus, P.Ws.1to 3 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that the arrest and recoverywitnesses, namely P.Ws.6 and 7 have turned hostile; that all put together wouldindicate that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubtand hence the appellant/first accused is entitled for an acquittal in the handsof this Court.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.8.It is not in controversy that one Chinnasamy, the father of P.W.1,following an incident that took place on 05.05.2006, was originally taken to theGovernment Hospital, Manapparai and then, he was taken to the GovernmentHospital, Tiruchirappalli, but when he was taken to the Government Hospital,Tiruchirappalli, he died.Following the inquest conducted by the InvestigatingOfficer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.11, the Doctor, whohas issued Ex.P.12, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuriessustained.So far as this fact is concerned, there was no quarrel and hence, ithas got to be recorded so.From the evidence of P.W.2, it would bequite clear that P.W.1 was very well available in the hospital.P.Ws.2 and 3have categorically deposed that they also went to the hospital along withSelvaraj, who was attacked by the accused on 04.05.2006 and after leaving him inthe hospital along with P.W.1, they came back to the house and thus, they werestaying in the house along with Chinnasamy during night.According to P.Ws.2 and3, when Chinnasamy went to attend the call of nature at about 5.00 a.m., theyheard a distressing cry and they came out and saw the first accused attackingthe deceased with aruval.At this juncture, the question of identity of theaccused would not arise.In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place inthe month of May and there was twilight also.Further, P.Ws.2 and 3 knew thefirst accused/appellant, since they are close relatives.They have also clearlyspoken that they were able to see the first accused attacking the deceased witharuval.This fact was also brought to the notice of P.W.8, the Doctorimmediately within a short span of time.A perusal of Ex.P.10, the accidentregister would clearly indicate the place and time of occurrence.10.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as perthe case of prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on the southern side ofthe house of the deceased, but as per Ex.P.10, the Accident Register, theoccurrence has taken place in the house.This court is unable to see anysignificant difference between these two for the simple reason that when theoccurrence has actually taken place, according to witnesses, the deceased cameout to attend the call of nature.Thus, it is natural for P.Ws to say that theoccurrence has taken place in the house and therefore, it will not in any wayaffect the prosecution case.11.Further, the earliest document Ex.P.10, the Accident Register wouldindicate the time and place of occurrence and thereafter, the case wasregistered by P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police.The further contention of thelearned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased had tea before theoccurrence, but as per the post-mortem certificate, his stomach was found empty.It is to be pointed out that the occurrence has taken place at about 5.00 a.m.when he went to attend the call of nature.From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3,the deceased had tea well before the occurrence.Thus, in the opinion of theCourt, this by itself cannot be the piece of evidence to reject the prosecutioncase.12.Added further, the medical opinion was also in support of theprosecution case.It is true, both witnesses have been examined for the arrestand recovery of weapons of crime, who are P.Ws.6 and 7, but they have turnedhostile.But, the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution through theeyewitnesses stood corroborated with the medical opinion.Thus, in the instantcase, the lower court has considered all the aspects and found theaccused/appellant guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment.It was a caseof patricide and the occurrence has taken place at about 5.00 a.m. and theaccused has attacked his father with aruval.All would go to show that his actwas a preplanned one and under these circumstances, the lower court has foundhim guilty and awarded life imprisonment.This court is unable to noticeanything to disturb the findings of the lower court, both factually and legally.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.Vijaya Shanthi, Amicus curiae counsel is entitled to getremuneration from the Legal Service Committee, Madurai.1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.2.The Inspector of Police, Puthunatham Police Station, Trichy.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
147,375,371 |
ORDER A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.This revision has been preferred against the Judgment in S.C. No. 388 of 2001 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.2. A1 and A2 have been charged under Sections 498A, and 302 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 14 were examined and Exs P1 to P17 were exhibited and Mos. 1 to 8 were marked.On the side of the accused Exs D1 to D4 were marked.After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the charges against A1 under Section 498A and 302 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the charges against A2 under Section 498A and 304((b) IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved and accordingly the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted both A1 and A2 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The State has not preferred any appeal over the findings of the learned sessions Judge.P.W. 1 the mother of the deceased has preferrred this revision.In this revision against acquittal, the main point to be gone into is, is there any manifest error of law or procedure incurred in the judgment of the trial Court or whether the findings of the trial Court is perverse in nature to warrant any interference in its Judgement by this Court?Heard Mr. K. Kalyasundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr. V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State-R1 and Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for R2 and R3 and considered their rival submissions.Ex P1 is the complaint given by the deceased on 16.10.2000 before the Inspector of Police, while she was taking treatment at the Government Hospital after the occurrence.A reading of Ex P1 complaint will go to show that the victim was a Science Graduate and the marriage between her and A1 took place some three years before the date of occurrence.In her complaint, she would state that on 14.10.2000 evening, she along with her husband and child went to Saibaba Temple and after staying at her sister's house, returned to her house on 15.10.2000 at about 10.00 p.m., While her husband was sleeping in the bed room, she went to the kitchen for the purpose of preparing hot water, she opened the gas and ignited with a match stick without putting out the match stick, she dropped the same by the side of her, inadvertently, failing to notice that the five litre kerosene cane was spilled over on the floor which resulted in the immediate engulf of fire which caught in her nylex nighty, she raised distress call which made her husband to come to her rescue with a pot of water.In the mean time, she had sustained burn injuries all over her body and in the process of putting out the fire, her husband also sustained burn injuries on his hand and with the help of her brother Sankar and Rajagopal, her husband took her to the Government Hospital in an ambulance and admitted her for treatment.Ex P5 is the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 16.10.2000 at about 2.20 a.m. Even in Ex P5, the deceased has not made any allegation of dowry or cruelty against the accused.She has stated that only due to the accident, the fire engulf all over her body.Only basing his reliance on Ex P1 and Ex P5, the learned Sessions Judge has come to a correct conclusion that the charge levelled against A1 under Section 498A and 302 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and offence under Section 498A, 304(B) IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A2 has not been proved by the prosecution and accordingly acquitted both the accused under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge for having come to a conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused are not proved beyond any reasonable doubt for an acquittal.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,302,866 |
as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 11/08/2020 11:21:53This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail by the applicant.The applicant is being implicated in crime no.65/2020, registered at police station Dharampuri for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354A, 323, 294, 506, 34 and 324 of IPC.The status of Crime No.238/2002 has been sought which is still pending.This case was registered in the year 2002 and learned counsel submits that he has not been able to get the status of this particular case.This case was listed under Sections 341, 324, 506 and 34 of IPC.The Court had on the last occasion was informed that there are five criminal antecedents in all.Learned counsel has submitted that in 3 of them order of acquittal has been passed.He has submitted that document showing the factum of acquittal in both two cases.In the present matter, the applicant has been implicated under the provisions of Sections 452, 354A, 323, 294, 506, 34 and 324 of IPC.As per facts of the present case, on 2.3.2020, when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the applicant entered her house and outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix and when she raised voice, applicant also inflicted injury on the prosecutrix with a weapon called Darata.Further, other co-accused persons namely Vikram and Kalu also physically assaulted the family members of the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the State was also heard who opposed the Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 11/08/2020 11:21:53 2 MCRC-22014-2020 submissions.7. Considered.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,303,801 |
This is repeat application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No. 531/2014, registered at Police Station- Rahatgarh, District- Sagar against him for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 294, 307 and 506-II of the IPC.Earlier application of the present applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19/02/2015 passed in M.Cr.As per the Medi Scan Centre report there was following injuries on the head of the applicant."EPIDURAL HAEMATOMA LEFT TEMPOROPRIENTAL REGION WITH COMMINUTED DEPRESSED FRACTURE PARIETAL BONE ON LEFT."The doctor further opined that there was bony fractures involved in both temporal bones.Following is the opinion of the doctor of Venus MRI & MDCT CENTRE:-IMPRESSION: MDCT of face with mpr in sagital & coronal plane & ssd of face shows bony fractures involving both temporal bones also involving posterior wall of left orbit and both sphenoidal plates with collection in the ethmoidal and sphenoidal sinuses.Non uniform mucosal thickening involving both frontal and mazxillary sinuses."The allegation against the present applicant is that he had inflicted injuries by axe on the head of Arun and the applicant himself received head injury.It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ Arresting Authority.The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and to cooperate with the investigating agency.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,306,300 |
And In re : Ashraful Islam & Ors..... Petitioners.Mr. Md. Karim Warsi....For the Petitioners.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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.
|
66,310,108 |
c) believed to be the habitual receiver.Discontinuance of the person concerned from the history sheet isprovided under PSO 748, under which, the Superintendent of police may orderthe closure of the history sheet at any time, but a Divisional Officer may doso only on the expiry of the period.Who can be classified as suspects is provided under PSO 749? The following persons shall be classed as suspects and a history sheet can beopened for them under the orders of the Superintendent if,a) persons once convicted under any section of IPC or considered to belikely to commit crime;b) persons not convicted, but believed to be addicted to crime;c) believed to be the habitual receiver.It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of his namebeing included in the history sheet, he suffers loss of reputation in thesociety and his right to live with dignity remains tarnished.It is alsopointed out that the petitioner is not able to enjoy the freedom from beingfearless and this has caused intrusion into his private life, thereby hisright to privacy has been put under threat.The respondent police are directed to remove the name of thepetitioner from the history sheet maintained by the third respondent.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeranur, Pudukottai District.This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents toremove the name of the petitioner from the history sheet, maintained by the3rd respondent, i.e. Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station,Pudukkottai District.The claim made by the petitioner herein is refuted by the 3rdrespondent on the following grounds:The case registered against the petitioner has been found out tobe true after investigation and charge sheet has been filed under Sections452 and 307 IPC on 21.07.2012;For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Original Petition isallowed.The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Ilurpur Taluk, Pudukottai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,631,412 |
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent / The Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, in connection with the order passed in G.O.(D) No.113, Home Pol.(XIII) Department dated 30.01.2018 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 02.03.2012 for issue of pistol license.2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner is facing life threat from opposite political parties and they are trying to murder him and had also 2/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 made several such attempts.It is stated that he had applied for pistol license by representation dated 02.03.2012 to the 2nd respondent / The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District.However, the 2nd respondent by order dated 02.12.2016 in Mu.Mu.5652/12/C4, had rejected the request of the petitioner.In the first place, the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Nagapattinam had called for reports from the Superintendent of Police, the Conservator of Forests and from the Revenue Divisional Officer with respect to the petitioner and his activities.The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 15.12.2016 before the 1st respondent and that was also rejected by the impugned order.3.The petitioner claims the fact there are number of cases pending against him cannot be held against him and it is also stated that most of the cases have ended in acquittal.It is also stated that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District and report of the Conservator of Forests, Nagapattinam District, could not be the basis for rejection of pistol license for the petitioner.3/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 20184.This Court, on perusal of the records had found that the 1st respondent had actually not passed the impugned order and that the impugned order had actually been passed by the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.Therefore, by order dated 05.07.2019 in W.M.P.No.32145 of 2018 the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, was impleaded as 3rd respondent.5.A counter affidavit had been filed by the 2nd respondent namely, the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District.The Superintendent of Police, had sent a report by Letter No.G1/7869/2012 dated 29.05.2012 in which it had been stated that there was a case pending trial against the petitioner in Velippalayam Police Station in Crime No.527 of 2006 4/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 registered under Sections 147, 341, 118 and 3(1) of PPDL Act and final report had been filed in the Judicial Magistrate Court.It was also stated that the petitioner was doing kattapanchayat and rowdyism.It was stated that there was a likelihood of law and order problem in Velippalayam Police limit.Consequently, the Superintendent of Police had recommended that pistol license should not be issued to the petitioner.6.The Conservator of Forests had sent a report by Letter No.1255 of 2012 M dated 17.11.2014 stating that there was a possibility of danger to the birds and forest animals and therefore, he also did not recommend the grant of pistol license to the petitioner.The Revenue Divisional Officer had sent a report in Letter No.1917/2012/A2 dated 22.07.2015, in which he had stated that the petitioner was living in a house site belonging to Sri Neelayathatchi Amman temple and he had stated that the petitioner is a Government Contractor for the past six years and he had recommended for the issue of pistol license subject to Police concurrence.5/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 20187.It was further stated that the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, by further letter dated 08.04.2015 in G1/31455/2014, had stated that a history sheet had been opened against the petitioner in Velippalayam Police Station and the petitioner was also being keenly watched and there were several cases registered against the petitioner in Crime Nos.98/2008, 160/2009, 494/2013, 304/2014, 444/2014, 158/2010 and Crime No.184/2009 in Kilvelur Police Station.The Superintendent of Police, again refused to recommend for the grant of pistol license to the petitioner.It is under these circumstances that the 3rd respondent namely, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.XIII) Department had passed orders in G.O.(D) No.113 dated 30.01.2018 rejecting the request of the petitioner.It was stated that an Order had been passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Nagapattinam, based on the reports received from the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, the Conservator of Forests, Nagapattinam and also the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam.It was stated that was the order was passed after taking into consideration all relevant factors and consequently it was urged that the Writ 6/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 Petition should be dismissed.8.An additional counter affidavit was also filed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Nagapattinam, in which the details of the cases registered against the petitioner had been listed out and copies of the First Information Report were also furnished.It was once again reiterated that the petitioner was an habitual criminal offender and therefore it was not desirable to grant pistol license to the petitioner in the interest of the public.9.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.D.Nandagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.10.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even though several cases had been registered against the petitioner, they all had ended in acquittal and therefore stated that the respondent could not hold out that reason to deny pistol license to the petitioner.The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner had categorically stated that there was a threat to 7/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 his life and therefore, the pistol was required for him.It was stated that most of the offences for which he had been charged were minor in nature, namely, participating in political agitations etc.The learned counsel therefore urged that the impugned order should be set aside.12.The learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand pointed out the averments made in the counter affidavit and in the additional counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner is an habitual offender and a history sheet had also been opened against the petitioner and stated that there were 8/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 several cases registered against the petitioner.It was stated that a considered order had been passed after considering the reports of the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam and the Conservator of Forests, Nagapattinam.The learned Special Government Pleader stated that the order under challenge should not be interfered with.13.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.14.In the counter affidavit and in the additional counter affidavit it had been stated that several cases had been registered against the petitioner and the list of cases were also listed.The list is reproduced for ready reference:Police Cr.& Sec. Status of the case Rank of No. Station the Petitioner 1 Velippalayam 98/2008 u/s 341, Ended in Acquittal on 323, 307 of IPC 26.02.2010 u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C by CJM in SC.No.105/2009 2 Velippalayam 458/2010 u/s 147, Ended in Acquittal on 294(b), 323 of IPC 03.05.2011 u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C by JM-II Court, Nagapattinam in C.C.No.617/2010 3 Kilvelur 494/2009 u/s 341, Ended in Acquittal on 294(b), 323, 353, 21.07.2011 u/s 248(1) Cr.Police Cr.& Sec. Status of the case Rank of No. Station the Petitioner 4 Velippalayam 304/2014 u/s Pending trial in A1 294(b) C.C.No.127/2016 in J.M 506(II) IPC Court, Nagapattinam 5 Nagore 86/2018 u/s 143, Pending Trial in STC A1 341 of IPC No.40/2019 in JM-II Court, Nagapattinam 6 Velippalayam 26/2018 u/s 143, Under Investigation A1 341 of IPC 7 Velippalayam 370/2018 u/s 143, Under Investigation A1 341 of IPC 8 Velippalayam 270/2019 u/s 143, Under Investigation A1 341 of IPC 9 Velippalayam 143/2019 u/s 143, Under Investigation A1 341 of IPC 10 DCB 11/2010 u/s 406, Pending Trial in A1 Tiruvarur 420, 506(II) of IPC C.C.No.251/2011 before JM Court, TiruvarurThere were no criminal cases registered against the petitioners.To protect their own property and business they had applied for gun license.That was rejected on the ground that they had only raised an apprehension of threat of life.Section 13 provides the procedure that must be adopted while considering an application for grant of license.Section 14 provides the circumstances when a license can be refused.22.In the present case, the petitioner has a history of indulging in violence.When a pistol is granted to such a person it would only endanger the public peace and cause law and order problem.The mere apprehension of the petitioner that he is facing life threat cannot be considered by this Court as a valid reason for grant of license, since such a statement had been 14/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 made based on suspicions and not based on any concrete material.The 2nd respondent namely, the District Collector cum District Magistrate of Nagapattinam District had correctly assessed the reports forwarded by the Superintendent of Police and by the Conservator of Forests and had by proper application of mind refused to grant license to the petitioner.This order has been upheld by the 3rd respondent.The reasons stated are neither shocking nor perverse and they are actually sound reasons for refusal of license.2.The District Collector Cum District Magistrate Nagapattinam District.16/17http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.J, smv Pre-delivery Order made in W.P.No.22971 of 2018 20.12.2019
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,318,345 |
Therefore, the total turn over of petroleum sales are subjected for sales tax.The firm is registered under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act 1967 (Act of 1967) under the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (Act of 1956)and after the repeal of Act 1967, under the Puducherry Value Added Tax 2007 (VAT 2007).The petitioners have filed return for the annual turn over for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 before the Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe.They have also produced the books of accounts to determine the total and taxable turn over and to assess the tax due.According to the complainant, he obtained Form C declaration from M/s. Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited from where the firm has purchased Petroleum Products.The complainant has further alleged that the firm had committed an offence of fabricating false evidence as defined under Sec.192 of IPC punishable under Sec.193 of IPC R/W 34 IPC.The complainant had also alleged that the firm has committed criminal breach of trust which is punishable under Sec.409 IPC, cheating and forgery for an offence under Sec.468 IPC.By consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.Nos.21 and 22 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahe under sections 49(2)(a) of Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, Rules 14 and 16 of the CST (Pondicherry) Rules read with 193, 409, 468 IPC and quash the same.The petitioners are the partners of Surya Service Station, a retail outlet of Petrol, Diesel and Petroleum products at Palloor, Mahe, Union Territory of Pondicherry.They are liable for Commercial Tax for the total and taxable turn over.For the year ended up upto 31.3.2002, a taxable turnover of Rs.4,32,53,519.15 with tax due of Rs.51,90,422.28 was filed.On placement of relevant returns and books of accounts and also the 'C' forms the Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe accepted the returns and books of accounts and passed an Assessment Order 0n 5.1.2005 for both the assessment years.Therefore, the respondent found the actual purchase and turn over was not shown by the petitioners in their returns.A huge unexplained difference of Rs.3,47,03,278.26 for the year 2000-2001 and a sum of Rs.2,29,34,144.31 was the difference and thereby they have suppressed the purchase and sale with a view to defraud the Government.The respondent had filed a detailed complaint for the offence punishable under Rule 14 and 16 of CST (Pondicherry) Rules 1967 and Sec.49 (2) (a) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act 1967 read with Sec.81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act 2007 and also under Secs.193, 409, 468 read with 34 of IPC.Aggrieved by which, the partners of the Firm have preferred the present petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings on the following grounds:Countering the arguments, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry would submit that the petitioners have defrauded the Government by suppressing the total turn over of more than Rs.3 crores per year and therefore, appropriate action has been taken by the respondent.He further submit that petroleum products carry tax added prices and the petitioners having sold the products along with tax and have collected the tax and in breach of trust, they have not shown the correct account.The learned Special Public prosecutor would further submit that by filing forged C forms and incorrect returns, the petitioners have committed the alleged offences for which they are liable to be prosecuted.The provisions of Act 1967 and the provisions of the Act 2007 are similar and therefore, invoking the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act 1967 is proper.The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the following case laws:The petitioners are the partners in the firm which deals with petrol products.The petroleum products particularly petrol and diesel are subjected to administer pricing mechanism of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the price charged on their sales are inclusive of taxes.Under Sec.81 of the Act, the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act 1967 (Act 6 of 1967) was repealed.However, any action or proceedings already initiated under the repealed Act was saved by the saving clause.Chapter IV of Act 9 of 2007 deals with assessment.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,324,975 |
The first application was dismissed on 29/01/2020 by the order passed in M.Cr.The second application was dismissed vide order dated 02.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.15161/2020 and this third application has been filed on the ground that the family members of the deceased settled the matter with the applicant and filed an affidavit to that effect in this petition.She was harassed and treated with cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately she committed suicide on 09.10.2019 within one and half year of her marriage with the applicant.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the application and prays for dismissal of the application.Having heard both the counsel and perused the statements of the parents of the deceased.They categorically stated against the applicant and supported the factum of demand of dowry and treated the deceased with cruelty at her matrimonial house.It is the Investigating Officer of the crime who can investigate in this matter during investigation.If after investigation charge-sheet has been filed the applicant may file an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence levelled against the applicant.Consequently, this third application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant stands dismissed.The applicant is free to repeat this prayer after recording the statements of the witnesses who filed the affidavit in support of this petition before the trial Court.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,327,988 |
/506/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and 3 and 4 of the E.S. Act.And In the matter of : Saidul Islam @ Saidul Islam Mondal .Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,331,833 |
The facts in brief are that a complaint was made by Shri Kapil, son of Wakil Mohammad, in which it was alleged against Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 1 of 18 the appellants that on 13th June, 1998 when the complainant Kapil was going to the house of his friend Sarbuland Khan and reached towards Gurdwara, he saw that Sarbuland Khan; Amarnath@Kalu & Nikka@Nikkey who resided in the same locality, were quarrelling with one another.Thereafter, Sarbuland Khan asked Amarnath@Kallu as to why he teased his sister Zohra over which Kallu got angry and asked his associate Nikkey to beat them.This resulted in a minor scuffle in which Kallu and Nikkey brought dandas from their jhuggies and started beating the complainant while Sarbuland Khan went to call the police.In the meanwhile, Kallu and his associates kept on giving danda blows on the head of the complainant Kapil who fell down.After that police came on the spot and the complainant was admitted to S.D.N. Hospital and his statement was recorded by the police.(I).The complainant Kapil examined as PW 1 in his statement Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 7 of 18 deposed that on 13th June, 1998, accused Nikkey and Amarnath teased the sister of his friend Sarbuland Khan at Gurdwara wali gali and when he and his friend Sarbuland Khan reached the narrow gali near Gurdwara to confront the accused persons regarding the teasing of sister of Sarbuland Khan, both the accused started beating them with dandas and both the accused gave danda blows on the head of the complainant.He further deposed that he became unconscious and thereafter police came and took him to the hospital where he was medically examined.A. No.61/2002 Page 7 of 18(II) PW 2 in his testimony deposed that both the accused persons were using sticks at the time of quarrel and despite his effort to intervene, he could not save the complainant/Kapil.(V) Statement of PW 7 HC Sat Prakash was recorded in which he deposed that while being posted at Police Station Anand Vihar as Head Constable, he received a ruqqa brought by Constable Mahender Singh and that on the basis of the said ruqqa, FIR was lodged.(VI) Thereafter, statement of PW 8 Constable Khursheed Ahmad was recorded in which he deposed that while being posted at PS Anand Vihar, he accompanied the investigating officer of the case to Bhikam Singh Colony and that the accused Amar Nath took them to his jhuggi and produced two dandas which were taken into possession by them.The memo as well as seizure memo was exhibited as Ex.p.m. Both the injured were examined at the hospital at about 12.45/1.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer had come to know about the incident and had initially gone to the spot from where he came to know that injured had been removed to hospital.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 18th August, 2001 convicting the appellants finding them guilty under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and order on sentence dated 20th August, 2001 vide which the sentence was passed against the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months, the present has been preferred by the appellants.After investigation of the case, the chargesheet was filed for offence under Section 308 read with 34 of the IPC against both the accused.Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty.A. No.61/2002 Page 1 of 18The prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses namely PW 1 Kapil, PW 2 Ramji Lal, PW 3 Dr.D. Chatterjee, PW 4 Dr. Amitabh Singh, PW 5 Smt.Usha Rani, PW 6 Nisan Singh, PW 7 HC Sat Prakash, PW 8 Const.Khursheed Ahmad, PW 9 SI Ramesh Malik; PW 10 Dr.Chaitanya Sharma & PW 11 Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 2 of 18 Dr.Sharmila Mitra.The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by placing the incriminating evidence against them.A. No.61/2002 Page 2 of 18The challenge made to the judgment of conviction and order on sentence inter alia on the following grounds:-(i) In the alleged incident, the appellants also received injuries.The injury on the person of the appellant no.1 was serious in nature as per Ex.PW 3/A and as stated by the investigating officer of the case.The appellant no.1 was seriously injured in the alleged incident which clearly shows that the complainant party had come prepared to attack the appellants and inflicted injuries upon them.The incident took place near the house of appellant no.1 and as the complainant party had a grudge against the appellants, they came fully prepared to attack the appellants.If the version of the prosecution is to be believed, on being attacked by the complainant, the appellants were justified in defending themselves and that the alleged injuries on the complainant could have occurred due to self defence on the part of the appellants.(ii) There are also major contradictions in the statement of the complainant to the effect that the main reason of the attack i.e. teasing of sister of Sarbuland Khan, as per the statement of the complainant was told by Sarbuland Khan at his house when the Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 3 of 18 complainant reached there.However, in the same line, this witness went on to say that he was told of the reason when he met Sarbuland Khan near the house of the appellant.A. No.61/2002 Page 3 of 18(iii) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that so far as the statement of eye witness PW 2 is concerned, the same does not inspire confidence inasmuch as according to his statement, the complainant was alone when he was being beaten by the appellants which is in complete contradiction to the prosecution case which is to the effect that both Kapil and Sarbuland Khan were present near the house of the appellants when the alleged incident occurred.(iv) The material witness i.e. Zohra, sister of Sarbuland Khan who was alleged to have been teased by the appellant no.1, had not been examined.The Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. dandas were not even shown to the complainant at the time of his evidence as a result of which the alleged injury which was shown to be caused by the alleged dandas by the appellants, could not be linked to the weapon which was used.No specific role had been assigned to the appellants in causing alleged injuries to the injured.A. No.61/2002 Page 4 of 18A. No.61/2002 Page 4 of 18(v) Instant case lacks fair and proper investigation inasmuch as despite the knowledge of injuries on the appellants and even after medical opinion in respect of the injuries sustained, no case was registered against the complainant and his companions despite the knowledge of the incident to the police.Apart from this, the prosecution did not bother to record the statement of the injured appellants.The FIR was lodged after a lapse of twenty days from the date of incident which clearly casts doubt over the episode and shows that the possibility of altering/twisting the facts of the incident cannot be ruled out.The delay in lodging the FIR of the incident is stated to be unexplained.(vi) The charge has been wrongly framed under Section 308 of the IPC and it ought to have been framed under Section 323 of the IPC as a bare reading of the facts and circumstances of case lead to invoking of Section 323 IPC itself.The submission made by counsel for the appellants is primarily that the injury attributed in the present case makes the appellants liable to be charged under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and not under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC as has been framed.A. No.61/2002 Page 5 of 18It appears to me that a quarrel had actually taken place between the appellant and the complainant possibly on account of either of them feeling that the other one was staring at him and confronting him accordingly.Though the complainant did sustain injuries, in the facts & circumstances of the case, the Court cannot be sure as to whether a palta was actually used by the appellant for causing injuries to him or not.In any case, it cannot be known, what was the size and shape of the said palta.In these circumstances, it would be difficult to say that the appellant had caused injuries to the complainant with such intention and knowledge that under such circumstances that if he by that act had caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The charge under Section 308 of IPC, therefore, cannot be sustained.The appellant, however, is liable to be convicted under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple injuries to the complainant as Mohammad.[Mohd. Akhtar Vs.The State passed in Crl.A. No.197/2010 Dt.03.04.2014]A. No.61/2002 Page 6 of 18 no.2 Nikka@Nikkey, as on 16th March, 2002, the undergone period of sentence by him was seven months & one day while unexpired portion of sentence of the appellant no.2 was one year two months and twenty nine days.The nominal roll also reflects that the appellant no.2 was released on bail on 16th March, 2002 by the order of this Court.Learned counsel for the appellants requests for lesser sentence.A. No.61/2002 Page 6 of 18Per contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecution for the State is that the injury suffered by the complainant/injured is grievous in nature.It was argued that during his deposition in court, the injured fully supported the case of the prosecution and his testimony has been duly corroborated by another eye witness PW 2 Ramji Lal.Even the testimony of injured has been corroborated by medical evidence and statements of the doctors who medically examined the injured and his medical papers.This witness further deposed that the complainant received head injuries on his head and blood was oozing out and that the condition of the complainant did not improve on the date of his examination.This testimony of PW 2 corroborates with the injured persons testimony mentioned above.(III) Statement of PW 5 Smt.Usha Rani, sister of the accused Amarnath was also recorded in which she deposed that her brother was arrested by the police in connection with the case and accused Nikkey was also got arrested on the next day of the arrest of his brother.A. No.61/2002 Page 8 of 18 (IV) Statement of PW 6 Nisan Singh in his statement deposed that he was called to the police station where both the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted in his presence vide memos Ex.PW 5/C and 5/D respectively which bears his signatures at point-B of these memos.A. No.61/2002 Page 8 of 18PW 8/A and bore their signatures.The confessional statements of both the accused were recorded as Exh.PW 8/B & 8/C respectively and bear his signatures.(VII) PW 9 SI Ramesh Malik in his statement deposed that he along with Ct.Omkar went to Bhikam Singh Colony wherein he was informed that the injured persons had been removed to the Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 9 of 18 police station Anand Vihar.He further deposed that both the accused also sustained serious injuries and injured Kapil was unconscious and unfit for statement.Further, he had also recorded the disclosure statements of Amarnath ExPW8/B and 8/C of Nikkey in pursuance of which he was led inside the house and shown the dandas, which were therein taken into possession.PW 9 further stated that he would be able to identify the said weapon, if shown to him.A. No.61/2002 Page 9 of 18Section 308 IPC provides for punishment in cases of attempt to commit culpable homicide.Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness.He had been examined by the doctor.He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.A. No.61/2002 Page 11 of 18 Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.A. No.61/2002 Page 11 of 18The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law.Therefore, he went Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 12 of 18 to hospital and recorded the statement of injured Rakesh Yadav and thereafter got the case registered against the accused at about 3.05 p.m. This reflects that there was no delay in lodging the FIR which rules out the possibility of their false implication.That being so, there is absolutely no reason as to why the victims would allow the real culprits to go scot free and to falsely name the accused in this case."A. No.61/2002 Page 12 of 18[Mano Dutt and Anr.State of UP, (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 226]As per the testimony of injured/complainant (Kapil) PW 1, on the day of incident when he along with his friend Surbuland Khan reached in a narrow street near Gurdwara, both the appellants met them.When they complained the appellants regarding teasing of sister of Surbuland Khan, both the appellants started beating PW 1 with dandas which they were holding.He specifically stated that both the appellants gave danda blows on his head and after receiving injuries he became unconscious.Testimony of complainant/injured is duly corroborated by another eye witness Ramji Lal PW 2 who stated that on the date of incident, he saw that there was a quarrel in a narrow street between the appellants and complainant Kapil.PW 2 saw that both the appellants had used sticks at the time of quarrel.PW 2 tried to intervened but he could not save Kapil.He specifically stated that Kapil received injuries on his head and blood was oozing out.During cross-examination, Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 13 of 18 PW 2 stated that he knew Kapil and both the appellants being the residents of same locality.Kapil was alone and he was given beatings by the appellants.He also stated that he reached the spot when the quarrel was going on.A. No.61/2002 Page 13 of 18The testimony of the complainant/injured Kapil clearly proves the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, both the appellants gave danda blows on his head.The testimony of injured Kapil is duly corroborated by his MLC Exh.P/w 3/B which shows that there was swelling over his right parietal region, bruises on scalp and bleeding from right ear and nose which also establishes that the danda blows given on the head of the injured were so severe that the same could have caused his death.The carrying of danda and giving their blows on the vital part of the injured clearly proves the intention and knowledge of the accused persons that they made an attempt to commit culpable homicide of the injured.So the prosecution has duly established beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of incident both the appellants caused grievous injuries on the person of the injured Kapil and thus made an attempt to commit his culpable homicide.The above testimony of the injured Kapil which has duly been corroborated by another eye witness of PW 2 Ramji Lal inspire confidence.Though they were cross-examined at length by Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 14 of 18 the defence but the defence has failed to put any dent to their testimony.Their testimony remained unshaken and unimpeachable and the same was found to be reliable and trustworthy as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed (supra) & Mano Dutt (supra).A. No.61/2002 Page 14 of 18The view taken by the High Court is obviously erroneous because offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not.It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under Sections 325 and 326 IPC.The High Court was thus not well advised to take the view as afore-extracted to bring down the offence to be under Sections 323/34 IPC and then in turn to hold that since that offence was investigated by the police without permission of the magistrate, the proceedings under that provision be quashed.For the view afore-taken as to the commission of the offence under Sections 308/34 IPC, it is not necessary to dwell on the correctness of the Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 15 of 18 second part of the order relating to quashing of proceedings under Sections 323/34 IPC.Thus, the entire order of the High Court deserves to be and is hereby quashed, restoring the status quo ante of the trial remaining with the Additional Sessions Judge to proceed in accordance with law."A. No.61/2002 Page 15 of 18Statement of PW 4 Dr.Amitabh Singh of SDN Hospital was also recorded who medically examined the complainant Kapil on 14th June, 1998 and referred him to surgeon for further examination.PW 3 Dr.D. Chatterjee has stated that on 14.06.1998, patient Kapil was referred to him for further management.He examined the patient and found the head injury as mentioned in the MLC and other things.He referred the patient to RML Hospital as facility was not available in SDN Hospital to look after the patient of head injury.PW 11 Dr. Sharmila provided the X-Ray report as PW 11/A. The X-Ray report was examined by her on 13th June, 1998 itself and found fracture on right temporo parietal bone in the skull.PW 10 Dr.Chaitanya Sharma on the MLC which is Ex.3/B and in his statement deposed that on 14th June, 1998, the complainant Kapil was admitted in LNJP Hospital and that the injuries & X-ray report shows that the fracture on the right temporo parietal bone of the complainant Kapil clearly reflects that the injury was grievous in nature as per endorsement Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 16 of 18 Ex PW 10/A on MLC which is Exh.PW 3/B.A. No.61/2002 Page 16 of 18The discussion made above apparently shows that the injured Kapil is trustworthy who suffered head injury which was found to be grievous in nature as per his MLC Exhibit PW 3/B and brings the case of the prosecution within the four corners of the alleged commission of offence which culminated into the conviction of the convicts/appellants.The submission made by counsel for the appellants is that the learned Trial Judge awarded the sentence on the higher side and claims the reduction/modification in the sentence.A. No.61/2002 Page 17 of 18 fracture on the head and termed as "grievous" as per the MLC Exh.PW 3/B. In such circumstances, the sentence awarded cannot be said on the higher side and no case is made out for the reduction/modifying the sentence awarded vide order on sentence dated 20th August, 2001 and the same is upheld.A. No.61/2002 Page 17 of 18Section 319 IPC defines the term "hurt" whereas Section 320 IPC defines "grievous hurt".The fracture on the skull is grievous hurt and cannot be termed as simple hurt.A person causing fracture on skull cannot term the hurt as simple hurt as per the settled law.The convicts/appellants are directed to surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of fifteen days from the date of judgment.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 30, 2016 aa Crl.A. No.61/2002 Page 18 of 18A. No.61/2002 Page 18 of 18
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,342,023 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 5033 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 4.6.2018 in connection with Nakashipara Police Station Case No. 50/18 dated 02/02/2018 under Sections 341/326 of the Indian Penal Code ;And In Re:-Ichhan Sk @ Esmat Kazi ... Petitioner Mr. Sumanta Das, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Nakashipara Police Station Case No. 50/18 dated 02/02/2018 under Sections 341/326 of the Indian Penal Code ;.The petitioner says that the injury could not have been serious at all as it was in course of a scuffle and skirmish.The State refers to the injury report where the doctor has observed that the injury may have been homicidal in nature.The State also says that the charge-sheet has been filed.Since the investigation has been completed, the petitioner need not be taken into custody.In addition, the petitioner is directed to attend the trial court on the dates fixed for the matter.Any default on the part of the petitioner will entitle the trial court to cancel his bail without reference to this Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,564,240 |
M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Page 4 of 4M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Page 4 of 4By the present application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., the applicant, inter-alia, seeks grant of Regular Bail during the pendency of appeal regarding FIR No. 593/2014 registered under Sections 392/397/411 of the IPC at Police Station Mukherji Nagar, Delhi.The applicant has undergone a period of over 2 years and 4 months in judicial custody.The applicant has been convicted under sections 392/397 IPC by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2017 wherein he has been sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC and 7 years of imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant must be granted bail during the pendency of trial as he did not misuse the regular bail which was granted by the Trial Court and had surrendered when he was ordered to do so.M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Page 1 of 4On the converse, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State relied upon the status report and contended that the applicant had a prime role in the robbery and that he is involved in various other cases, thus, the present case is not fit for grant of bail.The submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard and the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 has also been perused.The order dated 16.01.2017 of the Trial Court states as under:-He supported his complaint Ex.PW-1/A and deposed that on 10.01.14 he was standing near Mukherjee Nagar complex along with his friend Shivam and Shaan.They were waiting for someone.At about 8:30 PM three boys on pulsar approached them.He was not knowing those boys.The accused present in the court brandished blade towards him and snatched his mobile phone make Nokia C3 and also too out his purse containing money.Accused handed over the sim to the witness.When Harpreet demanded back his mobile phone, the accused threatened him with the blade and said that he would kill him case phone is demanded.Thereafter accused sonu fled away with his associated.xxxxxx xxxxxxx 17 Keeping in view the submissions and the facts of the case I found that in this immediately after the incident call at 100 number was made on the basis of which DD No.77B Ex.PW3/A was recorded.Police reached the spot where PW-1 met them and made complaint and when he appeared in the witness box he also fully supported the prosecution case and Crl.M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Page 2 of 4 identified the accused as the person who removed his wallet from his pocket.He also stated that accused fled away after taking his mobile phone but returned the sim.The accused has alleged that he has given a loan of Rs.700/- to the complaint which he demanded back but I found that there is nothing on record to support the contention of accused even there is no such cross-examination to PW-5 that accused demanded Rs.700/- which he has given to him and instead of returning the amount he got him falsely implicated.It is also pertinent to mention here that there is also recovery of mobile phone belonging to complainant from the possession of accused when he was arrested on 10.06.2014 regarding which there is no explanation as how mobile phone Ex.P1 became in his possession.So far as recovery of mobile phone is concerned both PW-6 and PW-7 proved and established this fact beyond doubt and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony.Keeping in view the above discussion I am of the considered view that prosecution has fully proved and established the fact that accused has robbed PW-1 by brandishing blade a deadly weapon.Therefore, I held the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence punishavle u/s 392/397 IPC"M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Page 2 of 4It has emerged from the impugned order that the applicant had a major role in the crime as he was the one who robbed the mobile and purse of the victim and also threatened him with a sharp blade.It also needs to be kept in mind that the accused/applicant is involved in six other cases whose details are given in the status report which is reproduced as under:-"Further it is worth to mention here that Petitioner is previously involved in 6 cases except the present case which Crl.M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Page 3 of 4 details are:M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Page 3 of 4(1).FIR No. 56/07, U/s 324IPC (2).FIR No. 269/13, 354D/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO (3).FIR No. 475/13 U/s 324/451 IPC (4).FIR No. 477/13 U/s 324/34 IPC (5).FIR No. 473/14, U/s 324/34 IPC, (6).Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present application filed by the applicant is dismissed.(SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) JUDGE JULY 24, 2017 gr// Crl.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,566,733 |
The petitioner has come forward with the prayer to quash theproceedings in S.C.No.56 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned DistrictSessions Judge, Nagercoil.It is due to the enmity of two groups andthere was verbal slogan raised against the Police, when they assembled todisperse the crowd.In order to clear the crowd, the Police personnel usedbombs and also there was an order for lathi charges and shooting order alsoordered to clear the mob and one person died in that process and apart fromthat, there were injuries on both sides.The defacto complainant registeredthe complaint under Sections 147, 148, 332, 323 r/w 149 of IPC.Even thoughseveral accused involved, for some of the accused, the offences underExplosive Act was included.The petitioner contended that the committal Court and the trialCourt have not considered the entire material fact, while applying the mindand the final report has not disclosed any offence said to have beencommitted by the petitioner, the trial Court ought not to have taken thematter against the petitioner.Hence, on that sole ground itself, the proceedings will haveto be quashed in so far as the present petitioner is concerned.The petitioner vehemently contended that thepetitioner has not caused any offence much less the offence to the publicservant causing injuries.He further submitted that the matter is pending formore than a decade and he has been made to suffer for no fault of him.I have perused the FIR in Crime No.439 of 1995 and 161(3) statementdated 21.01.2004 and the charge sheet 176 of 2006 dated 28.05.2004, whichfound in the typed set of papers.I find that the matter is pending before the Sessions Court from2010 after committal to the said Court by the learned Judicial Magistrate.The incident said to have taken place in 1995 and nearly it is going tobe two decades and there is no purpose would to be served, if the furtherproceedings are stayed and the Sessions Case is quashed.The purpose ofinitiating the criminal proceedings is to bring the issue to the logical endas expeditiously as possible.For some reasons or other the matter has beenprolonged for nearly two decades.Even after the matter has gone to theSessions Court, the matter is pending there for more than four years.Hence,at this distance of time, I feel no useful purpose is going to be served inquashing the proceedings in S.C.No.156 of 2010 pending before the DistrictSessions Judge, Nagercoil.Hence, I am not inclined to grant the reliefsought for by the petitioner.Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition isdismissed.Further, in any event, the Trial Court shallnot grant adjournment exceeding a period of three days at a time.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1.The District Sessions Judge, Nagercoil.The Inspector of Police, Colachal Police Station, Colachal3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.MPK Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20493 of 201425.11.2014
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,572,297 |
It has been alleged that she is from "Mahar" community, and being a member of Scheduled Caste, her Superior i.e. Principal Dr. Govind Chaudhary (one of the appellants) used to maltreat her mentally and economically since she assumed charge in the office at Aurangabad.He also used to torture other staff members belonging to Scheduled Caste community.The appellant/accused Dr. Govind Chaudhary did not allow first informant Dr. Rekha Gaikwad to avail facilities meant for Class-I, Officer including facility of office Cabin etc. It has been alleged that after about a month first informant on her own accord, started sitting in the Cabin available for her post in the Office.But, the appellant Dr. Govind Chaudhary put monitor of CCTV Camera of her Cabin in his room, which cause disturbance to her privacy.The first informant Dr. Rekha Gaikwad further cast allegation that the appellant Dr. Chaudhary used to behave indecently by calling her in his Cabin without any cause.She was not allowed to avail benefit of staff car or travelling allowance etc. According to first informant-complainant, she was being tortured by the appellants only because she is a member of Scheduled Caste.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::5 Cri Al-228-19-J+2The first informant - complainant ventilated the grievance against the appellant Smt. Ratnakala Mohite that she was the Administrative Officer in the office of Health and Family Welfare Training Center.The appellant - Smt. Mohite hatched the conspiracy with appellant Dr. Govind Chaudhary and Dr. Lale to sack the complainant from Government service only because she is belonging from"Mahar" community.The appellant- Smt. Mohite used to torture her mentally by avoiding to get her leave approved at the earliest from the Superior as well as avoid to pay the salary of leave period and other allowances within stipulated period.The first informant - complainant also cast aspersion against appellant Dr. Lale.It has been alleged that on 10-01- 2019 first informant-complainant and her husband had been to the Office of Deputy Director I.e. Dr. Lale for recording her statement in the enquiry of her complaint filed against appellant- Dr. Govind Chaudhary.But, it was informed that the enquiry of her complaint was postponed.When she asked the reason, the appellant Dr. Lale started reprimanding her.He threatened the first informant-complainant not to pressurize him in the matter of enquiry of her complaint against Dr. Govind Chaudhary.The appellant Dr. Lale sarcastically passed lewd and obscene comment towards the complainant.The appellant - Dr. Lale threatened and intimidated her for not pursuing the enquiry::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 6 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 against Dr. Govind Chaudhary otherwise she would have to face dire consequences.The first informant-complainant became mentally disturbed and frightened after hearing the disgusting dialogue on the part of appellant-accused- Dr. Lale.Therefore, on 28-02-2019 first informant-complainant approached to the Police of Vedantnagar Police Station and filed report.1. Heard.These matters are taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::3 Cri Al-228-19-J+2The points of controversy in all these appeals are primarily centered on the question of pre-arrest bail of the appellants by exercising powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."), therefore, all these allied appeals are dealt with together for its adjudication on merit, simultaneously, by this common Judgment.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Pursuant to the First Information Report (FIR), the concerned PSO registered the crime No. 40 of 2019 under Sections 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as section 3(1)(r)(s)of the Act of 1989 and set the penal law in motion.The investigation was entrusted to the Senior Police Personnel ACP Shri Bhapkar.The Investigating Officer (IO) visited to the spot of incident, drawn the panchnama of scene of occurrence.He recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.He collected relevant document of caste Certificate of the first informant-complainant.The appellants are figured in the FIR being culprits.Therefore, apprehending the arrest at the hands of police for the sake of investigation, the appellant approached to the concerned Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Aurangabad and filed the applications for their pre-arrest bail in this Crime.The learned Special Judge considered the circumstances on record and arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie case made out to attract the provisions of the Act of 1989 and in view of::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 7 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 statutory bar under section 18-A of the Act of 1989, the powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. would not be exercised in favour of appellants-accused.In the result, learned Sessions Judge rejected the applications filed on behalf of appellants for pre- arrest bail and passed the impugned order, the validity and propriety of which is challenged in the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Learned counsel appearing for respective appellants scathingly assailed that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous, illegal and not within the purview of law.The appellants did not commit any crime as alleged by the prosecution.But, they all are falsely implicated in this case with purported motive.According to learned counsels the present complaint is the fallout of Office politics and no such incident occurred as verbalized by the complainant in the FIR.Mr. Tope leaned counsel appearing for the appellant Smt. Ratnakala Mohite submitted that the appellant was the Administrative Officer attached to the Health and Family Welfare Training Center, Aurangabad.The appellant has no concerned at all with alleged complaint.She promptly dealt with the leave applications, salary of leave period etc. without any delay.There is no impediment of statutory bar as prescribed under sections 18 and 18A of the Act of 1989 to entertain the present application.The appellant is the resident of Aurangabad and Government Servant.She is ready to abide condition, if any, imposed for her bail.Mr. Tope, learned counsel relied on the expositions of law delineated by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Kiran Madhukar Ingle Vs.He also relied upon the legal guidelines delineated by the Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh.(Gwaliar Bench) Criminal Appeal No. 7295 of 2018 decided on 11-10-2018, and in the case of Baliram Iranna Yerpulwar Vs.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::9 Cri Al-228-19-J+2Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for appellant - Dr. Govind Chaudhary stepped into the shoe of learned Counsel Mr. Tope and contends that the entire allegations against present appellant in the FIR are false, baseless and fabricated one.No such incident, as alleged in FIR on behalf of first informant/complainant, has been ever occurred.Learned counsel explained that present complaint is filed with ulterior motive following office politics.There was a complaint against husband of the first informant, who had an involvement in the scam of drugs and medicine.The present appellant was the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee and they held guilty the husband of complainant under such scam.The Committee also recommended suspension of husband of the complainant.Taking umbrage of the same, first informant / complainant attempted to embroil the appellant by making false allegations in this case.He is ready to abide conditions, if any, imposed for his bail.In case, he has been arrested in this::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 10 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 crime, it would tarnish his reputation.Therefore, he urged to entertain the application of anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant.He relied upon the judicial guideline delineated by their Lordships in the case of Pradip Biswas Vs.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel for appellant Dr. Lale also advanced the argument in similar fashion and submitted that the appellant has no concerned at all with the alleged crime.The first informant -complainant implicated the appellant falsely with malafide intention to spoil service career of the appellant.There are no allegations in the FIR to make out the case under the Atrocities Act. In view of nature of subject-matter, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of appellant for the sake of investigation.The allegations nurtured against appellant, all are due to office politics.There are no complaints uptill this date about discrimination on the caste against him.In contrast, he has an association with well- known members of Scheduled Caste community.Mr. Ghanekar learned counsel also relied upon the judicial precedents in the cases of Sanjay Vishnu Mojar and others Vs.State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2005(3) LJSOFT(URC) 9, Nikhil Vasantrao Chandgude Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2017(9) LJSOFT 265, Madan Balu More and::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 11 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 others Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(2) LJSOFT(URC)70, Paparaju R. Murthy Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(5) LJSOFT (URC) 3, Suresh S/o Laxamanrao Giram Vs.State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2014(12)LJSOFT 352, Baban S/o Tabaji Zaware and another Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2015(11)LJSOFT 32, Balu Tabaji Kagane Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2017(9) LJSOFT 268, Baliram S/o Iranna Yerpulwar Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2016(1) LJSOFT, 24, Sunil Dashrath Palave Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2017 (9) LJSOFT 267, Pravin Shrimant Bhutekar Vs.The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2013 All MR (Cri) 2412 and Dinesh S/o Gunderao Sasturkar Vs.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::12 Cri Al-228-19-J+2Per contra, learned APP Smt. Gondhalekar as well as learned counsel Mr. Magare and Mr. Telgaonkar for respondent No. 2 in respective matters vociferously opposed the contentions propounded on behalf of appellants and submits that the appellants maltreated and tortured the complainant on account of her caste.She was "intentionally insulted" and "humiliated" by the appellants on her caste within a public view.The first informant-complainant being a member of Scheduled Caste Community expressed her ordeals during the course of her employment in the FIR.Her Superior i.e. appellant Dr. Govind Chaudhary mentally and economically harassed her, being a member of Scheduled Caste.The appellant Smt. Mohite also one of the member of conspiracy with appellant Dr. Govind Chaudhary and Dr. Lale, who were bent upon to sack the complainant from Government service.The FIR disclosed the series of events occurred with the first informant/complainant about her insult and humiliation, intentionally on her caste within public view.The learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 drawn attention of this Court towards the supplementary statement of the complainant, which was recorded by the IO during the course of investigation::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 13 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 into the crime.According to Mr. Telgaonkar and Mr. Magare, learned counsel, supplementary statement of the first informant described in detail the entire episode occurred with the first informant in the Office.The complainant makes a reference in the FIR about sexual harassment as well as castiest abuses, humiliation and intentionally insult her by the appellant on her caste in the Office.Hence, interference in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court at the instance of appellants is totally unwarranted and unjustifiable in this case.The learned APP produced the relevant documents of investigation of the crime on record for perusal.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Learned counsel for respondents relied upon the judicial precedents in the cases of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another Vs.State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court, 3316 and Saliquddin Ziyauddin Chishty Vs.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::xx xx xx xx xx xx xxThe exposition of law as referred above unequivocally pointer to the inference that the::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 15 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him.Therefore, the Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant.Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Recently, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : T. V. Nalawade and Manesh S. Patil, JJ.), in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2019 decided on 03-04-2019, upheld the view expressed in the Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2018 (Kiran S/o.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::In the matter in hand, prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 against the present::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 17 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 appellants, which reads as under:::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Punishments for offences of atrocities :-State of Maharashtra reported in 1982 Cr.L.J. 872, it has been held that merely calling a person by his caste name though may amount to insult or abuse to him, it cannot be said to be::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 18 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 with intent to humiliate such person.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::In the instant case, the first informant-complainant in her FIR makes reference of several instances about 'insult' or 'humiliation' in the Office while discharging Official functions.It has been alleged that the appellants mentally and economically tortured and harassed her only for reason that she is from "Mahar" community, a member of Scheduled Caste category.She has not unfurled in her FIR the mode and manner, in which, the appellants "intentional insults" or "intimidate" with "intent" to humiliate her being a member of Scheduled Castes.The allegations about torture, maltreatment in the office may be owing to office politics.But, after perusal of FIR, it cannot be perceived that there was intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate her being member of scheduled caste.It would unsafe to draw adverse inference that maltreatment to the first informant/complainant was only for the reason that she is belonging from "Mahar" community.It seems from the recitals of FIR that whatever allegations nurtured against the appellants, all appear to be rests on her own perception.The language and tenor of the FIR reflects that there was hostile atmosphere for the first informant-complainant in the office.Pursuant to unfriendly environment in the office, there may be an possibility that the first informant might have conceived the feelings of discrimination on her caste against the appellants.Therefore, on the basis of such omnibus sweeping and stray allegations, it cannot be determined that the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(r)(s) are constituted in this case against the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Learned APP Smt. Gondhalekar for the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-original complainant - first informant drawn the attention of this Court towards supplementary statement recorded by IO during the course of investigation into the matter.They attempted to explain that the first informant has verbalized in detail the events of heinous and disgusting overtact of appellants in her supplementary statement, from which, it can be held that there are incriminating circumstances on record sufficient to constitute offences under the provisions of Act of 1989 against the appellants.Now, the question would arise as to whether supplementary statement recorded by the IO, during the course of investigation can be considered as a part and parcel of the FIR to ascertain the maintainability of the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellants.It is to be borne in mind that the law does not permit to reject the application for anticipatory bail merely because the case has been::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 20 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 registered against the appellants under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act 1989 or allegations cast for offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act of 1989 as per supplementary statement of first informant-complainant.It would be reiterated that provision of Sections 18 or 18A of the Act of 1989 does not bar judicial scrutiny of the accusation made in the complaint against appellants.But, certainly to what extent Court would be justified to examine material on record to ascertain prima facie case against them, is the significant issue to be ascertained in this matter.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::(Emphasis supplied)In the light of aforesaid judicial authority, it is evident that application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for the relief of pre-arrst bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of provisions of the Act of 1989 and it would be verifiable only after perusal of recital of the FIR or complaint itself and not beyond that.(ii) of the Act 1989, the bar under Section 18A of the Act of 1989 would instantly come into operation against them.It is not permissible for the Court to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant.Moreover, further enquiry by summoning the case diary or other material of investigation to ascertain genuineness and truthfulness of the allegations made in the FIR is also prohibited under the law.Undisputedly, the supplementary statement recorded lateron after registration of crime would be the part of::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 23 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 investigation of the crime for collecting evidence against the appellants.It is an bare statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and does not have any evidential value at par with FIR being a former statement of witness as envisaged under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. It cannot be considered as a part and parcel of the FIR to determine the maintainability of application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for relief of pre- arrest bail.The Court cannot embark upon the inquiry to ascertain the reliability or genuineness of allegations by appreciating the aspersion cast in the supplementary statement.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::It is to be noted that the said supplementary statement is recorded when the present proceedings of appeals are pending before this Court for hearing.The supplementary statement recorded at belated stage was not available before the concerned trial Court for appreciation into the matter.Whatever that may be, but it is not permissible under law to appreciate the allegations made during the course of investigation by recording supplementary statement of the first informant.Therefore, at this stage, it would not advance the case of the prosecution for any adverse inference against the appellants about the maintainability of application for their pre-::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::24 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Taking into consideration over-all factual score of the matter, I am of the opinion that in spite of bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act of 1989 for invocation of powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the FIR of the case itself as to whether prima facie case is made out against the present appellants.There are no any circumstances incriminating in nature on record to point out 'intentional insult' or 'intimidation' with intent to humiliate the complainant within public view by the appellants.In contrast, all allegations nurtured on behalf of first informant are vague, cryptic and slender in nature.The sweeping and omnibus allegations made in the FIR, all appear to be based on own perception of first informant-complainant and it would not match with the very ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act of 1989, to rebuff the relief of pre-arrest bail as prayed on behalf of appellants.In regard to the offences registered under the IPC against the appellants such as Sections 506 and 509, both are bailable in nature.Therefore, there would not be any custodial interrogation of the appellants in this crime for the sake of investigation.There is no possibility of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witnesses.The appellants are the high Officials::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 25 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 discharging their function in the Government Office.The learned Sessions Judge / Special Judge unwittingly overlooked or glossed over the serious pitfalls into the matter.The learned trial Court adopted the superficial approach and rejected the application for anticipatory bail of the appellants.In such peculiar circumstances, as referred above, there is no impediment to allow the present appeals for the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the appellants.Hence, all the appeals deserve to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.The impugned orders rejecting the bail applications, dated 05-03-2019 and 13-03-2019 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Judge SC & ST) Aurangabad, in Criminal Bail Applications No. 461, 485 and 480 of 2019 filed by appellants are hereby quashed and set aside.The applications of the applicants - appellants filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Court are hereby granted.The appellant, namely, Smt. Ratnakala Martandrao Mohite in Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2019, the appellant- Dr. Govind Pandit Chaudhary in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2019 and the appellant - Swapnil S/o Vishnu Lale in Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2019 be released on bail, in the event::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 ::: 26 Cri Al-228-19-J+2 of their arrest, in connection with Crime No. 40 of 2019 registered with Vedant Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 509 read with section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellants-applicants shall not indulged, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness.The applicants/appellants shall co-operate the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::The present Criminal Appeals stand disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK ***::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 08:18:12 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,572,951 |
C.No.25322/2020 (Deepu alias Deepak Vs.State of M.P.) arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerned hospital for his treatment as per medical norms.If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released.4 M.Cr.5 M.Cr.The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The applicant will not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party in any manner and applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant shall deposit Rs.5,000/- in favour of Army Central Welfare Fund having A/C No.520101236373338 of Corporation Bank, Chandani Chowk Delhi within thirty days from the date of his release.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b 51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7d A f50f, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2020.08.27 07:51:00 -07'00'Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 09-06- 2020 by Police Station City Kotwali, District Morena in connection with Crime No.89/2019 registered for offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. His earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 09-06-2020 and earlier charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. One co- accused Sundari also faced the implication and therefore, earlier charge-sheet was filed against the applicant as well as the said accused Sundari and trial Court recorded acquittal of Sundari in which complainant did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile.Applicant is implicated on the basis of disclosure memo prepared under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In such HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C.No.25322/2020 (Deepu alias Deepak Vs.Looking to the prevailing condition of COVID-19, he seeks bail on sympathetic grounds also.3 M.Cr.In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his preliminary Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C.No.25322/2020 (Deepu alias Deepak Vs.The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 M.Cr.C.No.25322/2020 (Deepu alias Deepak Vs.State of M.P.) station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.6 M.Cr.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,575,573 |
The applicant has filed this second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, after rejection of earlier one which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.11.2019 in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested and is in custody since 03.10.2019, in connection with Crime No.215/2019 registered at Police Station Bagchini, District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506-B of IPC and Section 9, 10 of POCSO Act.It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against the applicant and he is suffering confinement since 03.10.2019, whereas charge sheet has already been filed.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and make themselves available as and when required by the trial court.He would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the 2 prosecution witnesses in any manner.He further undertakes to do some community service.Under these grounds, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this application.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.C.c as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge neetu SMT NEETU SHASHANK 2020.01.07 15:00:06 +05'30'
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,577,662 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and quash the prosecution in Cr. No.146 of 2015, pending on the file of the first respondent police.2 Sarad Kumar Jain (de facto complainant/petitioner herein) filed Crl.M.P.No.5575 of 2014 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and on the directions of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the first respondent registered a case in Cr. No.146 of 2015 on 20.04.2015 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Hitesh Kothari (A1) and Rajesh Kothari (A2), for quashing which, the accused are before this Court.To appreciate the rival contentions, it may be necessary to succinctly state the averments in the FIR.3.1 It is the case of the de facto complainant that the accused, representing that they are partners in J.K. Petro Chemicals, invited the de facto complainant and his brother to join the firm, pursuant to which, a deed of partnership was entered into on 18.05.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010; the de facto complainant and his brother invested huge amounts of money and vide balance sheet dated 27.01.2012 as on 31.03.2011, the de facto complainant was entitled to Rs.5,02,16,598/- and his brother was entitled to Rs.4,46,66,598/-, which were illegally and unjustly denied to them by the accused enriching themselves by siphoning off the funds.4 On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the police had sent the signatures found in the affidavits submitted to the bank, with the admitted signatures of the de facto complainant and his brother, to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of comparison and received a report which showed that the signatures found in the affidavits were not those of the de facto complainant and his brother.Hence, the alteration report was filed on 12.04.2017, as stated above.5 Hitesh Kothari (A1) was arrested in New Delhi on 18.04.2017 and was sent to judicial custody.However, Rajesh Kothari (A2) was granted anticipatory bail.ii The de facto complainant and his brother have filed a civil suit in C.S. No.448 of 2015 before this Court against the accused and therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.iii In the balance sheet dated 27.01.2012 as on 31.03.2011, which bears the signature of the de facto complainant, the liabilities have been crystallised and the same has also been accepted by the de facto complainant, after which, he cannot be heard to say that he was cheated; and iv Since State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur have initiated recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the complaint, based on which, the impugned FIR has been lodged, has been given by the de facto complainant only in order to wriggle out of the said proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.7 The learned Senior Counsel has also filed written submissions reiterating his oral arguments.8 Per contra, Mr. C. Raghavan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and Mr. A.M. Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the de facto complainant refuted the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused.9 The police have filed a counter affidavit narrating the sequence of events and the incriminating materials gathered by the police against the accused during investigation.It may be apposite to extract paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the police:5 I respectfully submit during investigation, it came to that came to know that 1st accused was arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 31.03.2011 for operating number of dummy fraud with the Government Revenue Departments by way of converting black money to while as hawala transaction.At that juncture, they realised the foul play committed by the accused.Thereafter, the de facto complaint and his brother resigned from the partnership firm on 06.12.2011 and requested the accused to render books of account to him.Thereafter, they have received a notice from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi through which they realised the fact that a loan was obtained in the name of M/s. JK Petro Chemicals by forging the complainant and his brother signatures in the Guarantee Affidavit.Moreover during the period April 2010 to March 2011, M/s. JK Petro Chemicals has incurred the profit of 31 crores out of which Rs.15 crores were due to them and to his brother Mr. Madanlal.The same is reflected in the audited balance sheet of the firm.The balance sheet also reveals that only Rs.5.5 crores was paid to the de facto complainant and his brother Mr. Madanlal and balance amount of Rs.9.5 crores has been misappropriated by the accused.Further a sum of Rs.2.11 crores was obtained by the accused as a loan from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by forging the de facto complainant and his brother's signatures.Though a letter was sent by the complainant brother Mr.Madanlal on 25.07.2014, no explanation was given by the accused and no accounts were rendered to them till date.6 I respectfully submit that the properties of the complainant and his brother are under the charge of the DRT, Delhi.By suppressing these facts, the accused have obtained an interim order in the above quash petition.The Hon'ble Apex Court has held time and again that FIR should be quashed only on a rare occasion and investigation should not be stayed at all.The report of the Forensic Laboratory is also received which reveals that the de facto complainant and his brother signatures have been forged.Based on the Forensic Science Laboratory report, the section was altered into 406, 420,467,468,471 r/w 120-B IPC from u/s. 406 and 420 IPC and the same was submitted before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, CCB and CBCID on 12.04.2017. 10 From a reading of the above, it is limpid that, initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and during the course of investigation, it came to light that the accused had forged the signatures of the de facto complainant and his brother, in the affidavits filed by them with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for obtaining loan in the name of J.K. Petrochemicals, which fact has been confirmed.The Forensic Science Laboratory report that has been obtained by the police is an incriminating piece of evidence against the accused.The said report says that the signatures found in the affidavits do not tally with the admitted signatures of the de facto complainant and his brother.That is the reason why the police have filed the alteration report on 12.04.2017 altering the offences to Sections 406,420,467,468 and 471 IPC read with 120-B IPC.The accused have suppressed this development and have filed this quash application by contending that the transactions relate to a simple partnership dispute.12 As regards the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused that a civil suit has been filed, this Court is of the view that for recovering monies due to them, the de facto complainant and his brother have to perforce take recourse to filing of a civil suit and the police machinery cannot be used for this purpose.Even in the plaint, there is a clear averment to the effect that the defendants (accused) had forged the signatures of the plaintiffs (de facto complainant and his brother).The relevant portion in the plaint in this regard reads thus:The plaintiffs to their surprise and shock came to know that the second defendant had filed an affidavit forging the signature of the plaintiffs. Thus, filing of the civil suit for recovery of money can, by no stretch of imagination, be a valid reason for quashing the FIR.He also submitted that the de facto complainant was aware that there was a loan of Rs.1.61 crores at the time of joining the firm and that they had signed the affidavits in the presence of the officials of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi, as per the RBI guidelines, in the capacity of partners of the firm for the continuation of the credit limit.However, on a perusal of the impugned affidavits, there is nothing to show that they were signed in the presence of the bank officials, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel.Those affidavits have been signed before a Notary Public in New Delhi.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,585,583 |
Only on the basis of some personal dispute, matter has been registered against the applicant.Charge-sheet has already been filed and confinement since 26/12/2018 amounts to pre trial detention.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial and would make himself available as and when required.Hence, the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the prayer made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this application.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2019.02.21 11:53:27
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,809,421 |
hy Heard on admission.ad Admit.M Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State, as such, no further notice is required.of Call for the record of the Court below.rt Heard on I.A.No.23854/2017 under section 389(1) of the ou Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.C The appellants stand convicted under sections 341 and 323 h read with section 34 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code ig and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment H for a period of 3 months and fine in the sum of Rs.1500/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been released on bail by the trial Court under section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 05.01.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellants be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellants, in the opinion of this Court, appellants Ram Dhari Yadav and Ramjatan deserve to be released on bail.sh Consequently, I.A.No.23854/2017 is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not e ad already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount Pr each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their a appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26.07.2018 hy and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this ad regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellants shall stand suspended and they M shall be released on bail.of Certified copy as per rules.rt (C V SIRPURKAR) ou JUDGE C h ig H b Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2017.12.20 04:42:08
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,812,242 |
The victim is Mohd.The undisputed place of the occurrence is the family house.But what happened on the unfortunate intervening night of February 18, 2012 and February 19, 2012 when Mohd.The death was not accidental.It was not natural.Whether the death was the result of something done by somebody without criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding harm to some other person?A.No.243/2013 Page 2 of 20Rafi, aged 60 years, was brought by his son Bilal (appellant No.1) to the casualty of LNJP Hospital at 2:05 Hrs. on February 19, 2012 i.e. at 2 hours past midnight.He was declared brought dead.Ajay Chaudhary PW-6 the duty constable at LNJP Hospital passed on said information to the duty officer at P.S. Darya Ganj who recorded said information vide DD No.4-A. SI Sumit Deshwal PW-11 was handed over DD No.4-A for investigation and he left the police station along with Ct.Gaurav (not examined).On learning that the body had already been sent to the mortuary he filled up the inquest papers Ex.PW-11/A for post mortem of the dead body to be conducted.Ravinder Kumar PW-13 was also passed on the information that Mohd.Rafi had been brought dead at the hospital.Since in the MLC Ex.PW-10/A of Mohd.Rafi, Dr.PW-10/A had not recorded having noted any injury on the person of the deceased, neither Insp.Ravinder Kumar nor SI Sumit Deshwal got registered any case because nothing suggestive of a crime having been committed was brought to their notice.He recorded a D.D. entry of their visit.As deposed to by the two, nobody came forward to tell them as to how the deceased died.The family members kept mum.It was only after Dr.To the credit of Dr.Jatin Bodwal we must note that in a well authored post mortem report he took the care to fill up the 'POST MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT - DIAGRAM SHEET."To The HOD Forensic Science, Maulana Azad Medical, Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 5 of 20 College, New Delhi Sub: Reg.Opinion about the recovered cable wire and Lid of pressure Cooker.A.No.243/2013 Page 5 of 20On receipt of DD No.4-A dated 19/02/12 SI Sumit Kumar reached JPN Hospital, Delhi where he came to know that one person namely Mohd.Rafi s/o Mohd.Safi R/o 2815 Gali Garhaiya, Kucha Challan, Darya Ganj, age 60 years was admitted in hospital by his son Bilal where the person was declared brought dead by the Doctor on duty and the dead body along with papers were sent to mortuary of MAMC, Delhi.On enquiry Mr.Bilal, son of the deceased, stated that there was a quarrel between his father and mother took place as he was informed by his wife, while he was present in the H.No.2814 adjoining his house.He came to his house and found that his father was quarrelling with his mother under the influence of alcohol.He thrown away the liquor of the bottle in the toilet which was in the hand of his father.At about 1 am to 1.15 am he found that his father was lying on the ground unconscious outside the house.He taken away his father to Khatija Hospital first then to JPN Hospital, Delhi.Further enquiry was conducted from other members of his family and spot was visited but nothing suspicious came into notice."To The HOD Forensic Science, MAMC Delhi Subject: Reg.Subsequent opinion about the recovered cable wire.On receipt of DD No.4A dated 19-02-2012 SI Sumit Kumar reached JPN Hospital Delhi where he came to know that one person namely Mohd.Rafi s/o Mohd.Safi r/o 2815 Gali Garhaiya, Kucha Challan, Darya Ganj, Delhi age 60 years was admitted in hospital by his son Bilal where the person was declared brought dead by the doctor on duty."Response to query No.1 and No.2 is, abrasion on the back and ligature mark on neck are two different injuries which occur due to separate events.So, it is possible that ligature mark on neck can be caused by wire."Regretfully, Dr.Jatin Bodwal gave an evasive reply and did not deal with the queries put to him in Ex.PW-9/E.The matter went for trial.Bilal and his mother Beena Stella Rafi were charged for having murdered Mohd.Rafi, the father of Mohd.Bilal and the husband of Beena Stella Rafi.Amna PW-1, the wife of Mohd.Bilal initially deposed in harmony with her statement made to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She said that on the date of the occurrence she was in her house with her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law Saima.They were watching television.Her father-in-law came home at about 11.00 P.M. and requested her mother-in-law to serve him dinner.Her mother-in-law refused to serve dinner telling Mohd.Rafi that he had consumed liquor at which her father-in-A.No.243/2013 Page 9 of 20law got annoyed and picked up the lid of pressure cooker and started hitting himself.She then turned hostile and said that she did not tell the investigating officer that when the quarrel between her father-in-law and mother-in-law was on she rang up her husband who came and intervened.She denied that she told the investigating officer that her husband picked up the bottle of liquor and threw the liquor in the toilet at which her father in law started filthy abuses.She was confronted with said statements allegedly made by her to the investigating officer and recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She claimed in her testimony that after the altercation her father-in-law left.After some time she heard her husband calling for her mother- in-law and as she, her sister-in-law and mother-in-law rushed out they saw her father-in-law hanging from a cable wire entangled in iron rods affixed in the window of the house opposite to their.Her husband had caught hold her father-in-law from his legs.Her father in law was made to lie on the bed.Her mother-in-law gave cardiac massage to revive her father- in-law because she was a nursing sister in LNJP hospital.Her father-in-law was removed to Khandija hospital from where he was taken to LNJP hospital.Faisal PW-2 deposed that Mohd.Bilal was his friend and resided in his neighbourhood.On the day of the incident along with their friends Amzad, Shazid, Samad, Sham, Bilal and he were sitting at his house when past mid- night Bilal received a call from his wife informing that his parents were quarrelling.Bilal left their house and he heard Bilal calling for his mother.They all came out from their house and saw Bilal's father hanging with a cable wire which was tied on the window frame.Bilal was holding his father by the legs.They lifted Bilal's father and made him lie on the bed.Bilal's Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 10 of 20 mother tried to revive her husband by cardiac massage.Father of Bilal was taken to the hospital.A.No.243/2013 Page 10 of 20Jatin Bodwal PW-9 proved the post mortem report Ex.PW-9/A and his opinion Ex.PW-9/C as also the further subsequent opinion Ex. PW- 9/F. In his examination in chief that injuries No.1, 2, 4 and 5 could not be self inflicted but during cross examination admitted that injuries No.1 and 2 could have been self inflicted and were possibly caused from the circumferential edge of the lid Ex.P-1 of the cooker.He also admitted that injuries No.4 and 5 were blunt injuries which could have been caused by blunt force trauma.SI Sumit Deshwal PW-11 and Insp.Sube Singh PW-15 deposed facts which we have already narrated hereinabove concerning the investigation conducted by the two.When the incriminating circumstances were put to Beena Stella Rafi, she admitted that she was in the house and that she had an altercation with her husband who was alcoholic and was suffering from chronic tuberculoses.On the day of the incident he insisted on consuming alcohol.When stopped he became irritated and hit himself with the lid of the pressure cooker and left the house.Her daughter-in-law telephoned her son who was present in the neighbourhood in the house of his friend.After 5 of 10 minutes she heard her son shouting in the street and she came out.She saw her son holding legs of her husband who was hanging from a cable wire.Friends of her son came there and got him down.Being a nursing sister she tried to revive her husband.Her husband was taken to Khatija hospital and then to LNJP hospital where he died.As regards Mohd.Bilal, the evidence which has surfaced in the testimony of the witnesses is that when Amna rang him to inform that his parents were quarrelling he was in the company of his friends Faizal, Mohd.Amzad, Abdul Samad, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 respectively.He left their company and went to his house.His shouts to his mother were a summons for his mother, his wife Amna and his three friends to come out.Bilal shall be set free if not required in any other case.Since he is in jail, two copies of the present decision shall be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar, one for his record and other to be supplied to Mohd.TCR be returned.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2014 skb Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 20 of 20A.No.243/2013 Page 20 of 20M.B.No.785/2014 Since the appeal is being heard today on merits, instant application which seeks suspension of sentence pending hearing of the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.If the warm hands of a Judge presiding over a sessions trial turn cold, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law becomes the first casualty.A case of no evidence against appellant No.2, Ms.Beena Stella Rafi, Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 1 of 20 has ended in her being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The unfortunate lady who was in Government service has lost her job on being convicted.The innocent lady had not only to spend time in jail but also finds herself without a job.There is not even a jot of evidence against her.A.No.243/2013 Page 1 of 20We have to re-emphasize that where there are more than one accused, it becomes the duty of the Court to list the incriminating circumstances against each accused and when learned Judges presiding over a Court of Session start speaking 'they' for 'him/her' while referring to the accused it commits the blunder, which has occurred in the instant case.If only the learned Judge who presided over the trial had kept in sight the guiding star that at a criminal trial circumstances emanating from the evidence against each accused had to be separately listed the error would not have taken place.The impugned judgment is replete with reference to appellant No.1, Mohd.Balil and in spite of no reference being made to appellant No.2 Ms.Beena Stella Rafi, save and except where the learned Judge has referred to the fact that there was a quarrel between appellant No.2 and her husband, even the appellant No.2 has been convicted without any finding as to what role was played by appellant No.2 in the commission of the crime.But was it homicidal or suicidal was debated Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 2 of 20 before the learned Trial Judge.Jatin Bodwal PW-9 conducted the post mortem at 11.00 A.M. on February 19, 2012 and authored the post mortem report Ex.PW-9/A, it surfaced that the matter required investigation.The reason was five external Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 3 of 20 injuries noted as under:-A.No.243/2013 Page 3 of 20Contused lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm, subcutaneous tissue deep, was present on the vertex in the midline.Pressure abrasion in the form of ligature mark was present horizontally on the front and side of neck, red in colour measuring 31 cm and width varying about 1.3 cm to 1.5 cm.In the midline, it was situated 6 cm below the chin at the level of thyroid notch and measures 1.5 cm in width.On the right side it was situated 1 cm below the right angle of mandible and measures 1.3 cm in width.On the left side it was situated 5 cm below left angle of mandible and measures 1.3 cm in width.Bruise 2 cm x 1 cm red, present on the right side of back of abdomen, 4 cm from midline.Bruise 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm red, present on the left side of back of abdomen, 2 cm from midline."Internal examination evinced effusion of blood in posterior laryngeal wall with mid-line fracture of the thyroid cartilage with effusion at fracture lined associated.The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation.He brought out that the ligature mark was not present at the back of the neck.It was only on the front and both sides of the neck.A.No.243/2013 Page 4 of 20FIR for the offence of murder was registered and statements of the family members and people in the neighbourhood were recorded.As we would be noting hereinafter, as we proceed to note the testimony of the witnesses, it was not clearly emerging as to how did the deceased die.And by this we mean whether appellant No.1 had intentionally strangulated his father or was it that appellant No.1 was trying to pin down his father or confine him to prevent his father from injuring his mother i.e. appellant No.2 or injuring himself or whether the deceased tripped over a cable wire.The reason was that if the deceased was strangulated with a ligature material, a ligature mark all around the neck would have resulted and in all probability a deeper ligature mark at the place of the neck where a knot was formed by the ligature material.It did not traverse the back of the neck.Was it that somebody who while trying to arrest a violent person from being physical with somebody else or himself, used a wire or a rope : as a half loop thrown around the body of the victim, causing the death? Or was it that the deceased tripped.The body fell full weight on a cable wire?Since the family members told Insp.Sube Singh that the deceased firstly hit himself with the lid of pressure cooker while in a fit of rage and then attempted to commit suicide using a cable wire, seizing the lid Ex.P-1 of the pressure cooker and a cable wire Ex.P-2, Insp.Sube Singh sought a clarificatory opinion from Dr.Jatin Bodwal vide Ex.PW-9/B, which reads as under:-On this his father Mohd.Rafi, went outside the house.Injuries No.1, No.2, No.4 and No.5 were caused by ligature materials".From the opinion of post-mortem report No.147/2012 prima facie an offence U/S 302 IPC was made out and above cited case registered.During the course of investigation two accused have been arrested.The lid of Pressure Cooker and cable wire used during the commission of offence have been recovered and seized.A.No.243/2013 Page 6 of 20The following quarries may please be opined:-(1) Whether injuries No.1,2, 4 and 5 caused on the body of deceased are possible from the recovered Lid of pressure Cooker.(2) Whether the injury No.3 caused on the body of deceased are possible from the recovered cable wire.(3) Whether injuries No.1,2, 4 and 5 caused on the body of deceased are self inflicted or otherwise.The sealed lid of pressure cooker and cable wire along with relevant documents are being sent for opinion."The reason for seeking the opinion was obviously to elicit a response from an expert on whether injuries No.1, 2, 4 and 5 could be self inflicted and whether injury No.3 could be caused from the cable wire recovered.Jatin Bodwal gave an opinion Ex.PW-9/C that injuries No.1, 2, 4 and 5 could be possibly caused when a lid of a pressure cooker is used as an object to cause the injury and as regards injury No.3 he opined that said injury was possible to have been caused from the cable wire Ex.Sube Singh sought a further clarificatory opinion vide Ex.PW- 9/E because the learned APP, a fact recorded in Ex.PW-9/E, was confused on the opinion that the cable wire Ex.P-1 could have caused injury No.3; and the reason for the confusion was that the ligature mark on the neck was not straight and was not around the entire neck.From the fact that the thyroid cartilage had a fracture, an issue was arising : whether the Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 7 of 20 strangulation was by applying pressure on the neck when the body was lying face up.If the wire was the ligature material, the learned APP had opined that the manner of strangulation possible was only when the body was lying face down and somebody looped the wire from the front of the neck and pulled it from the back.The clarificatory opinion sought from Dr.Jatin Bodwal as per Ex.PW-9/E, is as under:-A.No.243/2013 Page 7 of 20On the receipt of PM Report FIR was registered and the weapon of offence cable wire and lid of cooker was recovered.Later on, the subsequent opinion was taken from your department vide your Dy.FM/XII/(MLW)/10/OPN/W-CL/37/FM dated 26.03- 2012 by the Dr.Jatin Bodwal.After the completion of the investigation the case file was sent for checking in the prosecution branch central.The APP has raised the following objections to be clarified and taking further opinion:-The cable wire of about 2.5 M is seized as weapon of offence by which deceased was alleged to be strangulated.The post mortem finding do not support that this wire can be used for strangulation because in Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 8 of 20 post mortem report the ligature mark is not straight rather it also goes to both sides of neck and the pressure applied was sufficient to break neck thyroid cartilage.It is possible if the neck of a person lying on the ground facing the death and neck is pulled from behind.In PM report the abrasion are present on neck.So it is apparent that body was lying facing up and pressure was applied on neck for strangulation.This situation is possible only by straight hard rod like object not by flexible wire.A.No.243/2013 Page 8 of 20Therefore, you are requested that whether in such situation the strangulation is possible and in what manner by the recovered wire."Jatin Bodwal gave an opinion Ex.PW-9/F as under:-Bilal also took said Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 11 of 20 stand.Bilal said the same thing in his statement.A.No.243/2013 Page 11 of 20She deposed that her father was a chronic patient of tuberculosis and was a chronic drinker.She said that she was present in the house when the incident took place.She corroborated what her mother and brother said concerning the incident when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mohd.Bilal also examined himself as a witness and deposed as per what he and his mother stated when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.From the evidence led at the trial and even assuming that the witnesses, having a motive to save Mohd.Bilal, deviated from what the investigating officer claimed was told to him during investigation and as recorded by him in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., we do not find even a jot of evidence to implicate Ms.Beena Stella Rafi the wife of the deceased.Her name is spoken of by the witnesses with reference to a verbal spat she had with her husband because the husband was a drunkard and was insisting on consuming liquor in the mid-night and as any wife would do she protested.All witnesses have spoken in unison that when the husband and wife were quarrelling Amna rang up Mohd.Bilal to come to the house; a natural thing for a young daughter-in-law to do.The only further reference to Ms.Beena Stella Rafi is of giving cardiac massage to her husband when he was made to lie on the bed after the cable wire was removed from his neck.Beena Stella Rafi is a para-medic; working as a sister nurse with LNJP hospital.Having perused the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Trial Judge has simply noted the evidence and disbelieved the defence that the deceased, in a fit of rage, firstly injured himself using the lid Ex.P-1 of a Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 12 of 20 pressure cooker and then went out of the house, picked up a cable wire and hung himself.The learned Trial Judge has highlighted that Mohd.Bilal was seen holding his father from the legs when his father was seen hanging near a window opposite the house.But nowhere do we find that the learned Trial Judge has discussed as to what was the participative role of Ms.Beena Stella Rafi.A reading of the judgment makes it clear that the learned Trial Judge has understood the singular to mean the plural.The learned Trial Judge has understood 'him' to mean 'they'; the learned Trial Judge has read the evidence as if reference to Mohd.Bilal i.e. 'him' was a reference to Mohd.Bilal and his mother Ms.Beena Stella Rafi i.e. 'they'.A.No.243/2013 Page 12 of 20Beena Stella Rafi is thus entitled to an honourable acquittal and we emphasize not on account of her entitlement to a benefit of doubt.Not a peg has been laid by the prosecution on which the guilt of Beena Stella Rafi can be nailed.They saw the deceased hanging from rods protruding from a window with a cable wire around his neck with Mohd.Bilal holding his father's legs.The deceased was brought down and made to lie on a bed.Beena Stella Rafi, a trained nurse, could not revive her husband in spite of cardiac massage.We take the ocular testimony of the witnesses with a pinch of salt because all of them had a motive to save Mohd.We take it that what Amna told the Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 13 of 20 investigating officer in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was a correct narrative of the incident.As per the statement when her husband returned to the house on being summoned by her because her father-in-law and mother-in-law were quarrelling, the first thing her husband did was to throw the liquor in the bathroom which infuriated her father-in-law who picked up the lid of a pressure cooker and started hitting himself and while doing so her father-in-law hurled filthy abuses.Her father-in-law went out of the house followed by her husband.They heard the shrikes of her husband and went outside and she saw her father-in-law hanging from a cable wire entangled in iron rods affixed in the window of the house opposite theirs.A.No.243/2013 Page 13 of 20No witness has deposed that the wire cable was forming a noose around the neck of the deceased and thus it cannot be inferred that the wire cable formed a complete loop, as akin to a hang-mans noose, around the neck of the deceased.Indeed it did not for the reason the post mortem report Ex.PW-9/A clearly records that the contused lacerated wounds and the ligature marks were present only in the front and the side of the neck and not the back.This means that Mohd.Rafi was not hung with the ligature material forming a loop around his neck.We further have the fact that the ligature marks were horizontally placed around the sides and the front of the neck.The ligature marks were non-continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx.Rafi did not hang himself i.e. he did not try to commit suicide.The cable wire Ex.P-2 has a length of 2.5 meter, a fact recorded in Ex.PW-9/E. Could it have happened that as the deceased, in a fit of rage, walked angrily out of the house, it being past mid-night, he stumbled and the wire cable came in Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 14 of 20 the line of his neck and as he plunked down, the wire cable looped around the side of the neck and due to the body weight, the resultant thrust damaged the thyroid region resulting in asphyxia? There could also be another possibility : of the deceased trying to injure himself and Mohd.Bilal acting in good faith tried to restrain his father and thought it prudent to confine his father's movement by lassoing him using the wire cable and in the process Mohd.Rafi getting chocked?A.No.243/2013 Page 14 of 20The two possibilities loom large in the backdrop of some very tell tale evidence which has emerged.Mohd. Rafi was aged around 60 years.The post mortem report records that his weight was 54 kg.and his height was 162 cm.For a man of his height the weight was less than normal.The post mortem report records that the cut section of the right lung evinced fibrocaseous necrosis.It corroborates what was said by Mohd.Bilal, Beena Stella Rafi and Saima that Mohd.Rafi was suffering from tuberculosis.The post mortem report records that the pressure abrasion in the form of ligature mark was horizontally present on the front and side of neck, red in colour, measuring 31 cm with width bearing 1.3 cm to 1.5 cm.In the mid-line it was situated 6 cm below the chin at the level of the thyroid notch.On the right side it was 1 cm below the right angle of the mandible and on the left side was situated 5 cm below left angle of mandible.A person who lunges forward and the neck comes in the right of way of a wire cable would obviously receive an injury on the front of the neck.As the body falls, face down towards the ground, and as the wire cable due to force moves downward, it starts forming a loop and if the body tilts towards the left, the wire cable due to resistance causes pressure on the left side of the neck, towards the lower portion of the left side of the neck and resultantly on the Crl.A.No.243/2013 Page 15 of 20 upper side of the right side of the neck.Injury No.3 recorded in the post mortem report evidences said fact.A.No.243/2013 Page 15 of 20One thing is clear.If there was an intention to kill the deceased, the wire cable would have formed a complete loop around the neck and then forming a knot, with the ends being pulled; death resulting.This has certainly has not happened.Further, if it was a case of manual strangulation there would have been some resistance and the width of the ligature mark would not have been between 1.3 cm to 1.5 cm.None were noted in the post-mortem report.Modi in the treaties 'Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edn.at page 269) writes: Accidental strangulation is rare, but it may occur when an article of clothing, a neck band, a cord or a chain is tightly drawn round the neck all of a sudden, as occasionally seen in mill workers who are caught by moving belts.This may occur in an epileptic or an intoxicated person who may be helpless in extracting himself from such tight encirclement of the neck.It may also occur when a string used in suspending a weight on the back, slips from across the forehead and compresses the neck.He caught his father from his feet, as claimed to have been seen by the five witnesses.It is unfortunate that the good work done by the investigating officer who sought two clarificatory opinion from the doctor who conducted the post mortem did not result in the doctor applying himself as an expert.He gave evasive replies.He ducked the question put to him when the opinion was sought vide Ex.PW-9/E on the point as to what would be the inference to be drawn keeping in view that the ligature mark was not detected at the back of the neck.It was present only in the front and the sides of the neck.It was indicated to the doctor that asphyxia would normally be the result of the neck being pulled from behind.The doctor was indicated that to a reader it was apparent that the body had to be with the face downward when strangulation was taking place.Regretfully, Dr.Jatin Bodwal in his opinion Ex.PW-9/F gave an evasive reply.It needed an explanation from the side of the prosecution as to what was the effect of there being no ligature mark on the back of the neck and the cause of death being asphyxia.If Mohd.He has suffered incarceration for more than two years.If we give him the benefit of Section 81 of the Penal Code, he would be entitled to an acquittal.We grant him the latter.The appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment dated February 02, 2013 convicting the appellants is set aside.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,817,276 |
And In the matter of: Smt. Rita Debnath Petitioner- versus -The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Habra Police Station Case No. 112 of 2013 dated 16.2.2013 under sections 498A/304B/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.We have seen the Case Diary and the Post Mortem Report.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,821,824 |
Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.This petition has been filed by the petitioner Aakanksha @ Antima Thru.Ramjeet with a prayer to quash the FIR of case crime No. 205 of 2014 under sections 147, 427, 336, 353, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Public Property Damages Prevention Act, P.S. Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkarnagar.From the perusal of the FIR it appears that on the basis of allegation made therein the prima facie cognizable offence is made out.With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.Order Date :- 31.7.2014 RPD
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
868,242 |
Heard parties.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.03 passedby the High Court affirming the conviction recorded by the Trial Court.Accused No.1 Satbir Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, Accused No.2,Pritam Singh, younger brother of the deceased, Accused No.3, Dilbag Singh,husband of the deceased and Accused No. 4, Smt. Bohti, mother-in-law of thedeceased were put to trial under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC.TheTrial Court, after considering the evidence and the documents on record,convicted all of them and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor 7 years under Section 304-B IPC.They were also sentenced to 3 years RIand fine of Rs. 1000, in default to undergo 1 year RI under Section 498-AIPC.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also sentenced to undergo 3 years RI andfine of Rs. 1000, in default to undergo RI for one year under Section 201IPC.The sentence were, however, ordered to run concurrently.Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the FIR was lodged bycomplainant, PW-4, father of the deceased on 14.6.1989 to the effect thathe had five daughters and two sons.Smt. Shanti Devi was married to AccusedNo.3, Dilbag Singh, and at the time of marriage he had given dowry as perhis capacity.Subsequently when the deceased used to come from her maternalhouse, she was asked to make some demand of dowry on the instructions ofthe family members of her in-laws.It is also stated that after themarriage also, the complainant had given a radio and wrist watch, but notsatisfied, accused No.3 and his family members used to demand more dowry.It is also stated that about 10 days back from the date of occurrence thatis, intervening night of 13/14the June, 1989, the deceased Smt. Shanti hadcome to the house of the complainant and stated that Accused No.3 DilbagSingh, Accused No.2, Pritam Singh, Accused No.1, Satbir Singh and AccusedNo.4 Smt. Bohti, the mother-in-law of the deceased, asked her to go to thecomplainant's house and bring a sum of Rs. 7000, because they wanted topurchase a buffalo.It is also stated that the deceased would not beallowed to reside in in-laws house till she brought Rs. 7000 with her.Itis stated that the complainant, being a poor man, could not meet the saiddemand.On 11.6.1989, A.3, Dilbag Singh came to the house of thecomplainant and requested him to send the deceased Smt. Shanti with himstating that there was an engagement ceremony of his younger brother,Pritam Singh on 12.6.1989 and the presence of the deceased will berequired.It is further stated that in the intervening night of13/14.6.1989 at about 1.30 a.m. A.2 and four others came to the village ofthe complainant and told him that his daughter was seriously ill.Onarrival the complainant noticed that Shanti was already dead and there wasblood in her mouth.He requested the accused that he will take the body ofhis daughter to his village and perform last rites.However, the requestwas declined and the accused hurriedly called about 15/20 persons from thevillage and against his wishes the body of the deceased was cremated atabout 8.00 a.m.Section 304-B reads as under:-Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injuryor occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years ofhere marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjectedto cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for,or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called``dowry death'', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to havecaused her death.'' Section 304-B as quoted above, clearly shows that in order to bring the offence within the purview of Section 304-B, the following ingredients are to be fulfilled:-(e) Once the ingredients are fulfilled the death shall be presumed as dowry death.The husband and such other relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.However,subsequent to the marriage, the deceased Shanti was harassed for notbringing more dowry.Ten days prior to the incident, the deceased had cometo the complainant's place and stated that her in-laws were demanding Rs.7000 as they wanted to purchase a buffalo.DW-1 in his own statement, said that he was amatriculate.He was stated to be working as a Compounder with the villageDoctor.The village Doctor does not possess MBBS degree.DW-1 referred to aCertificate stated to have been granted by a village Doctor to the effectthat he had worked as Compounder, but he has no knowledge about thesymptoms of heart attack.Therefore, theplea that the deceased died of heart attack was merely a ruse to escapepunishment.PW-4 categorically stated, in his cross examination, that thedeceased, Smt. Shanti, did not die of heart attack but she was killedbecause he saw bluish signs on her neck.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,828,845 |
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,829,088 |
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the application I.A.No.6012/2018 so far as the appellants No.1, 2 and 4 are concerned.Therefore, the application is dismissed so far appellant No.1 Raghuraj, appellant No.2 Dheeraj Singh and appellant No.4 Smt.Ramwati are concerned.This application is therefore, considered so far as appellant No.3 Ku.The appellants have been convicted by Ist ASJ Khurai, District Sagar, in S.T.No.199/2016, wherein the appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 304-B, of IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 498-A of IPC, they have been sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine and one month rigorous imprisonment in default of fine.Considered I.A.No.6012/2018, an application for suspension of sentence and release the appellants on bail.The facts gave rise to this petition, in brief, are that, marriage of the deceased was solemnized with appellant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CR.A. No.-2610-2018 (Raghuraj Vs.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 No.1 Raghuraj Singh 2 years before the incident.The deceased was found dead on 24.10.2015 in the house of the appellants.The postmortem report does not disclose the cause of death, but viscera was preserved for medical examination.In querry report dated 18.03.2016 the medical officer, Khurai made it clear that the death of cardio respiratory failure.Internal examination of dead body it is suspected that death is resulted of electrocution.Two injuries abrasions on the chest and on the left side of the neck was found.As per the statements of the witnesses alleged that the deceased was harassed by the appellants for demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-.Appellant No.1 is the husband of the deceased, appellants Nos.2 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law and appellant No.3 is the unmarried sister- in-law of the deceased.Learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents/State opposed the same vehemently.Keeping in view the circumstance prevail in the case and the facts that death occurred within 7 years of the marriage.Presumption against the appellants exists.But appellant No.3 the unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased.The allegation of demand of dowry omnibus against her therefore, application is allowed so far as appellant No.3 Ku.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CR.A. No.-2610-2018 (Raghuraj Vs.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 The remaining jail sentence of Appellant No.3 (Ku.Anjali) is suspended and she be released on bail on her depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Appellant 3 is directed to appear before the registry of this Court on 30th August, 2018 and on all subsequent dates as may be directed in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Palo) Judge SM Digitally signed by SARSWATI MEHRA Date: 2018.05.16 13:51:38 -07'00'
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
868,358 |
On noticing the advertisement, which had appeared in the newspaper on 29.12.2001, seeking to offer confirmed admissions in medical courses, the Institute promptly acted and complained to the police.AIIMS maintain that they have looked into the entire matter and found no evidence of leakage and sale of question paper prior to the examination.Accordingly, a trap was set, a decoy doctor with dummy card and roll number of AIIMS was sent to the said Shiksha Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Pawan Thakur on perusing the admission ticket and after satisfying himself with the credentials of the decoy customer demanded Rs. 10.5 lacs from the said decoy customer Dr. V.S. Dalal who was also asked to sign an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper.On a signal given by the decoy customer, raiding party seized the documents including the cheques and agreement signed by the decoy customer, Pawan Thakur was arrested.The premises were searched.Photo copies of admission cards of 9 doctors for AIPGMEE-2002 examination and cheques worth Rs. One Crore and sixty lacs were recovered.8 agreements were also recovered and seized.Pawan Thakur during the interrogation disclosed the names of his three associates who were staying in a hotel at Paharganj and who had promised to make available the question paper on the eve of the scheduled date of examination.A raid was conducted when the three named associates were apprehended and rubber stamps of various educational institutions, photo copy of admit cards for MD/MS Entrance examination, two cheques worth Rs. 9 lacs and certain articles were also seized.The Investigating Officer had visited Patna and photographs of the suspected persons in Patna were also collected.However, they are yet to be arrested or identified.JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.Petitioners numbering 23, who are Doctors, holding MBBS Degrees and are the applicants for admission to MD/MS and MDS courses, had taken All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination-2002, for short (AIPGMEE-2002), conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'AIIMS'), respondent No. 2, herein.AIPGMEE-2002 examination is conducted by AIIMS, pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court, for admission to 25% seats in various Post Graduate Courses i.e. MD/MS/PG/Diploma and MDS, in medical colleges all over the country.A writ in the nature of mandamus is sought to direct respondent No. 2, to hold the examination afresh.Further, a writ or direction is sought, commanding respondent No. 3, C.B.I. to enquire into what is alleged to be the admission scam relating to leakage and sale of question paper of the said examination and to bring the culprits to justice.Status report is also sought to be submitted with regard to investigation relating to the arrest on 4th February, 2002 of Pawan Thakur and others, in connection with the advertisement of guaranteed admission to MD/MS and other course and charges of sale of question paper.Petitioners' case is that they along with many other students had been approached by hitherto unknown persons, who offered to sell them question paper of AIPGMEE-2002, for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-.One or two sample solved questions were also shown to the petitioners.The petitioners claim that they refused to buy the question papers, but there were many who purchased these question papers.It is stated that when on 6th January, 2002, petitioners appeared in the examination, they found that the question paper was the same as the one, which was being sold prior to the examination, as was evident from the sample questions that had been shown to them by the said unknown persons.Petitioners also rely on an advertisement that appeared in the newspaper prior to the examination, inviting students to get guaranteed admissions into medical course.Respondent No. 2 i.e. AIIMS had filed a complaint with the police.As a result of the raid conducted in the office of the advertiser, one Pawan Thakur and his three associates were arrested.Post-dated cheques worth Rs. 1,60,00,000/- were recovered along with photocopies of admit cards of 9 doctors for AIPGMEE, along with agreements that had been entered into by aspirant doctors etc. Pawan Thakur was offering to sell the question paper for AIPGMEE for Rs. 10 lacs.The modus operandi of Pawan Thakur was that a candidate interested in purchasing the question paper was not required to make any advance cash payment.Post dated cheque was only required to be given.The solved question paper was to be given on the eve of the date of examination.Upon the candidate being satisfied that question paper as given in the examination was the very question paper that had been solved and shown the candidate was required to make cash payment and take back the post-dated cheque.The petitioners claim that unless Pawan Thakur and his associates had access to the actual question paper, he could not have carried out this exercise of running an office in Delhi, taking out advertisement in newspaper.Besides qualified doctors were not expected to pay such hefty amounts unless they were certain that the actual question paper would be made available.Petitioners submit that they had made representations to respondent No. 2 about the sale of question papers before the Examination and requested them to enquire into the matter before declaring the results.Petitioners claim that the results as declared have vindicated their position and confirmed their belief about the leakage of question paper.Petitioners state that 7 of first 10 positions in the AIPGMEE have gone to King George Medical College, Lucknow and GVSM Medical College, Kanpur.70 students of King George Medical College are stated to have been successful in the examination.All the 7 candidates, who have secured a position in the first 10 top position also appeared from the centres in Lucknow.Petitioners, therefore, claim that the sanctity of the examination system has been violated.Some colleagues of the petitioners and many other candidates at other centres across the country, had procured solved question paper.The question paper, it is claimed, had leaked in Delhi and Lucknow and was sold at Rs. 10.5 lacs each.The complaints to the Authorities had not resulted or yielded any results, even though they were encouraged initially by the following statement made b Union Minister of Health "All those who have gained admission into the MD courses after paying money will take bribe all their lives.This in not correct and we will take action against all those who have done so".Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No. 2 AIIMS as well as by Union of India.The matter was under investigation by the Economic Wing of Crime Branch, Delhi Police, who investigated the case registered against Pawan Thakur and others.Status reports were called for.It may also be noticed that writ petitions had also been filed in the High Court of Allahabad and Patna.The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 37/2002 had, however, modified the order leaving it open to the AIIMS to conduct the counselling and to goon with the process of provisional admission subject to outcome of the writ petition.A transfer petition had also been moved by the AIIMS before the Supreme Court for transfer of the pending writ petitions in Allahabad High Court and Patna High Court to this Court.Notice was issued in the Transfer Petition and pending notice proceedings in the High Court of Allahabad and Patna were stayed.In the counter affidavit filed by AIIMS, it is claimed that the present petition as filed is a vague one and based on conjectures.Petitioners have not disclosed their sources of information or identified those persons who had offered to sell the question paper.As a result, a dummy candidate was sent to the said advertiser on the basis of an admit card and roll number issued by AIIMS.A raid was conducted by Delhi Police, which resulted in the arrest of Pawan Thakur and his associates with recoveries of post dated cheques of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and agreements entered into with the Doctors and students.Photocopiers of admit cards and roll numbers and other documents were also seized and recovered.The petitioners and others have belatedly complained, after the publication of results.Petition is a manifestation of the frustration of those not being successful or getting the requisite marks in the merit list for the course desired to be pursued by them.Mr. Gupta also relying on the results as published submitted that the pass percentage of candidates from Lucknow and Kanpur Centres, in fact has suffered a drop from 12.61% to 8.21%.The overall percentage of students passing from King George Medical College of Lucknow has also dropped from the previous year.The overall success rate in Delhi and Lucknow has been a mere 6.78% and 8.21%.This, as per the AIIMS, should dispel any claim of mass leakage or availability of question papers prior to 6.1.2002 in Delhi and Lucknow.Counsel also submitted that some of the allegations were incredible inasmuch as it was alleged that while paper was offered to the petitioners at Rs. 75,000/- it is also alleged that it was sold in Delhi at Rs. 10 lacs.Obviously, there could not be so much of disparity in prices between Delhi and UP.Relying on Subhash Chandra Verma v. State of Bihar reported at 1995 Supp.Respondent No. 2 herein conducts the said examination every year and forwards the merit list to Director General of Health Services for allocation of colleges and courses.The Director General Health Services allocates the courses/colleges by personal appearance of the candidates through counselling in order of merit.It is stated that the counselling was suspended on 8.3.2002 following the orders of Allahabad High Court and has not been resumed since then.Delhi Police had submitted a status report with regard to the investigation carried out.During the course of proceedings, the petitioners had also disclosed the names of some of the successful candidates with whom the question paper had been seen, prior to the examination.Petitioners also furnished the name of the gate keeper/peon of S.P. Hospital at Lucknow, who was suspected to be the go between These names were duly furnished by the counsel to the Investigating Officer of Crime Branch, Delhi Police, who are investigating the case of Pawan Thakur in FIR No. 17/2002 dated 4.1.2002 under Sections 420/511/474/120-BIPC Police Station Kalka Ji, Delhi.The sub-dean Examination Prof. Gupta of AIIMS also explained to the court in Chamber, the entire process of paper setting, printing and transportation of the question papers and holding of the examination, the safety precautions taken for conduct of the examination.In particular, the process of sealing and locking of the boxes, containing question papers, their transportation and arrangements at various examination centres.From the system, as explained, it is seen that even the faculty members, who are involved initially in giving suggested questions for the question paper in respect of their individual disciplines, are not aware of what eventually would be asked in the question paper.The confidentiality of printer is also maintained.The suggested questions only form the data bank.Besides the trunks containing the question papers are locked with two locks and a faculty member of the All India Medical Sciences Institute accompanies the said question papers locked in trunks.They are opened in the presence of the faculty members and supervisor of the concerned examination centre.Different sets of question papers are prepared containing the same questions in a jumbled up manner.This is to prevent copying by the persons immediately behind or in the vicinity in the examination hall.Prima facie, reasonable precaution and care appears to be taken.However, it appears that there are far too many examination centres and cities, where examination is held thereby causing problems of management.Possibilities of risk of leakage, enhance due to interaction with a large number of persons.I shall advert to this aspect later.The Crime Branch of Delhi Police after investigation in the Pawan Thakur case as well as based on the leads given during the progress of the writ petition by the petitioners has not yet found any evidence of leakage of question paper.AIIMS has also furnished the analysis of results of the examination giving the statistics of results in the past as well as the current year, showing the various facets of performance as compared to the previous years, in particular, with reference to the centres at Lucknow.The Solicitor General of India was also requested to appear and assist the Court in this matter.Mr. Harish Salve, Solicitor General appeared and addressed the Court on various aspects.As a result of his intervention, the Union of India also constituted a Committee comprising Dr. J.S. Bapna, Director IHBAS, Delhi, Dr. D.C. Jain, Vice Principal, Vardhman Medical College, New Delhi and Dr. Nirmal Kumar Professor, G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi, who interviewed and met the successful candidates, who secured the seven out the top 10 position from the Lucknow Centres with a view to interact with them and make an assessment of their knowledge.The report of the Committee has also been placed before the Court to which I shall advert later.During the course of proceedings a number of applications were also received for intervention by the candidates, who had either been selected in the counselling or by those who were affected by the suspension of counselling.Mr. Manoj K. Dass for the applicants in C.M. No. 3659/02 and 4834/02 as well as Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advocate with Mr. R.K. Khanna for the applicants in C.M. No. 4997/2002 were also heard.The said application was disposed of as having become infructuous.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N. Lekhi submitted that this was a case where the investigating agencies failed to effectively investigate, despite the petitioners at the peril of being harmed by the Mafia and those involved in the leakage of question papers, had given leads and the names of the persons with whom the question had been seen prior to the examination.He submitted that the raid by the Delhi Police has resulted in putting a lid on the conspiracy rather than unearthing and exposing the racket.He also laid considerable emphasis on the fact that 7 out of 10 top candidates/doctors, securing top positions were from the Lucknow centres, which was clearly indicative of their being something remiss.He submitted that the arrest of Pawan Thakur with three others, coupled with the first 7 positions and large number of successful candidates, who appeared from Lucknow centres and photo copy of the question paper being filed on record, all tend to support the conclusion that there was leakage of the question paper.He submitted that the sanctity and purity of the examination process must be maintained and it should not be allowed to be degenerated into a commercial venture.Mr. Lekhi urged that AIIMS instead of properly investigating and conducting a thorough investigation into the leakage of question paper had adopted an adversarial stand by raising objections to the maintainability of the writ petition, alleging failure on the part of petitioners to furnish complete and detailed particulars with regard to leakage of question paper.He submitted that direct evidence of leakage of question paper is hardly ever available.Let us analyze the facts and evidence as available in respect of the alleged leakage of question paper.(1) The examination for AIPGMEE-2002 had been conducted in 15 cities with 61 centres of which 9 were in Delhi.There were 4 centres in Lucknow.A total number of 34452 applicants had applied for the examination.30515 students appeared in the examination.Curiously seven out of first 10 positions have gone to the candidates from GSVM Medical College, Kanpur and King George Medical College, Lucknow who had all appeared from the examination centres at Lucknow.An analysis of the attempted answers to the question papers of those who secured the top seven positions shows that they had given correct answers ranging from 230 to 237 of 300 questions.Percentage of marks secured was between 71 to 74.9 per cent.AIIMS in the statistics provided, attempted to show that the success rate of King George College, Lucknow, in fact, dropped from 23.33% in the year 2001 to 18.30% in 2002 and the success rate of Lucknow city had also dropped from the previous year.Be it may, one fact, which clearly emerges is that never before in the history of AIPGMEE examination, the first 7 positions out of 10 been secured by the candidates appearing from Centres in Lucknow.It may also be noted that GSVM Medical College, Kanpur which has produced three candidates in the first 10 positions has not had such a distinction of producing even a single candidate in the top 10 positions for the years for which statistics have been made available in the past.The figures with regard to securing a position in the top 10 have not been made available.Considering all factors, the factum of seven candidates from King George Medical College, Lucknow and GSVM Medical College Kanpur and all from the Lucknow Centre securing position in top ten is a highly unusual phenomenon, especially when at least three of them were not possessed of outstanding academic credentials, in consonance with the top position.(II) A photo copy of the actual question paper containing 269 questions of AIPGMEE-2002 examination has been filed on record by the petitioners.It appears that since the question paper had 300 questions, the first 1 to 12 questions and question Nos. 280 to 300 are missing.The Doctors and the guardians who had entered into agreement with Pawan Thakur submitted that they had to report to Pawan Thakur with cash, who would have taken the candidate and the attendant to an undisclosed place where question paper was to be given and upon payment of cash, the post dated cheque was to be returned.A part charge sheet has been filed by the police.The Investigating Officer in FIR No. 17/2002 of 4.1.2002 under Sections 420/511/474/120B IPC P.S. Kalkaji, made further investigation on the basis of the details furnished by the petitioners in the case.The investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer at Sardar Patel Hostel Kasturba Gandhi Medical College and other places have not so far revealed any foul play or leakage of question paper prior to the date of examination.Three doctors who had entered into agreement with Pawan Thakur for supply of question paper, failed in the examination.AIIMS and Delhi Police urge that Pawan Thakur was heading a fraudulent set up to cheat gullible aspirants i.e. the Doctors and students.He did not have access to any question paper.At best he may be attempting and procuring paid seats in private colleges.(IV) Another circumstances, which deserves to be noticed for a possible confirmation and further probe and investigation is that one Dr. Gurbaksh Singh, Medical Director of Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Preet Vihar had on 6.3.2001 lodged a complaint with Delhi Police, stating that he had received a call from a person, who had demanded substantial sum of money for guaranteed admission to his son.Dr. Gurbaksh Singh had a caller identification facility.He had been able to trace the number in question.He had filed a complaint with Delhi Police and they were able to trace the number, as belonging to one Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar and Dr. Ranjeet Kumar of New Delhi.Dr. Gurbaksh Singh had approached the High Court, seeking revaluation of his son's answer sheet.(vi) CBI shall also take over and further investigate case registered vide FIR No. 17/2002 dated 4.1.2002 under Sections 420/511/474/120-BIPC.Police station Kalka Ji, Delhi to fully unearth the conspiracy and bring to justice all those, who may be involved in the commission of offences, as may be found in further investigation.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,839,456 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.370/2018 registered by Police Station Anuppur, District Anuppur, under Sections 307, 294, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 23.09.2018 at about 10:25 pm when complainant Thanu Prasad Yadav was in Village Karratola under the jurisdiction of Police Station Anuppur on a dispute of passing through the Badi of applicant by the complainant, the applicant objected, abused and assaulted the complainant by means of wooden stick, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries in his head.He was taken to hospital where his statements have been recorded, on that basis Crime No.370/2018 for the offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC has been registered against the applicant.Later on, during the course of investigation, the injuries of the skull of complainant found to be grievous in nature as he received multiple fracture in fronto parietal temporal region and doctor has opined the injuries to be grievous and dangerous to life, if the applicant could not be treated at an early stage.On that basis, offence under Section 307 of IPC has been added in the already registered crime.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 06/02/2019 23:34:23 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-3355-2019 (TOOSHMANI SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted that there is previous animosity between the complainant and father of the applicant regarding some land.The investigation has been completed and challan has already been filed.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.When he was discharged, his condition was stable.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Tooshmani Singh, is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 06/02/2019 23:34:23 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-3355-2019 (TOOSHMANI SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 06/02/2019 23:34:23
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,462,810 |
(c) Both the accused threatened the PW.1, brother of the deceased andothers with dire consequences by showing the knife and fled away.It is statedthat, apart from PW.1, PW.2 Ayannan and PW.3 Malar, who were tapping water fromthe nearby common tap, witnessed the said occurrence.(e) The Head Constable, PW.8 handed over the FIR to the JudicialMagistrate III, Dindigul at 10.30 pm.The Inspector of Police PW.12, on receiptof information about the crime by wireless about 5.15 pm, came to police stationat 5.45 pm and after receiving the FIR, went to the spot and recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth - MO.2 and MO.3 in the presence of witnessesunder Mahazer Ex.Accordingly, while Crl.Appeal(MD)No.124 of 2005 stands abated,due to the death of the first accused, Crl.Appeal(MD)No.112 of 2007, standsdismissed with the modification in the conviction and sentence as stated above.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.The Inspector of Police Natham Police Station Dindigul District.The District Collector, Dindigul.4.The Addl.:COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgement of the Court was delivered by P. JYOTHIMANI,J.,) These criminal appeals are directed against the judgement of the learnedPrl.Sessions Judge, Dindigul made in Sessions Case No.64 of 2004, finding boththe accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC and imposing punishment of lifeimprisonment on both the accused along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.2.The appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, is the first accusedand the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.112 of 2007, is the second accused.Itis brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD)No.124 of 2005, viz., Jayabal, S/o.Muthu Gounder, died on 10.03.2007 inGovernment Rajaji General Hospital, Madurai and to substantiate the same, thedeath certificate issued by the Madurai Corporation dated 17.03.2011 has beenproduced before this Court.Accordingly, by virtue of the death of the firstaccused, who is the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, the saidcriminal appeal stands abated.3.As stated above, the second accused has filed Crl.The case of the prosecution was as follows:(a) On 13.04.2003, at about 4.30 pm when the deceased was collectingblackgram dried in front yard of his house and his brother's house and hisbrother P.Basu, PW.1 was collecting firewood nearby, the accused Nos.1 and 2,came there and the second accused, who is the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD)No.112 of 2007, saying that the deceased Karanthamalai was available in thefront yard of his house, asked the first accused to stab him.(b) When the said deceased Karanthamalai, was bending and collectingblackgram, the first accused, stabbed him with a knife on his back.Immediately,the second accused caught hold of the hands of the deceased Karanthamalai fromhis behind, and the first accused stabbed him twice on the chest of thedeceased, and the deceased fell down and died on the spot.P3 at 6.30 pm.The post-mortem was done by PW.10 Dr.Selva Rani.(f) It was the case of the prosecution that both the accused surrenderedbefore the Court and the first accused, who, in the police custody, voluntarilygave confession statement Ex.P.4 to the Inspector on 23.04.2003 at 4.30 pm.Pursuant to that, the blood stained knife MO.1 was recovered by theInvestigating Officer from a bush near the bund of Karuppu Koil Odai inLingavadi village as identified by the first accused.(g) It was the further case of the prosecution that the wife of thedeceased had illicit intimacy with the first accused in respect of which therewas a quarrel between the first accused and the deceased one week prior to theoccurrence in a public place and that was stated to be the motive to commit thecrime.The first accused, joined with the second accused, went to the place ofthe deceased as stated above and as shown by the second accused, the appellantin Crl.Appeal (MD)No.112 of 2007, the first accused who brought the knife, firsthit at the back of the deceased and thereafter, when the deceased was about tostand erect, the second accused, caught his hands behind him and again the firstaccused stabbed on the chest of the deceased with the knife.Selva Rani, as it corroborates the version of theeye witnesses, and also considering the fact that the Investigating Officerbefore whom the first accused was stated to have given confession statement, wasable to recover the knife (MO.1) used for committing the offence as shown by thefirst accused, and having come to the conclusion that there has been motive onthe part of the first accused, and that there was no motive attributable to thesecond accused, however, on the ground that the eye witnesses and thecircumstances have proved that it was the second accused who instigated thefirst accused, found both of them guilty under Section 302 IPC and imposed thepunishment of life imprisonment with fine as stated above.R.Ramachandran, has vehemently contended that there is cogent evidence ofPWs.1 to 3, who were the eye witnesses and the facts have clearly elicited thatthe second accused was instrumental in showing the deceased and but for hiscatching hold of the hands of the deceased from his behind, the occurrence wouldnot have happened and therefore, according to him, there is a common intentionin committing the crime.PW.1, who has given the complaint, marked as Ex.P1, in which it isclearly stated that his brother's wife Ratnam, was having illicit intimacy withJayabal, S/o.Muthu Gounder, first accused, for the past one year and on thedeceased accusing her of the said conduct, she went to her mother's house sixmonths back and the deceased was living there along with his children.In thesaid complaint PW.1 has further stated that, it was the first accused who washaving the knife in his hands, which is as follows:" b$aghy; ifapy; fj;jp itj;jpUe;jhd;/ KUfd;. fue;jkiy ,e;jh ,Uf;fpwhd; Fj;Jlhvd;W brhy;yt[k; b$aghy; fj;jpahy; Fdpe;J cSe;J ms;spf; bfhz;oUe;j vdJ mz;zd;fue;jkiy KJfpy; X';fp Fj;jpdhhd;/ vd; mz;zd; ma;nah vd;W epkput[k; KUfd; vd;mz;zid gpd;g[wkhf gpoj;Jf; bfhz;lhd;/ clnd b$aghy; mnj fj;jpahy; vdJ mz;zd; ,lJkhh;gpy; ,uz;L Fj;Jtpl;lhd;/"Even though one Periyasamy, who was stated to be present at thescene of occurrence was not examined, yet one Ayannan PW.2, was examined as eyewitness.P.1, in his evidence hasreiterated as follows:"ehd; gf;fj;jpy; tpwF xoj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;njd;/ mg;nghJ khiy Rkhh; 4/30 kzp,Uf;Fk;/ mg;nghJ b$aghYk;.KUfDk; (M$h; vjphpfs;) fpHf;fpypUe;J te;jhh;fs;/M$h; 2tJ vjphp KUfd; ,njh fue;jkiy epw;fpwhd; mtidg; ngha;f; Fj;Jlh vd;Wbrhd;dhd;/"Likewise, PW.2 Ayannan, has also, while speaking about theoccurrence, stated as follows:" M$h; vjphpfisj; bjhpa[k;/ ,g;nghjpUe;J 1/3-4 tUlj;jpw;F Kd;g[ khiy 4/30kzpf;F khahz;o Of;filapy; ehDk; bghparhkpa[k; O Foj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;njhk;/ M$h;Kjy; vjphpa[k; ,uz;lhk; vjphpa[k; ke;ijapypUe;J nkw;F nehf;fp rhiyapy; te;Jbfhz;oUe;jhh;fs;/ fue;jkiyapd; tPl;lUnf te;J epd;whh;fs;/ m';F te;jt[ld; M$h;,uz;lhk; vjphp KUfd; fue;jkiy ,Uf;fpwhd; Fj;Jlh vd;W brhd;dhh;/ fue;jkiymg;gnghJ mth; tPl;L Kd;dh; ,Ue;j thrypy; fha itj;j cSe;ij ms;spf;bfhz;oUe;jhh;/M$h; Kjy; vjphp fj;jpahy; fue;jkiyapd; KJfpy; Fj;jpdhd;/ Inah mg;ghFj;jptpl;lhh; vd;W fue;jkiy rj;jk; nghl;L epkph;e;J vGe;jhd;/ mg;nghJ ,uz;lhk;vjphp KUfd; gpd;dhy; fl;og;gpoj;Jf; bfhz;lhd;/ Kjy; vjphp b$aghy; mnj fj;jpahy;fue;jkiyapd; ,lJ gf;f be";Rg; gFjpapy; ,uz;L Fj;Jfs; Fj;jpdhd;/"Likewise, PW.3 Malar, who is stated to have been drawing waterin a tap nearby has stated that on hearing the cry, she saw that the deceasedhaving injury on the backside and when he stood straight, the second accusedcaught hold of the hands of the deceased from his behind and the first accusedstabbed him on the chest of the deceased." ma;nah mk;kh vd;W mywy; rj;jk; nfl;Lj; jpUk;gpg; ghh;j;njd;/ fue;jkiytPl;ow;F Kd;dh; fhypaplj;jpy; KJfpy; ,uj;jf; fhaj;Jld; fue;jkiy epkph;e;jhh;/clnd M$h; 2k; vjphp KUfd; fue;jkiyapd; ,uz;L iffisa[k; gpd;dhy; ,Wf;fpg;gpoj;Jf;bfhz;lhd;/ M$h; Kjy; vjphp b$aghy; fue;jkiyapd; ,lJ be";Rg; gFjpapy; ifapy;itj;jpUe;j fj;jpahy; ,uz;L Fj;Jfs; Fj;jpdhd;/ ehDk;.In addition to that, Ex.P.6 FIR also confirms the saidoccurrence.P8 post mortem certificate confirms the stab injuries inaddition to some other abrasions which would have taken place while the body ofthe deceased was lying down after the occurrence.The evidence of PW.10, thepost mortem Doctor has clearly confirmed that the injuries No.1 and 2 aresufficient for causing death and the other injuries may be caused due to thereason that the body of the deceased was dragged or due to the movement of thebody of the deceased after the occurrence.12.It is also seen that blood stained knife M.O.1 has been recoveredby the Inspector of Police at the instance of the accused in the presence ofP.W.6 and one other witness.Merely because P.W.6 happens to be the VillageAdministrative Officer, his evidence cannot be discarded, especially when it hasled to the recovery of blood stained knife M.O.1 used for commission of offence.Appeal (MD)No.112 of 2007, cannot be set aside.Now, coming to the question, as to whether the offence committed bythe second accused would attract Section 302 IPC, as it is stated above, thefirst accused committed the overt act with the weapon which was brought by himand the second accused was admittedly not having any weapon and as found by thelearned Sessions Judge, no motive can be attributable to the second accused,however, both of the accused were awarded life imprisonment.It is in evidencethat at the time of prior occurrence stated to have taken place in a publicplace wherein there was an altercation between the deceased and the firstaccused, the second accused was not present and therefore, there cannot be anymotive or intention attributable to him in respect of the offence, which hassubsequently taken place.There is evidence that on the date of occurrence, thesecond accused has accompanied the first accused and shown the deceased personand also caught hold of the hands of the deceased after the first accused hasgiven the first stab on the backside of the deceased.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,284,152 |
/448/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code was started against the petitioner and 50/60 others and initially the investigation was undertaken by the officers attached to the said Police Station.Subsequently pursuant to an order of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Kolkata Police, the investigation of the case was transferred to the Anti- rowdy Section, Detective Department, Kolkata Police.The Anti- rowdy Section Detective Department took over the charge of the investigation on November 15, 2013 and on the very next date i.e. November 16, 2013 the police made a prayer before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for adding Section 120B/148/149/395/397 IPC read with Sections 25(1B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act instead of the penal provisions for which the FIR was registered.The learned Court below allowed such prayer.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, who is one of the accused in the matter, has brought this criminal revision before this Court.According to him, it would be evident on the face of the order that the Court below mechanically allowed the prayer of the investigating officer, without first considering, as to whether such prayer was justified against the materials on record and there was no foundation for adding penal provisions relating to more grievous offences and thus the impugned order ought to be annulled.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that it is the statutory right of the police to undertake investigation, when the FIR lodged, disclosed commission of cognizable offences and at the same time it can also move the concerned court for addition of new offences, more grievous in nature, when there are convincing materials and at that stage, the accused has no right of say as the matter is between the Court and the investigating agency.He then produced the case diary and referred to the content of the FIR and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and submitted that the materials transpired therefrom fully justified the prayer so made and the court concerned has not committed any mistake.He then pointed out that after it was found that the local police station has not registered the FIR for more grievous offences, although there was sufficient materials and certain lapses in investigation, the investigation was transferred to the Anti-Rowdy Section, Detective Department of Calcutta Police pursuant to an order of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Kolkata Police and at once the new investigating officer made a prayer to the court for addition of new offences.He further pointed out after taking over the charge of investigation by the Detective Department, Kolkata Police, the petitioner was placed in T.I. Parade and he was identified as one of the miscreants present at the time of incident along with 50/60 miscreants at the spot.Considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials on which the prayer for addition of new penal provisions has been made from the case diary and the impugned order.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,628,642 |
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 294,323,327 and 506/34of IPC in connection with Crime No.93/2020 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa.Learned counsel for applicant submits that on 16.3.2020 and 12.5.2020, the government counsel was directed to produce the case diary but the case diary is not available.I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.In the event of his Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 05/06/2020 15:19:44 2 MCRC-11100-2020 arrest, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for his appearance before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as and when directed.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the applicant during currency of bail.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,462,885 |
The respondents in the petition are :"In all these petitions, we find that attack in indecent, wild, intemperate and even abusive language on the named Judges has been made at various places in each one of the petitions.The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself the liberty of using such expressions, which prima facie tend to scandalize the court in relation to judicial matters and thus have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.JUDGMENT A.S. Anand, J.The alleged contender-Ajay Kumar Pandey, a practising advocate, filed a criminal complaint against an Advocate Mr. Mahesh Giri and an Additional District Judge, Ms. Saroj Bala, then posted as VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, after first serving them with a notice demanding compensation for defaming him.The allegations made in that complaint are not relevant for our purpose.While dismissing the revision petition, the learned single Judge inter alia observed :-"It is well settled that if the veiled object of a lame prosecution is to disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the accused, the High Court must put an end to the mischief by quashing such criminal proceedings.The facts on the record of the instant case give a horrendous account of a framed-up case against a responsible member of the lower judiciary holding the post of an Additional Sessions Judge at Lucknow....It appears that the aim of the applicant is to malign the learned judge (Smt. Saroj Bala) and hold her at ranson.The applicant emphatically and repeatedly read out the lewd passages from his deposition while arguing the revision, but the palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals are not worth reproduction in the judgment.They are submissions directed more towards vilification than substantiation of the pivotal points of the case.I was constrained to ask the applicant not to make savage additions to the evidence and show restraint in his colloquy."It appears that the alleged contemner had filed another complaint on 12.9.1994 Under Sections 500 and 504 IPC against seven advocates namely (1) Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi (2) Shri R.P. Misra (3) Shri Vishambhar Singh (4) Shri T.N. Misra (5) Shri Srikant Verma (6) Shri Pankaj Sinha and (7) Shri N.C. Pradhan, in which it was alleged that those advocates had made defamatory imputations regarding the relationship between him and Ms. Saroj Bala, Add l. District Judge.In that complaint an application giving a list of 31 advocates for being summoned as witnesses was filed.That application was rejected by the Trial Court.He, therefore, filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995 against that order.Ajay Kumar Pandey, the alleged contemner has also filed following Contempt Petitions (Crl.) in this Court :Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy.No. 16199/95 filed on 28.10.1995:Against Mr. Justice Virendra Saran, Judge, High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench;Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy.I. Ms. Saroj Bala, IV Addl.District Judge, Lucknow.Shri Udai L Raj, V.A.C J., Lucknow.Shri R.P. Misra, VI Addl.Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy.No. 17922/95 filed on 09.11.1995 against the following respondents :I. Shri J.C. Mishra, Distt.Judge, Lucknow.Shri K.N. Ojha, II A D.J., Lucknow.Shri Shailendra Saxena, III A.D.J., Lucknow.Shri B.N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow.P.C. had also been moved and the same is still pending.The petitioner raised the law point regarding the summoning of witnesses in enquiry Under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Revision No. 289/94 but the Allahabad High Court never decided the revision on its merits and Mr. Virendra Saran, the Hon'ble Judge, who heard the arguments fraudulently, forgedly and maliciously dismissed the revision."(underlined by us) In the memo of the petitions, similar expressions in more intemperate language casting aspersions on the conduct of various judicial officers and attributing motives to them in the discharge of their judicial functions have been used.He shall also remove the other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions.If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks.Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up contempt proceedings against the petitioner, after eight weeks.It was hoped that he would realise the seriousness of the situation and remove all the objectionable expressions from the memorandum of petitions but instead of deleting those objectionable expressions, on the same day, he filed Crl.M.P. No. 132 of 1996 in which inter alia he stated :-That today, the matter was listed in court No. 9 alongwith all petitions at Sl.That the Court is not allowed the petitioner to submit his argument and passed an order to remove the all facts from the petition and file the fresh petitions and also ordered for listing the matter after 8 weeks.Thereafter, the petitioner mentioned and also tried to give in writing that he is not in a position to remove anything and file fresh petitions in view of the fact that he wrote only truth and the court is bound to hear the petitions and decide the same according to the Constitution and contempt of Court Acts and other laws as challenged by the petitioner but the court without saying anything retired to its chamber.He was directed to file his reply within 8 weeks.That is how the contempt proceeding (Contempt Petition Crl.No. 2/96) came to registered against the alleged contemner in this Court.The Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995 and the two other Special Leave Petitions alongwith some misc.On 27.9.1996 while dealing with the applications filed by the contemner, the following order was made :-We have examined the application and found that the prayer for recall of the order is misconceived for more than one reasons.The order dated 09.08.1996 is an order in continuation of the order dated 20.02.1996, the prayer to recall which has already been rejected.By the order dated 09.08.1996 the review petitions filed by the respondent were also dismissed The prayer for recall of the order dated 09.08.1996 under the circumstances has no merit and is rejected.The alleged contemner as already noticed had not appeared in the Court on 27.09.1996, but it appears that he was present in the Court premises as soon after the above order was made, he filed an application on that very day explaining the reasons for his absence and praying for recall of the bailable warrants.The application was supported by an affidavit.Since on the next date he appeared in the Court, the bailable warrants were recalled.According to the Office Report dated 22.1.1997, mat application was rejected by the learned Chief Justice of India.The alleged contemner however, despite notice did not appear in the Court on 22.1.1997, The Bench was, therefore, left with no other option except to secure his presence by issuance of non-billable warrants and accordingly non-bailable warrants returnable on 27.2.1997 were directed to be issued.When the case came up for consideration on 03.03.1997, the respondent was produced in custody in Court.The order dated 03.03.1997 inter alia records :"Mr. Pandey was asked if he was making any prayer for release on bail and he submitted that he cannot provide any surety at Delhi.We, therefore, consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice to direct that respondent, Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, where he may be produced for the said purpose.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow shall release him on bail on his personal bond of Rs. 5,000 after obtaining an undertaking from him for his appearance in this Court on the next date of hearing which is fixed as 25.4.1997, on which date final arguments in this contempt case shall be heard in this case.The respondent Ajay Kumar Pandey was asked if he required the assistance of a counsel, so that the services of the counsel could be provided to him but he has stated that he does not need the assistance of any counsel.He further stated that he does not wish to argue the matter before this bench.He was apprised that his prayer for transfer of the case to some other bench has been rejected by the learned Chief Justice.The case, was thereafter, adjourned from time to time and on 22.08.1997, following order was made when the alleged contemner once again remained absent despite service :The learned Judge asked him to appear in the prescribed formal attire for being heard in his professional capacity.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,294,067 |
Briefly the prosecution case is that on 12th November, 2009, two DD CRL.A.817/2011 Page 1 of 7 entries were received.DD No. 13A received at 9:01 A.M. stated that a lady has committed suicide by burning herself at RZ-70, Gali No.8 and DD No. 14A received at 9:04 A.M. stated that a person was murdered at Durgapur, Gali No. 8, near Mark Land Colony Public School, Namirpur.The said DD entries were assigned to SI Suresh Chand, PW-14 who along with Ct Sanjay PW-13 went to the spot and found dead body of a lady in burnt condition in the kitchen.On inquiry he came to know that Machla Devi, the deceased was married three-four years ago to Kuldeep.PW-14 telephonically informed the Executive Magistrate about the incident.Crime Team was called at the spot and inspection was carried out.Photographs of the spot were taken.He suspected that his daughter was killed by Kuldeep.She also stated that one day prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased called her and told that Kuldeep used to harass her.CRL.A.817/2011 Page 4 of 7Dr. B.N. Mishra who was examined as PW-11 conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Machla (deceased).He noticed deep to superficial thermal burn (100%) present all over the body and degloving of skin at both palm with multiple blister formation containing serous fluid present at both limbs (upper and lower limbs) and over trunk area.The line of redness (vital sign) seen at the lower limbs and back part of the body.During inspection, one white colour plastic jar with kerosene oil smell was found between the legs of the dead body.Some burnt clothes of yellow and blue colour from which smell of kerosene was coming, one red colour lid of plastic jar, match box and broken bangles were also found.Dead body was sent to Mortuary, DDU Hospital and the parents of the deceased were informed.CRL.A.817/2011 Page 1 of 73. Munna in his statement before PW-8 Sh.On 12th November, 2009 around 8:00 A.M., one Om Prakash, who arranged the marriage of his daughter, informed that the deceased had died of burning.He further stated that after the marriage, his daughter was harassed and beaten for dowry.Four days before the death, the deceased telephonically informed him that CRL.A.817/2011 Page 2 of 7 Kuldeep used to beat her and make demand for computer.He also suspected that the deceased had not committed suicide but she was burnt and killed/murdered.He suspected that the parents of Kuldeep could also be involved because they also used to harass her for dowry.On the basis of the statement of Munna, FIR No. 337/2009 was registered under Sections 498A/304B IPC.CRL.A.817/2011 Page 2 of 7Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the allegations made in connection with cruelty and harassment are generic in nature.Thus there is material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the allegation of harassment for demand of dowry soon before the death.It was further contended that PW-5 Smt. Geeta Devi, who was residing at the same address, was the only independent witness and in her statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate, she stated that she did not hear any arguments between the deceased and Kuldeep.Learned Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the version of the family members of the deceased who were residing thousand miles away from the deceased.First Information Report is not substantive piece of evidence and one cannot be convicted on the basis of the FIR.Since no complaint was lodged with the police during the lifetime of the deceased about the dowry demand and harassment, therefore, the allegations made after her death are CRL.A.817/2011 Page 3 of 7 false.Prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand of dowry.CRL.A.817/2011 Page 3 of 76. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that on the basis of the testimony of the family members of the deceased it is established beyond reasonable doubt that soon before the death the deceased was harassed for demand of dowry.The contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses as to whether the deceased called up four days prior to the death or one day prior to the death is immaterial and does not go to the root of the matter.Hence the appeal be dismissed.Munna, father of the deceased who was examined as PW-1 deposed in sync with his statement made before the Executive Magistrate.He further stated that soon after the marriage, the accused persons made demands for computer, cash, TV, refrigerator from him as dowry and used to threaten him to leave the deceased in case their demands were not met.During his cross examination, he stated that at the time of occurrence, Shiv Charan was not in Delhi.He denied the suggestion that on 9th November, 2009, the deceased was caught in an objectionable position with one Vinod, who was a tenant in the same premises where the deceased was living and due to the fear that the matter would be brought to the notice of the family members and relatives, the deceased took the drastic step of ending her life.PW-2 Maharani, mother of the deceased corroborated the version of PW-1 Munna.According to PW-11 findings were suggestive of ante mortem burns.No other ante mortem injury except burn injury was found on the body of the deceased.No specific smell of kerosene emitted from the body.The cause of death was opined to be shock caused by 100% thermal burns.Time since death was about 30-32 hours.While levelling allegations Munna, the father of the deceased stated that there were demands of computer, cash, TV and refrigerator and his daughter used to be threatened to be thrown out of the house.No specific time, date, month or year has been given when demand was made and for which item.Similar is the testimony of the mother and brother of the deceased.All three witnesses have not stated at what point of time, after the marriage, demands were raised.Further with regard to the specific demand soon before death as per Munna, a phone call was received from the deceased four days prior to the incident whereas as per his wife one day prior to the death and the brother of the deceased is silent on this aspect.Thus there are material contradiction as to when the telephone call was received from the deceased with regard to the demand of dowry and harassment soon before the death.As per the FSL report exhibited as Ex. PW-14/D, on chemical and GC examination, residue CRL.A.817/2011 Page 5 of 7 of petrol, diesel and kerosene could not be detected in exhibits '1' (burnt cloth piece), exhibit '2' (empty plastic spray bottle) and exhibit '3' (pieces of glass bangles and two match boxes having burnt and unburnt match sticks).CRL.A.817/2011 Page 5 of 7The Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2013 (7) SCC 108 Gurnaib Singh vs. State of Punjab held:Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, it is to be seen whether the deceased was driven to commit suicide because of the harassment meted out to her in connection with demand for dowry.The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has accepted the evidence of the brother, PW 1; the father, PW 4 and PW 5, Numberdar of the village that there was demand for dowry.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding recorded on this score is not based on the material on record but founded on surmises.To test the acceptation of the said submission, we have thought it apt to scrutinise the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 5:That apart, nothing has been stated by the witnesses.It has been deposed by the father that the deceased had written two to three letters stating about the demand for dowry but the said letters have not been brought in evidence.That apart, the brother, PW 1, in cross-examination, has refuted the same.Thus, on the base of such sketchy evidence, in our considered opinion, it is difficult to concur with the finding that there was demand for dowry by the accused husband CRL.A.817/2011 Page 6 of 7 and the harassment pertained to such a demand.The conclusion on this score, we are inclined to think, is based on certain a priori notions.When such a conclusion is arrived at which is manifestly erroneous and unsupported by the evidence on record, needless to say, this Court, in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, can re-evaluate and interfere.This has been so stated in Alamelu v. State [(2011) 2 SCC 385 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 688] , Heinz India (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(2012) 5 SCC 443:(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 184:(2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 198] and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [(2012) 7 SCC 288 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 224 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 347] .CRL.A.817/2011 Page 6 of 7In view of the evidence on record as noted above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence are set aside.The appellant No.2 is acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Section 304- B and 498A IPC.The appellant No.2 is in custody.The Superintendent, Tihar Jail will release the appellant No.2 forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal is disposed of.Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for updation of the Jail record.TCR be returned.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 17, 2016 'vn' CRL.A.817/2011 Page 7 of 7CRL.A.817/2011 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,301,203 |
Case diary is available.This is first bail application filed by the applicant / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.302/2014, Police Station Kewlari, District Seoni, offences registered under sections 354, 354-A, 452 of I.P.C. and section 3 (i) B (ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he made a complaint (Annexure-A/2) dated 25.9.2014 against Sarpanch, Secretary and brother-in-law (Jeth) Pratap Daheria of the prosecutrix to this effect that Pratap Daheria does not come in the category of BPL in spite of the fact that he was given loan a sum of Rs.45,000/-.The said complaint was inquired into by the S.D.O., Kewlari and the allegations made in the complaint were found correct, owing to which, notices were issued to the said persons.Learned counsel further pleads that a report (Annexure-A/3) dated 24.9.2014 was also submitted by the applicant to the Superintendent of Police, Seoni stating that he may be falsely roped in a criminal case by the Sarpanch and Secretary as the complaint was made by the applicant against them.Learned counsel further submits that a report dated 1.10.2014 was also lodged by the applicant against the husband of the prosecutrix, Shiv Pratap, on the basis of which, FIR at crime no. 301/14 under sections 327, 295 and 506 IPC was 2 M.Cr.C.No.16310/2014 registered.Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged a false report alleging that the applicant / accused entered her house and caught her hands with an intention to outrage her modesty.On the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.(M.K. Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,308,905 |
However, he died due to rupture of spleen.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 9.1.2015 relating to crime No.5/2015 registered at Police Station Shahganj, District Sehore for offence punishable under Sections 302 and in option 302/34, 294, 323, 506 (Part-2) of IPC.It is not alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the deceased Pooran on his chest or back.The applicant was not aware that the co-accused would assault in such a manner.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.- 2 -Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['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.
|
146,310,791 |
L. P. 703/2015On 01/02.10.2012, accused (Om Prakash) Crl.LP 703/2015 Page 1 of 14 went to the police station and informed that his wife had hanged herself.On the said information, DD No.4A was recorded by PW7 HC Kamal Singh Negi and assigned to PW10 ASI Yogesh Tyagi, who along with accused and PW9 Ct.Hukam Singh went to H. No. 346, Gali No.1, Phase IV, Shiv Vihar, Karwal Nagar, Delhi and found the dead body of Suman hanging with dupatta with one end of which was tied to the ceiling fan.PW13 Inspector Lekh Raj was informed about the incident, who reached at the spot.LP 703/2015 Page 7 of 14Maya Devi, mother of the deceased in her complaint Ex.PW1/A stated that on 08.02.2007 her daughter (Suman) married accused.After marriage, her daughter disclosed that accused used to give her beatings.She further stated that accused demanded money from them and she gave Rs.1,00,000/-.Accused had illicit relations with his sister-in-law (bhabi).The deceased remained in her parental home for about one year.A Panchayat was held to resolve the dispute and thereafter accused started residing with the deceased but the behaviour of the accused did not change.Maya Devi stepped into witness box as PW2 and deposed :"My daughter Suman was not being treated well at her in-law house.Om Prakash used to consume liquor and beat my daughter.Om Prakash used to demand dowry.Once he demanded a motorcycle.I am poor person and has no capacity to fulfill the demand of Om Prakash.At the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry by Om Prakash, but subsequently he started raising demand.On one occasion I had given Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to accused Om Prakash at his house.It was Monday when Rs.1,00,000/- was given to accused at his house prior to the birth of Anshika to Suman."Devender Kumar, brother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and he deposed on oath before the Court that deceased was her sister and she was married to accused on 08.02.2007 gifts and dowry were given to his sister as per their capacity at the time of marriage.He further Crl.LP 703/2015 Page 8 of 14 stated that accused used to give beatings to the deceased and they reported the matter to the Panchayat.The matter was pacified by the Panchayat and accused assured not to ill treat the deceased but accused did change his behaviour.M. A. No. 15877/2015 (Delay)This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking condonation of 127 days' delay in filing the present leave petition.2. Heard.Delay in filing the present leave to appeal is condoned.Application stands disposed of.Since, it was a case of unnatural death within seven years of marriage, area magistrate was informed by PW13 and crime team was also summoned.Crime team reached at the spot and scene of crime report Ex.PW8/A was prepared and scene of crime was also photographed.The dead body of the deceased was sent to the mortuary of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital.PW1 Devender Kumar, brother of the deceased was also informed about the incident, who along with PW2, mother of the deceased and PW3, brother of the deceased went to the police station and thereafter to the hospital.Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 wherein they held the accused responsible for the death of the deceased.They alleged that the deceased was married to the accused Om Prakash on 08.02.2007 and at the time of marriage they had given gifts and dowry as per their capacity.After marriage, the deceased started living with accused and her in-laws at her matrimonial home at Karawal Nagar, Delhi.The deceased was ill treated by the accused who used to beat her after consuming liquor.LP 703/2015 Page 1 of 14On the statement of PW1, FIR Ex.PW4/A was recorded and accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/D. Postmortem on the dead body of Crl.LP 703/2015 Page 2 of 14 the deceased was conducted wherein Doctor opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging.To bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all.Statements of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial court wherein he reiterated his innocence and claimed to be tried and led two witnesses in his defence.LP 703/2015 Page 3 of 14We have carefully considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record and the impugned judgment as well.It is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased was married to respondent on 08.02.2007 and she died within seven years of her marriage i.e. on 01/02.10.2012 in an unnatural circumstances.The question therefore arises is whether the respondent made any demand for dowry and subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with such demands.To answer the aforesaid question, it is necessary to examine the testimonies of material witnesses examined by the prosecution more Crl.LP 703/2015 Page 7 of 14 particularly PW1 Devender Kumar (brother of the deceased), PW2 Smt. Maya Devi (mother of the deceased), PW3 Amarjeet (brother of the deceased) and PW5 Babu (maternal uncle of the deceased).He further deposed that in the year 2009, PW2 gave Rs.1,00,000/- to accused for running his shop.LP 703/2015 Page 8 of 14Babu, maternal uncle of the deceased was examined as PW5 and he deposed that accused used to assault Suman after consuming liquor.He further deposed that a Panchayat was called to settle the matter between the accused and the deceased but the behaviour of the accused remained same towards the deceased.From the testimonies of above material witnesses, it has emerged on record that the family of the deceased belongs to a weak strata of society and no demand was made by the accused and his family members prior to the marriage.PW1, PW2 and PW3 have consistently deposed about the accused committing cruelty upon the deceased after consuming liquor and gave her beatings but admittedly they had not lodged any complaint to the police regarding this cruelty.Though, PW1 had stated that he had made a call to 100 number and the accused sought pardon before the police and matter was resolved but prosecution failed to adduce any record to establish the stand taken by the witnesses.The claim of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that they gave Rs.1,00,000/- to accused for running his shop also does not find support from any material on record.The money was allegedly withdrawn from the Crl.LP 703/2015 Page 9 of 14 bank accounts of PW2 and PW3 but nothing has been brought on record to suggest that any such transaction was made by these two witnesses."38. ..........PW2 had stated that as she was very poor, she could not fulfill the demand of motorcycle as raised by the accused.That being the case, it is highly improbable that she could have fulfilled the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- which was more than the cost of a motorcycle."According to PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5, accused used to beat and harass the deceased and a Panchayat was held to resolve the d ispute between the deceased and the accused wherein accused assured that he will not ill treat the deceased.During cross examination, PW3 stated that 50-60 people were present in the Panchayat.No specific incident has been ascribed by any of the witnesses to suggest that the cruelty Crl.LP 703/2015 Page 10 of 14 and harassment was extended to the deceased by the respondent.Therefore, such alleged demand cannot be treated as demand for dowry.In that situation, there cannot be any question to invoke presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act or to raise presumption of guilt under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent as the allegation in itself do not satisfy the required ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,315,144 |
Heard on point of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Requisition record of the lower court.Also heard on I.A. No.8136/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.2 Bhagwan Singh, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 506-B, 307/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month, 1 year and 5 years respectively with fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.5000/- respectively with default stipulation.As per the statement of complainant, the main allegation of causing injury is against appellant No.1 Vikram Singh.On due consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to allow the application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant-Bhagwan Singh.Accordingly, application on I.A. No.8136/2015 is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount awarded by the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of appellant-Bhagwan Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and he shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 28.01.2016, and thereafter, on all subsequent dates, as may be given in this behalf.Certified copy, as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge Chitranjan
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,318,412 |
Since all these applications are arising out of same crime number, hence, all the applications are decided by a common order.This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The applicants were in custody since 11.11.2014 in connection with Crime No.333/14 registered at Police Station Kailaras District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506-B, 324, 326, 307 of IPC.It is alleged that on 29.08.2014 at about 7.15 AM Raghunath Singh, Nihal Singh, Dharmveer Tole @ Rakesh (applicant), Dharam Singh, Sukveer Singh (applicant) and Kaju @ Sandeep (applicant) ploughed the path of the complainant by tractor.On this there was an altercation between the parties.Accused persons after sometime came armed with lathi, luhangi and with the common object abused the complainant and started beating him.On his shout his brother Vishambar and Raghuraj ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 came to his rescue.They were also beaten by luhangi, fists and kicks.Vishamber and Raghunath fell on the ground.Raghunath became unconscious.Accused Tole caused injury by luhangi on the back of his head.Accused Dharam Singh used lathi.Accused Raghunath used lathi and injured the complainant Rakesh on his wrist.Due to injuries sustained by the complainant party, later offence has been enhanced to Section 324, 326 and 307 IPC.It is also argued that cross case has been registered against the complainant party on the same day.Crime No.332/14 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 34 of IPC has been registered on the report of applicant Tole @ Dharmveer.In that case, the accused persons of this case who have received injuries have been examined.Dharm Singh, Sandeep, Raghunath and Tole @ Dharmveer has been examined and MLC report has been attached.Charge-sheet has been filed.Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of bail.The application for bail has been opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.Considered all the aspects.The accused persons have also received injuries.At this juncture it is difficult to hold ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs.State of M.P. ) 3 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 who is the aggressor.Keeping in view that the trial would take time and there has been cross allegations, we deem it proper to extent the benefit of bail to the applicants.Accordingly, the application is allowed.and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on thier furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
41,374,892 |
It is claimed that during "removal of encroachment rt movement" by the administration and Police, the complainant-ou Shailendra, Tahsildar was abused, assaulted and obstructed from discharging his official duty.The accused persons also pelted stones C and thereby caused offences under sections 148, 147, 294, 323, 186, h 353, 332 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code.After filing of the challan, ig Criminal Case No.139/2011 has been registered against the accused H persons, namely, Anil Jain, Sunil Jain, Sandeep Jain and Dinesh Jain and four ladies and other 10-15 persons of village Deori.In Crime No.197/2010 lodged on the same day by Constable 1016 Mr.Raghvendra, it is alleged that while he was on duty in connection with removal of encroachment movement alongwith Sub Divisional Magistrate Shri Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer, Maravi the accused persons including, Anil Jain, Sunil Jain, Sandeep Jain, Dinesh Jain and four ladies and other 10-15 persons of village assaulted Tahsildar and abused by obscene words.When he asked to stop abusing, Tahsildar was assulted by the accused persons.They also pelted stones.The accused-Anil armed with sword intended to kill the complainant-Raghvendra on his head.He sustained injuries and fell on the ground.The accused persons also pelted stones to the workers and public servants who had gone to remove the encroachment.Others sustained injuries.Therefore, offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 353, 332 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered.By filing of the charge-sheet, Criminal Case No.267/2011 has been registered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori.On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the e offences alleged arise out of the same incident, at the same place and ad by the same accused persons and, therefore, the application was filed Pr by the petitioners for a joint trial in both the case .Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori disallowed a the aforesaid application under section 220 of the Code of Criminal hy Procedure.Hence, this petition.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
41,376,339 |
His first application for bail was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19.06.2017 by this Court in M.Cr.5993/2017 with liberty to renew the prayer after recording of the statements of the victim.According to the prosecution case the petitioner fired a country made pistol upon the victim on the Railway Station; however, the victim was not injured.Government Advocate for the respondent State submits that by order dated 19.06.2017, the first application for bail filed on behalf of the aforesaid petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer after recording of the statements of the victim.That order was made because the petitioner has as many as 49 criminal cases apart from the present one, registered against him under various laws; as such, he is a walking threat to the society.This second application for bail is premature, till recording of the statement of the victim before the trial Court.Consequently, this second application for bail is dismissed.Petitioner shall be free to renew his prayer for bail after recording of the statements of the victim before the trial Court.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 307 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.
|
413,855 |
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.By this appeal, the present appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.05.2004 passed by the Patna High Court, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial Court.The trial Court had by its judgment dated 24.07.2000 and order dated 25.07.2000 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, RI for a period of seven years under Section 326 read with Section 34, RI for a periodof three years under Section 452 and RI for a period ofthree years under Section 324 IPC.The facts necessary for the disposal of the presentappeal and as presented by the prosecution may be setout at this stage.On 14.07.1996 at 6 a.m., ShrikantMahto, brother-in-law of the deceased (PW-7) gave afard-e-bayan to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Policewherein he stated that on 13.07.1996 after having hissupper, he had gone to sleep at his darwaza (open spacein front of the house).Pramila Devi, the deceased wassleeping inside the house with her son Sonu Mahto.Atabout 2.30 in the night, PW-7 woke up on hearing thecries of the deceased and rushed inside to find out whatwas happening.PW-7 saw that the deceased was lyingon the ground and was tossing about on the ground.PW-7 picked up the deceased and found that the entirebody and clothes of the deceased had burnt.PW-7further noticed that blisters and rashes were eruptingall over the body of the deceased and that she waswrithing in pain.The deceased told PW-7 that the appellant herein and one Mahendra Mahto (accused no. 1) had entered into the house carrying a vessel in his hand and had thrown its contents over her as a result of which her entire body and clothes were burnt.The deceased further informed PW-7 that the appellant and the accused no.1 would try to stop the deceased on her visit to market or work and ask for sexual favour.The deceased further told that she had turned down their advances and for that reason they had thrown acid over her to burn her body with the intent to kill her.On hearing the commotion, some villagers assembled there and went out to look for the appellant and the accused no.1, who were seen fleeing towards the east.The deceased was taken to the hospital.On the basis of the aforesaid fard-e-bayan, an F.I.R. under Sections 302, 326, 448, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered on the same day at 1 p.m.On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the trial Court framed charges under the Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 326 read with Section 34, Section 452 and Section 324 IPC against the appellant and the accused no. 1 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited several documents in support of its case.On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court by its judgment dated 24.07.2000 and order dated 25.07.2000 convicted the appellant and accused no. 1 to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, RI for a period of seven years under Section 326 read with Section 34, RI for a period of three years under Section 452 and RI for a period of three years under Section 324 IPC.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the appellant herein and the accused no. 1 filed two separate appeals before the Patna High Court.
|
['Section 34 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 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
413,857 |
ORDER U.L. Bhat, C.J.Petitioners have been convicted, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code on two counts and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count under Section 394 and 397, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and under Section 449, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years.Sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Having undergone seven years of sentence, they moved the State Government for release on licence under the provisions of the M. P. Act No. 15 of 1954 and the rules made thereunder.They have now filed this writ petition challenging the vires of Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1964 and seeking consequential reliefs.On that count, the petitioners have challenged vires of Rule 3(a) of the Rules.Therefore, we are inclined to consider the writ petition on its merits.A copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary to the Government of M. P. in the Home Department.Issue copy of the order to the petitioners also.Petition is accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
413,883 |
The gravement of the opposite party was, in his petition of complaint, that the petitioner herein was the chief of bureau of Deutsche Press Agency, which was a private organisation, having its office, amongst other places, at 39, Golflinks, New Delhi.The Deutsche Press Agency is having its registered office at Mittlewg D-20148 Hamburg, and the petitioner, accused No. 1, has a branch office in India.The petitioner was engaged in collecting and disseminating the news all over the world for publication in the various newspaper being published in India and abroad by various newspapers.Further allegation was that the petitioner herein and Mr. Kutty deliberately and intentionally did not get the clarificatory report published in the Indian Newspaper and thus they caused immense harm to the reputation, character, credit and standing of the witnesses No. 2 and 3 (Sanjoy and Anurag Dalmia).The advocates of witnesses No. 2 and 3 Swarup and Company by their letter dated September 20, 1993 called upon Mr. Kutty to release and circulate the said clarificatory report in the newspapers, failing which the witnesses No. 2 and 3's company warned accused No. 2 Mr. Kutty that they would proceed against him for defamation.Regarding the competence of the complainant it has been alleged that he is an employee of M/s. Dalmia Industry Ltd. which is the sister concern of M/s. Dalmia Brothers Private Ltd., a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and one Mr. M. M. L. Bhasin, the Director and Principal Officer of Dalmia Brothers Pvt. Ltd. authorised the complainant to institute, file and verify the petition of complaint for and on behalf of the company M/s. Dalmia Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and in his own capacity.By this revision, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding in C Case No. 1188 of 1993 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.Complaint was also made against one K. P. K. Kutty, the Chief Editor and General Manager of United News of India, which is a news agency, member correspondent of Deutsche Press Agency.The petitioner herein is the Chief of the Bureau and the said Mr. Kutty was the Chief Editor and General Manager of the U.N.I. The further allegation in the petition of complaint was that the petitioner, accused No. 1 circulated a report carrying Dateline 'Berline June 24, 1993' to the Indian Newspapers and News Agencies stating, inter alia, that the "three Indian businessmen nave been arrested on suspicious of irregularities in connection with an East German Fibre Firm which they bought from TREUHANDANST ACT, Privatisation Agency, Berlin Police said on Thursday.The police spokesman identified the three men as the brothers Sanjoy and Anurag Dalmia and Aspy Mehta.A warrant for their arrest has been issued."It has been alleged in the petition of complaint that the said report made false and fabricated imputation knowing it fully well that such imputation will not only injure the witnesses No. 2 and 3 (Sanjoy and Anurag Dalmia but also directly and/or indirectly lower their moral character and discredit them in the estimation of others and in per se defamatory.The further allegation in the complaint was that the said report of June 24, 1993 was circulated by the petitioner herein in furtherance of common intention with Mr. Kutty, the accused No. 2, which was widely made, published and circulated amongst others! in the Indian Express, Statesman, Economic Times, Financial Express, Times of India, Business Standard, Telegraph, Anandabazar Patrika, Bartaman etc. on 25.6.93, the same was read by the complainant and the witnenses in Calcutta only to be aggrieved under the jurisdiction of Bhawanipur Police Station where the complainant resides and at Delhi also.Allegation has also been made that Scheutlus Espy and partner, advocates: acting on behalf of the present petitioner responded to the witnesses No. 2 and 3's lawyer's notice dated June 28, 1993 and agreed on behalf of the petitioner herein to issue the corrected version after they has satisfied that the news reported on 24th of June, 1993 was defamatory.He is highly aggrieved by defamation caused to Anurag and Sanjay Dalmia by the accused persons.The complaint was made for issuance of process against both the accused persons namely, the petitioner herein and Mr. Kutty for offences under Sections 500/501/34 I.P.C.The learned Magistrate after recording the statement on affirmation of the complainant and his two witnesses took cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner and issued process for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. No process was issued against accused No. 2, Mr. Kutty.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
413,899 |
V.N. Ganpule, A.B. Lal and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for thePetitioner.O.P. Rana and R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. The appellant has been convicted of anoffence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as the Code) for causing the deathof one Anita, and has been sentenced to imprisonment forlife by the trial court as well as in appeal by the HighCourt.The case of the prosecution was that the appellantattacked the deceased with a knife giving the latter asingle blow above the left clavicle where it caused amuscle-deep incised wound having the dimension 1-1/4" x1/3".
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
41,391,199 |
A1's neighbour is A2 Siva @ Sivachandiran.They are residing in Bharathi Nagar 3rd Street, Thottipalayam, Tirupur.They are neighbours.On a day, in his house, the deceased saw them in a compromising position.(iii) P.W.5, Periyasamy, a neighbour of the deceased, is having his shop in Kongu Main Road, Tirupur.On 23.9.2008, at about 4 p.m., in P.W.5's shop, the deceased took tea and left.Within 10 minutes, A2 came and enquired about the deceased.P.W.5 replied him that he had already left his shop.(iv) At about 5 p.m., A1 telephoned P.W.1, Palanisamy, their relative that her husband did not return home.P.W.1 went in search of him.Near the Cooliepalayam Railway gate, P.W.1 seen the dead body of the deceased.At a little distance, his dhoti, chappals, Motor Bike were found.At about 7.30 p.m., at the Perumanallur Police Station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1, complaint to P.W.14, Manoharan, Head Constable.He registered this case in Cr.No.448 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC.He sent the Express FIR, Ex.P.20, through P.W.15, Ashokan, Constable, to the court and copies to P.W.18, Mohanraj, Inspector and to Superior Officers.(v) P.W.18 took up his investigation.Visited the scene place.In the presence of P.W.4, Rangasamy and Rajendran, Village Assistants, Neriperichal Village, prepared Ex.P.2, Observation Mahazar.Drew Ex.P.25, rough sketch.Examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 and other material witnesses and recorded their statements.Between 10 p.m. and 12 p.m., in the presence of Panchayathars, he conducted inquest over the dead body.P26 is his inquest report.He sent the dead body through P.W.17 Ramachandran, Head Constable with Ex.P.21 requisition to the Govt. Hospital, Tirupur to conduct post-mortem.From the scene place, P.W.18 recovered M.O.7, blood stained-sand, M.O.8, plain-sand, M.O.1, blood stained-dhoti, M.O.5, pair of chappals and M.O.6, TVS bike.(vi) On 24.9.2008, at the said Hospital, P.W.16, Dr.Senthilkumar conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Selvaraj and noticed the following injuries:-(1) Injuries left hand: (a) Cut injury medial aspect left thumb 2 x 1 x 1 cm; (b) cut injury palmar aspect of middle finger 1 x 1 x 0.5 cms (c) cut injury palmar region 2 x 1 x 1 cm.(3) Injury over neck : (a) cut injury right side neck below mandible size 7 x 4 x 2 cms deeper upto muscle level (b) cut injury left neck extending from 4 cm below left mandible, left sternomastoid muscle and left external jugular vein left carotid vessel intact 4 cms away from midline on right side size 15 x 7 x 5 cms edges are irregular in shape (c)Partial cut injury over trachea 2 x 1 x 1 cm.(vii) P.W.16 opined that the deceased would appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries.(viii) On 27.9.2008, at about 9 am, when P.W.8, Natraj, ward member, Thottipalayam Panchayat was in his office, A2 appeared before him.He confessed his illegal intimacy with A1 and on her advice, on 23.9.2008, at about 5 pm, he had killed the deceased.P.W.8 recorded it.Obtained his signature.He also signed.(ix) In the presence of P.W.13 Arumugam, V.A.O. and his Assistant Rajendran, Neriperichal Village, P.W.18 recorded Ex.In pursuance of it, from a bush, near Cooliepalayam Railway gate, A2 produced M.O.12 knife and M.O.13 blood stained-shirt.P.W.18 seized them under Mahazar.Then A2 took them to A1's house.She gave him Ex.Accordingly, she took them to 'Sri Lakshmi Finance', in M.S.Nagar, Kongu Main Road, Tirupur.P.W.9 Vellaichamy, produced M.O.11 gold chain and Ex.P.14 pawn ticket.P.W.18 seized them under Mahazar.(x) Thereafter, P.W.19, Somasundaram, Inspector continued the investigation.A3 and A5 have surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.On 10.10.2008, P.W.19 took them into his custody.In the presence of P.W.13 and Rajendran, he had recorded their confessional statements Ex.P.15 and Ex.In pursuance of that, from a place near Cooliepalayam Railway bridge, A3 produced M.O.14, knife.P.W.19 seized it under Mahazar.On 17.10.2008, A4 surrendered before the said court.P.W.19 took him into his custody.In the presence of said witnesses, A4 gave him Ex.P.18, confessional statement.In pursuance of it, he had produced M.O.15 Bajaj Motor Cycle from his house.P.W.19 seized it under mahazar.(xi) P.W.19 received Ex.P.23 and Ex.They are his concoction.P.Ws.5 and 7 are his got up witnesses.In the case before us, P.W.8 stated that on 27.09.2008, at about 11.45 a.m., he had produced A2 to P.W.18 at the Permanallur Police Station, he had arrested him and in the presence of P.W.13, Arumugam, V.A.O. and his Assistant Rajendran, P.W.18 had recorded his Ex.P11 confessional statement and in pursuance of it from a bush, near the Cooliepalaym Railway gate, A2 had produced him M.O.12 knife and M.O.13, blood-stained shirt, he seized them, thereafter, on the same day, A2 shown him A1, she gave him Ex.P13 confessional statement, took them to a jewelry shop, P.W.9 Vellaisamy, produced her M.O.11 gold chain and Ex.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges.The conviction recorded and the sentences imposed upon them by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, (formerly Fast Track Court No.V), Tirupur in S.C.No.8 of 2010 on 28/08/2010 are set aside.The appellants shall be released forthwith, if their further custody is no longer required in connection with any other case.Fine amount, if already paid shall be refunded to them.rrg/smn/kua To5.The District Collector, Tirupur.:- Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in S.C.No.8 of 2010 dated 28.08.2010 by II Additional Sessions Judge (formerly Fast Track Court No.V), Tirupur.For Appellant in Crl.N.Manokaran For Appellant in Crl.G.Saravanakumar For Appellant in Crl.A.No.837/2011 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan for Mr.K.Govindarajan For Appellant in Crl.A.No.306/2011 : Mr.V.Bharathidasan for Mr.S.Dhanasekaran For Respondent : Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran in all Crl.Appeals Addl.- - - - -COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by P.DEVADASS, J.,) THE APPEALS:Since all these Criminal Appeals arises out of the same Judgment, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.THE APPELLANTS:In these appeals, A1 to A5, in S.C.No.8 of 2010, VII Additional Sessions Judge, (formerly Fast Track Court No.V), Tirupur are challenging their conviction and sentences.CONVICITION AND SENTENCES:On 28.8.2010, they were convicted and sentenced as detailed below:AccusedConviction under SectionSentence imposedCrl.AppealA1(i) 120-B IPC(ii) 364 r/w 109 IPC(iii) 302 r/w 109 IPC(i) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment(ii) 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment(iii) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous(i) 120-B IPC(ii) 364 IPC(iii) 302 IPC(i) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment(ii) 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment(iii) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous ImprisonmentC.A.No.837/2011A3(i) 120-B IPC(ii) 364 IPC(iii) 302 IPC(ii) 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment(iii) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous(i) 120-B IPC(ii) 364 IPC(iii) 302 r/w 109 IPC(i) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment(ii) 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment(iii) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous ImprisonmentC.A.No.306/2011A5(i) 120-B IPC(ii) 364 IPC(iii) Life sentence and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous ImprisonmentC.A.No.306/2011All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.PROSECUTION CASE:(i) A1 Kavitha is wife of deceased Selvaraj.P.W.7, Sumathi is his brother's wife.P.28 Scientific reports.Concluding his investigation, he filed the Final Report for offences under Section 120-B, 302, 364 and 109 IPC.As against the accused, the Trial Court framed the following charges:-AccusedCharges A1120-B , 364 r/w 109, 302 r/w 109 IPC A2120-B , 364, 302 IPC A3120-B , 364, 302 IPC A4120-B , 364, 302 r/w 109 IPC A5120-B , 364, 302 r/w 109 IPC EVIDENCE:To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19, marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED:On the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, when the Trial Court examined the accused, they came forward with the version that they have been falsely implicated in this case.A2 retracted Ex.P.6 confession.They did not examine any witness nor file any document.TRIAL COURT FINDINGS:Analyzing the said evidence, the Trial Court accepted Ex.P6 extra-judicial confession as genuine and voluntary and also accepted other circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution and ultimately found the accused guilty of all the charges and sentenced them as already stated in para 3, supra.TRIAL COURT FINDINGS ASSAILED:-The sum and substance of the arguments of Mr.A.No.643 of 2010), Mr.(2) P.W.7, Sumathi spoken about the motive, namely, illegal intimacy between A1 and A2, for the first time in the court.(4) Statement of P.Ws.5 Periasamy and 7 stated to have been recorded by P.W.18 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been submitted to the court nearly after 9 months.It would show that no such statements as stated by P.W.18 were recorded.(7) As regards the extra-judicial confession P.W.8 simply vacillate in his deposition before the court.The extra-judicial confession is not voluntary and genuine.It is a weak piece of evidence.And also there is no corroboration to it.(8) There is no substantive evidence as against A1, A3 to A5 to use the extra-judicial confession of A2 as against them.(9) The recovery of weapons, M.O.11 gold chain and Ex.P27 pawn ticket are stage managed.P.Ws.13 and 9 Arumugam and Vellaisamy are the obliging witnesses of the police.(10) When P.W.18 already knew about the involvement of A1 and A2, A2's subsequent extra-judicial confession to P.W.8 and the subsequent Section 27 of Evidence Act recoveries stated to have been effected through their disclosure statements are all farce.(11) The main recovery is from A2, which is immediately after the extra-judicial confession.When the extra-judicial confession itself is bristled with many infirmities and inherent improbability the Section 27 of the Evidence Act recovery is also falls to the ground.(12) On the evidence of prosecution except suspicion nothing has been generated as against the accused.(13) The charges as against the accused are not established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.TRAIL COURT FINDINGS SUPPORTED:-Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor called for upholding the Judgment of the Trial Court and he essayed it as under:-(1) A2, a business partner as well as neighbour of the deceased belied the confidence, the deceased had reposed in him.A2 eyed on his wife (A1).Both were once got red-handed by the deceased himself.This has been witnessed to by P.W.7 and her mother-in-law Arukkani.These aspects have also find a place in Ex.P6 extra-judicial confession.(3) Surreptitiously, with evil design, on the occurrence day, just prior to the occurrence, A2 got verified from P.W.5 the whereabout of the deceased, shortly thereafter, the deceased was murdered.(4) P.W.8 is an important person in the Village.He is residing in the next Street.Since A2 was tormented by his guilty conscience, he had revealed to him his culpability in eliminating the deceased as he was mad after A1 and the deceased has been an hindrance to his affair with her.(5) Ex.Thus, the Trial Court had rightly found them guilty and sentenced them accordingly.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the forceful submissions of both sides.We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and the materials on record.We have gleaned through the impugned Judgment and also referred to the several decisions on the point.DEATH OF SELVARAJ:On 23.9.2008, at about 5 p.m., near the Cooliepalayam Railway gate, Tirupur, the dead body of Selvaraj, husband of A1, was found with multiple cut injuries on his vital organs.The autopsy examination of P.W.16 Dr.Senthilkumar revealed that his death is homicidal (see Ex.P-22 Post-mortem Certificate).Thus, Selvaraj has been murdered.Question is who murdered him.Prosecution version is that on the insistence of A-1, her paramour A-2 and his associates, namely, A3 to A5 have killed him.A fact may be proved by witnesses and also by circumstances (indirect evidence).Circumstantial evidence is used to establish the guilt through reasoning.Thus, one of the link in the chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution has been disrupted.ENQUIRING OF A2 WITH P.W.5 ABOUT THE DECEASED:-It is stated that on 23.09.2008, at about 4 p.m., A2 enquired P.W.5 about the deceased.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Palanisamy and Ravi, who are closely related to the deceased discloses that the deceased was in real estate business.37. P.W.5 runs a motor coil Shop in Kongu Main Road.According to P.W.5, on 23.09.2008, at about 4 p.m., the deceased came to his shop, had tea with him, thereafter, left his shop and after 10 minutes, A2 came, enquired about the deceased and he replied him that he had already left the shop.On 23.09.2008, at about 7.30 p.m., P.W.5 came to know about the murder of the deceased.For the whole day, P.W.5 did not tell either P.W.7 or A1 that at about 4 p.m. A2 enquired about the deceased.First, since A2 and the deceased are neighbours and business partners there is nothing unusual in A2 having enquired P.W.5 about his business partner.In this case, on 23.09.2008, around 5 p.m., the dead body of Selvaraj was found at a lonely place near Cooliepalaym Railway gate near Tirupur.To speak about the extra-judicial confession stated to have been given by A2 P.W.8 Nataraj has been examined.According to P.W.8, on 27.09.2008, at about 9 a.m., when he was in his Office in Thottipalayam, A2 appeared before him, confessed to him that he liked Selvaraju's wife, developed illegal intimacy with her, Selvaraj came to know about it, often Selvaraj quarreled with her, as there is property and insurance money she told him to do way with her husband and thus on 23.09.2008, at about 5 p.m. near the Cooliepalayam Railway gate he had murdered Selvaraj.In the Trial Court, when Ex.P6 was shown to him, he said that he could not read it.He also admits that he could not write Ex.Thus, the extra-judicial confessional statement allegedly made before P.W.8 suffers from inherent improbability.Now, evaluating the evidence of P.W.8 and scrutinising Ex.P27 Pawn ticket and P.W.18 seized them.Further, on 10.10.2008, A3 and A5 gave P.W.19 Inspector Exs.P15 and 16 confessional statements.A3 produced him M.O.14 knife.Thereafter, on 17.10.2008, P.W.19 recorded Ex.According to prosecution, the involvement of A1 and A3 to A5 was known to police on 27.09.208 from Ex.P6 extra-judicial confession.But, P.Ws.18 and 19 have admitted that even long before that they knew the involvement of the accused in this case.But, till 27.09.2008, A1 was freely available in her house, she was not arrested and no confessional statement was recorded from her and recoveries were effected through her.So, according to prosecution by 27.09.2008 itself they knew the whereabouts of the weapons alleged to have used by all the accused.Further, on that day, A2 was also in their custody.In such circumstances, recovery of knife on 10.10.2008 based on the confession of A3 and recovery of M.O.15, bike, on 17.10.2008 based on the confession of A4 are highly doubtful.It is immediately after Ex.P6 extra-judicial confession.Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between 'conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record."The above guiding note were also recently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RETHINAM Vs.STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ANOTHER [2011 (11) SCC 140].1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirupur.2.The II Additional Sessions Judge, (formerly Fast Track Court No.V) Tirupur.3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur.4.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupur.6.The Superintendent of Police, Tirupur.7.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.8.The Inspector of Police, Perumanallur Police Station, Tirupur Dist.9.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.10.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
41,393,072 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3838/2020 (Shubham Verma s/o Ghanshyam Verma Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 30.01.2020 Mr. Balendu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prose- cutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.Mr. G.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the com- plainant / objector.They are heard.Perused the case diary.As per prosecution story, complainant Shri Ram Rajput s/o Ramswroop Rajput made a written complaint on behalf of Kemco Chew Food Private Limited against the present applicant and others alleging that they are involved in preparing forged invoices and had wrongfully gained wealth from the complainant on the pretext of supplying toys.On that 2 basis, the Police registered offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the applicant and other persons.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.He wanted to leave the company due to which with the conspiracy of the owner of the company, Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Ashok Sharma falsely implicated the applicant in the present crime.It is further submitted that audio recording between talks of ASI Ashok Sharma and one Retired ASI Mr. Raghuvanshi is also available in which ASI Ashok Sharma had a talk with Retired ASI Raghuvanshi, and proposed that he will arrange Rs.1,00,000/- for him from the complainant, then he will present the applicant before the Police, so that the applicant can be send to custody for some period.Father of the applicant and other relatives of co-accused persons made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Indore regarding the aforesaid act of ASI Ashok Sharma and SSP, Indore ordered to line attach him; and an inquiry has also been directed against him.It is also submitted that there is no handwriting expert 3 report available on record to show that the applicant made forged signatures on voucher of the company.The investigation is over; and charge sheet has been filed.The applicant is ready to deposit 50% of alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as mentioned in the complaint.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh as well as learned counsel for the objector / complainant oppose the bail application and pray for its rejection.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
41,395,972 |
First, the Petitioner says that the Respondent raised two principal defences in reply to the Summons for Judgment.Therefore, Invoices Nos. 27, 28 and 29 on which the Petitioner proceeded were false.No goods were ever delivered by the Petitioner to the Respondent in September.The amount of Rs. 2,39,07,844/- covered by these three invoices was not due or payable.The second line of defence taken in reply to the Summons for Judgment was that the Respondent had paid the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs and this was reflected in some documents but that the Petitioner had not given the Defendant any credit for payment by adjusting these towards goods admittedly delivered.The Page 13 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC Respondent also said that this amount of Rs. 90 lakhs was wholly ignored by the Petitioner and required to be adjusted.Page 13 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::In paragraph 9 and its sub-paragraphs, the Petitioner contends that these statements are false.Then in paragraph 11 the Petitioner says that further false statements to the same effect are also to be found in the Affidavit in Sur-rejoinder dated 11th February 2018 filed in the Summons for Judgment.Copies of these emails are also annexed.This is said to be further evidence of delivery of the goods.The original ledgers are with the Economic Offences Wing.Ms Hetal Gala, with Mr Ranbir Singh, I/b Manish Upadhye, for the Applicant/Petitioner.Ms Asha Bhuta, for the Respondent.The Petition before me seeks an order under Sections 191, 192 and 196 read with Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ("IPC") and Sections 195 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 ("CrPC").The Petitioner says that an order should be made on this Petition issuing directions for a written complaint against the Respondent for having committed offences under these sections of Page 1 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC the IPC and this complaint be directed to be sent to the Magistrate concerned, one who has appropriate jurisdiction, to try the cause.Page 1 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::At the outset, Mr Singh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner does not canvas arguments under Section 196 of the IPC and restricts himself to Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the IPC.The matter arises from a Summary Suit that the Petitioner filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("CPC").A Writ of Summons having been served, the Defendant (Respondent to this Petition) entered appearance.On that Summons for Judgment on 19th June 2017, SC Gupte J granted conditional leave to defend upon the Defendant depositing a sum of Rs. 7.10 crores within twelve weeks.That deposit was never made and according to the Petitioner/Plaintiff on account of that non- deposit the Petitioner/Plaintiff was entitled to a decree.On 5th April 2018, noting the production of a certificate of non-deposit, SC Gupte J passed a decree under Order VII Rule 3(6) of the CPC and also granted a decree for interest.There does not appear to have been an order for costs.In parallel the Petitioner separately filed criminal proceedings against the Defendant.The Defendant filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 4400 of 2013 and said that that Criminal Writ Petition be clubbed with this Perjury Petition.I am told that that prayer for consolidation or clubbing was rejected.Page 2 of 2417th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence--sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or(ii) of any abatement of, attempt to commit, such offence, orIf satisfied after a preliminary inquiry the Court may as it thinks fit then take any steps recording (a) to (e) below.Page 7 of 2417th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOCAs this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence."Obviously these sections must have their roots in some factual foundation; and the factual foundation that Mr Singh Page 11 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC canvasses is the portions of the Affidavits filed by the present Respondent in opposition to the Summons for Judgment.Page 11 of 24Page 12 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::In the course of a police inquiry and a complaint, the Respondent supplied the investigating authorities copies of invoices that he raised on third party purchasers of goods imported by the Petitioner.These bills supplied to the investigating authorities (that is, invoices raised by the Respondent himself ) according to the Petitioner reference the invoice numbers as well as the import bill of entry number of the very three invoices of September 2012, i.e., invoice Nos. 27, 28 and Page 14 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC 29 totalling to Rs. 2,39,07,844/-.Therefore, as a consequence of these references and cross-references, according to the Petitioner, there can be no manner of doubt that the Respondent did in fact receive not just the documents but the goods themselves for consignment or trans-shipment to third party purchasers.Copies of some of these documents are also annexed to the Petition.Page 14 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::It is then stated that the Respondent sent emails to the Petitioner's Constituted Attorney on three dates in September 2012 providing the vehicle numbers and quantity of goods to be delivered.Next there is a reference to other correspondence including an email of 5th September 2012 in which the Respondent confirms having taken a day earlier delivery of a certain quantity and a further quantity on the day of the email and confirming the liability in a stated amount.Another email a day later on 6th September 2012 provided a confirmation of this and the cheque details.This document is on the letter-head of the Respondent and bears his stamp and signature.Turning now to the defence of the alleged payment of Rs. 90 lakhs and alleged failure of the Petitioner to give credit for it, the Petitioner deals with this in paragraph 13 as follows.First, the Petitioner says that in the Affidavit in Reply to the Summons for Judgment and the additional Affidavit in Reply (respectively dated 24th October 2016 and 3rd December 2016), the Respondent annexed an identical ledger of the Petitioner's account in the Page 15 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC Respondent's books.The Respondent alleged that this reflected the position between the parties inter alia in regard to the Rs. 90 lakhs payment.The Petitioner claims that this ledger was fabricated.When during the police investigation the authorities confronted the Petitioner with the Respondent's documents, the Respondent came up with a ledger account on three different occasions.These three ledger accounts do not contain, according to the Petitioner, a single one of these eleven cash entries aggregating to Rs. 90 lakhs and which were produced as annexures to the Affidavits filed in this Court in Reply and as an additional Reply.Page 15 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::Page 16 of 2417th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::While on this, the Petitioner also says that in the Criminal Writ Petition that the Respondent filed, the Respondent produced a document at Exhibit "E" which was also said to be a ledger account for the period of February 2012 to September 2012 and maintained by the Respondent in his books in the name of the Petitioner.That copy shows a single entry of 30th June 2012 for Rs. 90 lakhs.This is, according to Mr Singh, totally at variance with the three ledger accounts provided to the investigating authorities and, more importantly, totally inconsistent with Exhibit "31" to the Affidavit in Reply to the Summons for Judgment and Exhibit "1" to the additional Affidavit in Reply.Indeed none of them is correct.All of this is nothing but giving of false evidence and a fabrication of false evidence squarely within the meaning of Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC.The Petitioner then says that the Respondent went so far as to rely on the Income Tax returns to demonstrate a payment of Rs. 90 lakhs in cash.He also said he would rely on a witness statement to show this.The Petitioner sought disclosure and filed Chamber Summons (L) No. 39 of 2017 to compel this disclosure.This was disposed of on 12th January 2017 when this Court directed the Respondent to give inspection and copies of the so-called witness statement and Income Tax returns.By his letter dated 17th January 2017 the Respondent flatly refused to give inspection or furnish copies.The conclusion, Mr Singh submits, is inescapable: No such witness exists and there are no Income Tax returns evidencing such payment.Page 17 of 2417th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::On its own I should have been satisfied that this material is enough to constitute the necessary satisfaction on a preliminary inquiry and to direct the filing of a complaint.I am leaving aside for the moment the question of the fabricated cash invoices though even that in my view should be inquired into and should be a subject matter of the complaint.On the first two aspects of the matter, i.e., the three invoices of September 2012 and the so-called payment of Rs.90 lakhs, there is no manner of doubt that what was placed before this Court in the Affidavits in the Summons for Judgment was prima facie not credible at all and was very likely covered by Page 18 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC Section 191 and 192 of the IPC.I returned these findings only for the limited purposes of Section 340 of the CrPC.Page 18 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::Before I make the final order however, I must consider what it is that the Respondent has attempted to say in the Affidavit in Reply.That Affidavit in Reply to this Perjury Petition was required to be refiled and I have made a separate order in that behalf.The relevant portions are in paragraphs 7 to 13 of the Affidavit in Reply at pages 74 to 81 of the paper book.As regards the matter of the so-called payment of Rs.90 lakhs, the Respondent denies that his annexures to his Affidavits in the Summons for Judgment were fabricated.He says that what he annexed to the Criminal Writ Petition was not a ledger account but a summary of payments and that he used inadvertently the wrong nomenclature.He then alleges that the handwriting on some of Page 19 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 ::: 911-PRJP1-18.DOC these ledger accounts are not of the Respondent but of the Petitioner.Evidently that raises more questions than it answers because it remains unclear how the Petitioner could have inveigled his handwriting into a ledger account maintained by the Respondent in his own books of account.He seems to suggest at page 79 that the Petitioner has somehow inserted handwritten material after the Respondent gave documents to the police authorities.This is the wildest kind of allegation because it attempts to tar not only the Petitioner but also the officers of the Economic Offences Wing with the same rush.Page 19 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::While on this I must thank Mr Singh for his assistance in drawing my attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v Late Amar Singh Through the Lrs 1 and Ranjit Singh v The State of Punjab.2 In the Mohan Singh case, in paragraph 36 after observations on the need for ensuring that the processes of the justice delivery system are kept unsullied, the Supreme Court said that the filing of false Affidavits would constitute an act of forgery and directed the Registrar of that Court to file a complaint before the appropriate court and set the criminal law in motion against the appellant tenant in that matter.Page 20 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::Singh's case deals with Section 191 of the IPC and portions of this at pages 732 and 733 may profitably be quoted thus:"As the appellant was giving evidence on his own behalf in that he was denying the allegation made in the affidavit of the brother of Surjit Singh he was bound to state the truth on the subject on which he was making the statement.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::At the cost of repetition, all contentions are left open for the criminal proceeding before the Magistrate.Page 23 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::The Perjury Petition is disposed of.(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 24 of 24 17th January 2019::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::Page 24 of 24::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2019 01:33:57 :::
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
41,403,515 |
Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime No. 31/2015, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Betul, against them and co-accused Pradeep, Pratibha and Pratigya for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.Prosecution allegations are that Gaurav son of Madhav Rao, resident of village Ranipur committed suicide on 31.07.13 by jumping before a moving train.In the inquiry of the marg case, the Police found that applicant Pramila would exert pressure upon the deceased to marry her and applicant Meena, who happened to be cousin of applicant Pramila, and other co-accused persons mentally harassed him in this connection.Consequently, he committed suicide.Upon the aforesaid outcome, the Police registered the aforesaid crime against the applicants and the co-accused persons.It is also submitted by him that the deceased has left a suicide note in which he has not levelled any specific allegations against the applicants.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE sp/-
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
41,404,337 |
Case diary perused.This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 18-02-2017 in connection with Crime No.183/2016 Registered at Police Station Malawar, District Rajgarh for the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. And 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.The facts of the case reveal that the complainant has lodged a report that two persons have stopped him at gun point and taken away his motorcycle as well as certain other things.Its a false case registered against the applicant.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has drawn the attention of this court towards seizure memo and property in question i.e motorcycle has been recovered on the basis of memorandum of the present applicant.Not only, this he has been identified by the complainant.Other important aspect of the case is that the applicant was involved earlier also in similar kind of offence i.e Crime No. 497/2016 for an offence u/s 394 and 411 of IPC, police station Shyampur, District Sehore and Crime No. 152/2016 for an offence u/s 394 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the respondent State has also read out the statement available in the case diary and opposed the prayer for grant of bail.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the statement available in the case diary, this court does not find any reason to enlarge the applicant on bail.Hence, the same stands dismissed.C.C. as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Rashmi
|
['Section 392 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.